Findings Of Fact The Respondent Respondent holds Teaching Certificate No. 75756, covering the areas of physical education, health education and drivers education. The Certificate expires June 30, 1987. At all times material hereto, the School Board of Palm Beach County employed respondent as an assistant principal at Lake Shore Middle School in Belle Glade, Florida. Respondent was first hired by the School Board in 1956, as a physical education instructor at East Lake Junior High School, in Belle Glade. During the ensuing years, he served as athletic director, football coach, basketball coach, baseball coach and drivers' education teacher at three Belle Glade schools (East Lake Junior High, Lake Shore High School and Glade Central High School) until his transfer in 1971 to Lake Shore Middle School as Dean of Boys. In 1978 he was promoted to Assistant Principal. In 1982, the School Board suspended respondent on charges of "misconduct and immorality arising out of improper sexual advances made by [him] toward female students at Lake Shore Middle School during the 1981-82 school years." After an evidentiary hearing on October 25-26, 1982, the School Board, by mixed vote, found him guilty of the charges, cancelled his continuing contract (tenure), and terminated his employment. The Department seeks to revoke or otherwise discipline respondent's Teaching Certificate on charges substantially the same as those brought (and sustained) by the School Board. Prior to the complained of conduct, respondent had an unblemished school employment record. By all accounts he was gregarious and outgoing, a competent, caring, and dedicated teacher and administrator. He was popular with students, respected by faculty, relied on by school administrators, and generally considered a "pillar of the community." He had been raised in Belle Glade. Unlike most county school teachers in Belle Glade, who taught there but lived elsewhere, he considered Belle Glade his home. Improper Sexual Remarks or Sexual Advances Toward Female Students Count I: Advances toward T. E. T. E. was 14 years old and a student at Lake Shore Middle School, where respondent was Assistant Principal. On May 17, 1982, she entered his office and asked for a lunch ticket. He could not find an extra lunch ticket in this office so he told her to accompany him to the data processing office where lunch tickets were kept. She complied and they walked together to data processing. He unlocked the door, turned on the lights, and they went in. They both looked around the office, but could not find the lunch tickets. Respondent then told her to return with him to his office and he would give her a temporary lunch pass. As they reached the door of the data processing office, he turned off the lights, put his arm around her shoulder, and asked her for a kiss. She refused. He asked her again, and she again refused. During this exchange he reached down and touched her breast. She felt his touch and was afraid; he was not restraining her though, and she did not think he would try to hold her against her will. They then left data processing. He returned to his office and she began walking to her class. He came back out of his office and told her not to tell anyone about the incident. She agreed. A little later, he found a lunch ticket and gave it to her. Enroute to her class, she began to cry. A student friend asked her what was wrong. T. E. wrote her a note, explaining what had happened. The friend told a teacher, who--along with others--told her to tell her parents. When T. E. arrived home that afternoon, respondent was talking to her grandmother. She heard him say that T. E. had misunderstood something he had done, or said. At 8:15 a.m. the next morning, May 18, 1982, respondent reported to Principal Edward Foley's office for his routine duties. As they were conducting an inspection, respondent asked to see him when they returned to the office, stating he had a "serious problem" to discuss with him. He then told Principal Foley that he (respondent) was being "accused of feeling on a young female student," (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1), and explained his version of the incident. He did not tell the principal that he had twice asked the student for a kiss, and had touched her breast. He said that he had put his arm around her shoulder as they left date processing. Later that day, a conference on the incident was held in the principal's office. The principal, an assistant principal, respondent, T. E., T. E.'s mother and grandmother, and several teachers were present. Shortly after the conference convened, respondent asked for and was given permission to talk to T. E.'s mother and grandmother in a separate office. Once there, respondent told T. E.'s mother that he thought he had done something to upset T. E.; that he was sorry; and that he could understand how the mother felt because he would feel the same if T. E. was his child. He then asked T. E.'s mother to have her daughter say that she made a mistake and that it was simply a misunderstanding. The mother refused. During this short discussion, T. E.'s mother asked him if he had asked T. E. for a kiss: he said, "yes." When asked, "Did you touch her breast?", he replied, "I might have. But . . . I'm sorry, I didn't hurt your daughter." (TR-112) 2/ Count II: Improper Sexual Remarks to C. D. C. D. was a 14 year old female student at Lake Shore Middle School during the 1981-82 school year. On one occasion during that school year, respondent approached her (during school hours) when she was walking to the school cafeteria. He told her she "had big breasts and he wanted to feel one." (TR-33) Count III: Sexual Advances toward C. C. C. C. was a 15 year old female student at Lake Shore Middle School during the 1981-82 school year. On one occasion during that school year, as she was leaving the campus (though still on school grounds) at the end of the school day, respondent, who was walking with her, put his arms around her and asked her for a kiss. Count IV: Improper Sexual Remarks to C. S. C. S. was a 14 or 15 year old female student at Lake Shore Middle School during the 1981-82 school year, when respondent approached her as she was leaving the gym. He remarked, "You have some big breasts." (TR-57) She kept walking. Earlier that year, respondent asked her, "Do you wish things wasn't (sic) the way they are." This remark had, and was intended to have, sexual connotations. (TR-56) Later that school year, respondent, while on campus and during school hours, approached C. S. and asked her "to come in his office and give him a kiss." (TR-57) She left, without complying with his request. Conflicts Resolved Against Respondent Respondent denied having made these improper verbal remarks to, or physical sexual advances toward the four female students. The students' testimony, although containing minor discrepancies, is accepted as more credible than respondent's denial, and conflicts in the testimony are resolved against him. The students showed no hostility toward respondent and, unlike him, had not motive to falsify. Reduced Effectiveness The allegations against respondent, involving these four female students, received widespread notoriety in the area. As a result, his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board has been seriously reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's teaching certificate be revoked, and that he be declared ineligible for reapplication for three years following revocation. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 6th day of August 1984.
Findings Of Fact During the 1982-1983 school year, Jorge Valdez is a seventh grade student. He was assigned to Lake Stevens Junior High School for this school year. In October 1982, pursuant to a request from his physical education teacher, Respondent was counseled and issued strokes for being repeatedly late and for refusing to "dress out" for class. On two occasions in November 1982, pursuant to requests from his art teacher, Respondent was counseled and issued strokes for being disruptive in art class by walking around the room during class and refusing to participate in class activities. In December 1982, Respondent was suspended from school for three days as a result of an incident at the bus stop. When Respondent returned to school after his suspension, he was wearing a linked chain approximately three feet long hidden under his shirt. On the third day, he was caught using the chain to threaten another student. Respondent was given a ten-day suspension, and a conference was held with his mother. The Student Code of Conduct provides for expulsion of any student possessing a concealed weapon. As a result of his conference with Grizel Valdez, Jorge's principal agreed he would request a waiver of expulsion with an alternative placement instead. As of November 5, 1982, Respondent's grades in his six classes at Lake Stevens Junior High School were one C, one D and four Fs. In conduct, his grades were one A, one C and four Fs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Jorge Valdez to Petitioner's opportunity school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School North. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1983, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Grizel Valdez 4901 NW 173rd Street Carol City, Florida 33055 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent is the holder of a teacher's certificate, number 617425, for the area of social studies. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent was employed by the Orange County School District as a teacher at Union Park Middle School (Union Park). All allegations material to the case against Respondent occurred during his employment at Union Park and involved female students who were either enrolled in his class or members of the social studies club Respondent sponsored. During 1990-91 school year, Respondent placed telephone calls to female students. The purpose of such calls was to convey school-related or social studies club information to the student; however, Respondent frequently allowed the subject matter of the telephone conversations to extend to private, non- school topics. These private topics included discussions regarding who liked who for boyfriends and girlfriends as well as the personal appearance and conduct of various students. Additionally, the length of time involved in such conversations varied from a matter of minutes to almost an hour in length. Also during the school year, Respondent participated in the completion of a "slam book." A "slam book" is an unauthorized school activity in which students are not to participate. In general, a "slam book" is a book wherein students make comments about others. In many instances such comments may be unflattering or uncomplimentary. If discovered, teachers generally confiscate such books and admonish students regarding them. In Respondent's case, when he was asked to sign a "slam book" belonging to Karen McCue, Respondent completed many of the headings with personal comments about others known to the students completing the book. The completion of the book by a student, much less a teacher, was against school policy. On one occasion, Respondent wrote on a student's hand by drawing an eyeball, a heart, followed by the letter U. The student interpreted, and Respondent intended, the message to mean "I love you." As a result, the student became self-conscious and went to the restroom to wash the message off. While Respondent did not intend the message to embarrass the student, such action, nevertheless, made her uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent made female students uncomfortable by touching them. None of the touches were intended or interpreted by the students as sexual in nature. None of the touches involved inappropriate parts of the body. All such touches occurred in full view of the class or others. None of the touches made the students uncomfortable at the time they were made; only later, in retrospect, did the students feel uncomfortable. Such touches included playing with a female student's hair, holding a female student's hand, or a side-to-side hug. After Respondent confiscated a Gloria Estefan concert program book from one of the female student leaders, the allegations of impropriety at issue in these proceedings were raised. Prior to that incident, Respondent had enjoyed considerable popularity with the students in his classes and the social studies club. Rumors of improper touchings, not substantiated or alleged in this case, were rampant. Understandably, parent concern and administrator involvement as a result of the complaints followed. On March 28, 1991, the Orange County School District issued a letter of reprimand to the Respondent based upon the alleged inappropriate verbal and written comments to students. Additionally, at the conclusion of the school year, Respondent's teaching contract was not renewed for the 1991-92 school year. Because he engaged in behaviors that interfered with the student/teacher relationship, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was substantially reduced. Respondent failed to maintain a proper, professional distance between himself, as the teacher, and the female students. By engaging in personal telephone conversations and the "slam book," Respondent failed to establish his role as the disciplinarian and authority figure inherent in being their teacher. Respondent enjoyed a good teaching reputation among his fellow teachers and received favorable recommendations and evaluations from his principal. Respondent did not commit any act reflecting gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. Respondent did not commit any act that resulted in a failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety. Respondent did not intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Respondent did not intentionally exploit his professional relationship with students for personal gain or advantage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent for the conduct set forth above. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-0175 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, the last sentence is accepted; otherwise rejected as argumentative or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or argument. The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as recitation of testimony or unnecessary. It is accepted that a slam book is an inappropriate activity for students as well as teachers. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as recitation of testimony, irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 12 is rejected as recitation of testimony and/or argument. Paragraph 13 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence (except as addressed in the foregoing findings of fact). Paragraph 14 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. It is accepted that Respondent's informal conversations with students did not maintain an appropriate level of professional distance; otherwise rejected as indicated. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or irrelevant to the extent not addressed in the findings of fact. Paragraph 16 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as recitation of testimony, irrelevant, or unnecessary. To the extent not addressed in the findings of fact, paragraphs 18 through 32 are rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or recitation of testimony. For the most part, the allegations suggested by the findings proposed constitute much ado about little. Respondent clearly did not maintain an appropriate distance from students; however, his conduct did not rise to a level to reflect a lack of moral character or be grossly immoral. In essence, Respondent's error was to try to be the student's friend more than their teacher. As a result, his role as their teacher was compromised. Paragraph 33 is accepted with the deletion of the word "embarrassment." Respondent experienced a breakdown in the student/teacher relationship, he did not intend to embarrass the students. The first sentence of paragraph 34 is accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 35 is accepted; the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 37 it is accepted that Respondent's behaviors seriously undermined his effectiveness at Union Park; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Further, it has not been shown that such behaviors were widely known in the community or that his effectiveness in another location would be compromised. Clearly, the incidents of this case were fairly minor, isolated, and impacted but one school. Since the Respondent has been appropriately disciplined, such prior conduct should not prohibit the Respondent from teaching in another location where his effectiveness has not been questioned. It might be concluded that Respondent has learned from the errors of his past. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: To the extent not accepted and addressed by the findings of fact above, Respondent's proposed findings of fact are rejected as irrelevant, repetitive, contrary to the weight of the evidence, argumentative, or unnecessary. Respondent was well-liked and considered a "good teacher" by many of his students. In that his principal did not know of Respondent's informal relationships with students, he considered Respondent a "good teacher." Respondent's ability to maintain an appropriate professional distance from his students is the only violation established by this record. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy, Esquire Attorney Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joseph Egan, Jr. P.O. Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor of witnesses, and stipulations of the parties: Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a 4th and 5th grade teacher under continuing contract since June, 1980. During his employment, he was evaluated as a satisfactory teacher. The parties stipulated that on May 19, 1987 at approximately 1:45 a.m., Respondent committed fellatio with another male adult. They further stipulated that Respondent does not claim that this was a single, isolated occurrence. The incident on May 19, 1987 took place in North Shore Park, St. Petersburg, which is an area known to the local police as a place for homosexual activity. North Shore Park is approximately 6 1/2 miles from the elementary school at which Respondent taught fourth grade. It is a public park extending from Sixth to Nineteenth Avenues, North, and bordered on the east by Tampa Bay and on the west by Shore Drive. The park has a public swimming pool, tennis courts, parking areas and a public beach. On the morning of May 19, 1987, Respondent drove to the park, parked his car, and walked from Seventeenth Avenue, North, to Thirteenth Avenue, North, where he encountered the other male. Respondent believed they were alone. They walked to a bench on the public beach and engaged in fellatio. Police Officer Thad Crisco, St. Petersburg Police Department, observed Respondent performing fellatio on the other male. Officer Crisco, who was patrolling the park on foot, was approximately twenty feet away from Respondent. He observed them with the use of an infra-red night scope, but he testified that the night scope was not required or necessary to observe the incident due to the moonlight and other available lighting. Crisco was behind a palm tree, but had a clear line of vision over a four foot high sea wall which separated him from Respondent and the other male. There was also a lit public parking area about 100 feet from where Respondent was observed. Respondent was arrested and charged with performing an unnatural and lascivious act with another male in a public place. On or about May 27, 1987, Respondent was suspended with pay by Superintendent Scott Rose, who also recommended his dismissal by the School Board, effective June 25, 1987. The Superintendent's action and recommendation resulted from the incident on May 19, 1987. The School Board approved the Superintendent's recommendation for dismissal on June 25, 1987, and Respondent was informed of this action by letter dated July 21, 1987. Respondent timely sought this hearing on his dismissal. On or about June 12, 1987, Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the criminal charges arising out of the incident at North Shore Park, and an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant On Probation was entered on June 12, 1987 in Case Number CTC 87-10343 MMANO, County Court for Pinellas County. Respondent was placed on six months probation, ordered to perform ten hours of community service and prohibited from entering any parks in Pinellas County. Respondent's probation was terminated early by Order entered on October 15, 1987 since he had satisfied all terms and conditions of his probation. By letter dated October 26, 1987, the Commissioner of Education found there was no probable cause "at this time" to suspend or revoke Respondent's teaching certificate in connection with this incident. Within the month following the incident in North Shore Park and his arrest, Respondent was the subject of one article in the St. Petersburg Times and three articles in the Tampa Tribune, Pinellas Edition. The parties stipulated that the St. Petersburg Times has a daily circulation of approximately 285,000 in Pinellas County, and the Pinellas Edition of the Tampa Tribune has a daily circulation of approximately 11,000. Based upon the testimony of Robert Welch, Principal of Bay Point Elementary School, Nancy Zambito, Director of School Operations, and Superintendent Rose, all of whom were accepted as experts in education, it is found that Respondent's action on May 19, 1987, his arrest and plea of no contest, and his being placed on probation are inconsistent with a public school teacher's responsibility to set an example for the students he teaches, undermines the confidence, trust and respect which parents and students should have in a teacher, evidences extremely poor judgement for one in whose custody the educational welfare of fourth graders is placed, and can reasonably be expected to impair his effectiveness as a teacher and lead to serious discipline problems with students if he returns to the classroom. Respondent even expressed concern about the embarrassment his actions caused for the school district. Through the testimony of Thomas Auxter, Ph.D., who was accepted as an expert in ethics, Hernan Vera, Ph.D., who was accepted as an expert in sociology, and Harry D. Krop, Ph.D., who was accepted as an expert in psychology, Respondent sought to establish that the incident on May 19, 1987 was a private, consensual act, without demonstrable or intentional injury or infliction of harm upon others outside the act. Dr. Auxter expressed the opinion that the act was not immoral since Respondent had a reasonable belief that no one else was present, and the act was not demonstrably or intentionally harmful. According to Dr. Auxter, one has to consider the time and place where an act occurs, as well as a person's intentions, in determining if it is an immoral act; circumstances are very important. Thus, an act performed at 1:45 a.m. may be a private sex act, while the same act at 1:45 p.m. in the same place may be clearly intentional, observable and offensive to others, and therefore be immoral. Dr. Vera expressed the opinion that Respondent's behavior did not constitute public behavior since the circumstances were private. Again, the time of the morning when the incident occurred was critical to Dr. Vera's opinion. Dr. Krop testified that school children would not necessarily be negatively affected by the incident, and that Respondent is capable of mitigating the effect of the incident on his ability to teach. The testimony of Drs. Auxter and Vera concerning the private nature of the act of fellatio in this case is specifically rejected based upon the testimony of Officer Crisco and Sergeant Earl J. Rutland, St. Petersburg Police Department. Crisco was only twenty feet away from Respondent at the time of the incident, with a clear line of sight. Respondent and the other male were clearly visible in the moonlight without having to use the night scope. The act occurred in a public park, and on a public beach. According to Sergeant Rutland, North Shore Park has a great deal of public activity at all hours of the day and night, and much of that activity results in complaints to the police. The very fact that Respondent went to this area at 1:45 in the morning looking for someone to engage in homosexual activity with, confirms the fact that members of the public frequent this area at all hours. Thus, he had no reasonable expectation that they would be alone on this beach, even at 1:45 a.m. Respondent did commit a sexual act, fellatio, in public on May 19, 1987. Dr. Vera testified that cultural norms require that sexual acts be performed in private, and Dr. Auxter acknowledged that just one violation of said norm can bring a person into disgrace and disrespect. The testimony of Dr. Krop concerning the effect of this incident on children and parents, and on Respondent's ability to teach, is outweighed by the testimony of Welch, Zambito, and Superintendent Rose. Krop was not accepted as an expert in education, and demonstrated little experience working with public school children and their parents when compared with the vast experience of Petitioner's experts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 19th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 87-2849) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3. 6-9 Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 14. 14-16 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary, but considered as the basis for accepting the witness as an expert in education. 17-20 Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 21 Rejected as irrelevant and also hearsay. Rulings of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2 Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 4, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 9, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 6, 14. Adopted and Rejected in Findings of Fact 6, 14. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 5, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 7-8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as irrelevant. There was evidence that Respondent initially considered resigning and then Petitioner acted expeditiously to take disciplinary action. These events may have affected the level of community reaction. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 13-14 Rejected as unnecessary and as not based upon competent substantial evidence. While the ethical analysis set forth by Dr. Auxter represents one expert's opinion, it was not shown that his opinion, albeit an expert opinion, competently and substantially represents 2500 years of study and thought. Rejected as unnecessary since Dr. Auxter's ultimate opinion is rejected. Rejected as Finding of Fact 14. 17-30 Adopted in part and Rejected in part in 13 and 14; otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary since Dr. Vera's ultimate opinion is rejected. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary since Dr. Krop's ultimate opinion is rejected. 35-38 Rejected in Findings of Fact 12, 15. 39 Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Rose, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4688 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Attorney Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4688 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Charleen C. Ramus, Esquire KELLY & McKEE, P.A. Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33605-0618 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent’s alleged conduct is a violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25 and/or Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and is just cause for his dismissal as a teacher in the Pinellas County School District.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Reginald K. Reese, is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding a professional service contract with Petitioner, the Pinellas County School Board (School Board). Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher by the School Board in August 1988. Respondent was hired as a full- time teacher in the Pinellas County School System in August 1989, and has been a teacher in the district since that time. At all times relevant to this proceeding, he was employed as a teacher at Riviera Middle School. Throughout his tenure with the School Board, Respondent's teaching career has been exemplary and he has consistently received good evaluations. It is undisputed that Respondent is held in high regard and considered an excellent teacher by many parents of children he has taught and by his colleagues and administrators with whom he has worked. Respondent is viewed by his former principal and current assistant principals as an excellent educator. His co-workers view him as an excellent teacher, the epitome of quality, a wonderful teacher, top-notch, one of the best, innovative, creative, compassionate with children, an inspiration to students, and one of the teachers students come back to the school to see. Two parents whose children were taught by Respondent several years ago believe that Respondent's work and effort as a teacher had turned their children around and made them responsible, productive adult members of society. Prior to the recommended disciplinary action which is the subject of this proceeding, Respondent has never been the subject of disciplinary action by the School Board or any of its administrators. On Wednesday, November 10, 1999, at about 1:00 p.m., Respondent parked his vehicle at the entrance of the south trail near the mangrove area in the vicinity of 4th Street and 115th Avenue in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent then exited his vehicle and entered the south trail of the mangrove area. It is undisputed that while in the mangrove area, Respondent engaged in a sexual activity, specifically oral sex and masturbation, with two other adults. The contact between Respondent and the other individuals was consensual and involved adults who were strangers to each other. This sexual activity was observed by Corporal Ward of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. The mangrove area in which the incident occurred was not clearly visible from the street. However, the area is considered a public place and is next to a busy four-lane road. Moreover, within that vicinity, people engage in recreational activities, including sunbathing, fishing, and boating. After the sexual activity had concluded, Respondent was arrested at the scene of the incident described in paragraph 7 by an officer with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office who had observed the acts. As a result of the incident, Respondent was charged with committing an unnatural and lascivious act and exposure of sexual organs. Respondent pled nolo contendere to exposure of sexual organs and an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt was entered on December 30, 1999. Further, an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt on a Plea of Nolo Contendere to the charge of unnatural and lascivious act was entered on December 30, 1999. An Order to Seal Criminal History Record was entered on January 4, 2001. On the advice of counsel, Respondent did not report his arrest, the charges filed against him, or the orders entered resolving the criminal matters to School Board officials at or near the time they occurred. Respondent reported his arrest in a letter dated June 10, 2001, to the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards, when he applied for renewal of his teaching certificate. Upon receipt of the June 10, 2001, notification of Respondent’s arrest, the School Board investigated the matter. Following the investigation, on July 18, 2001, Respondent was notified in a certified letter that Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools, would be recommending to the School Board that Respondent be dismissed from employment. The basis of the recommendation of dismissal is that the conduct engaged in by Respondent on November 10, 1999, violated Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25 and the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. It was alleged that these violations constitute just cause for Respondent's dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. Dr. Hinesley's recommendation of dismissal is based on several factors. First, Dr. Hinesley believes that the conduct engaged in by Respondent on November 10, 1999, was immoral in that it took place in a public area. Second, Dr. Hinesley believes that dismissal of Respondent is warranted because Respondent's actions were inappropriate and embarrassed the school system and the school. Finally, Dr. Hinesley believes that the conduct engaged in by Respondent was inappropriate and impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Pinellas County School District. Information regarding the subject incident has not been widely disseminated because the record was sealed by court- order. However, all of the witnesses testifying in support of Respondent were advised of the details of the incident. In light of this knowledge, teachers who have worked with Respondent, a former administrator who supervised Respondent, former students of Respondent, parents of Respondent's former students, and community members supported Respondent. While admitting that Respondent made a mistake or had a lapse in judgment, they believe that his exemplary teaching record and dedication to students and to the profession will allow him to overcome the challenges that may arise if and when the incident becomes public. Many of them also believe that his service to the Pinellas County School District community will not be impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order that dismisses Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Pinellas County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline Spoto Bircher, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-3536 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment as a non-instructional employee by the School Board of Lake County based on his arrest on February 26, 1989 for sexual battery on a child 12 years old.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Anthony Louis Young, was employed by the Lake County School District as a custodian at Rimes Elementary School. The School Board of Lake County is the agency responsible for the administration of public primary and secondary education in Lake County. Respondent had been employed as custodian at Rimes since 1983. This was a non-instructional position. In addition to his duties as custodian, he also had signed a vandal trailer contract under which he occupied, with his family, free of charge, a house trailer located on the school campus. The trailer and all utilities except telephone were furnished without charge to the Respondent. His obligation was to provide himself with a telephone and to make visual checks of the school buildings from time to time when school was not in session. Mr. Young did not receive any salary under the terms of the trailer contract. On February 13, 1989, Julia Young, Respondent's wife and mother by a different father of Nina Walker, age 12, discovered a pair of bloody underpants belonging to her daughter and became suspicious of the cause. She made an appointment with a doctor at the Public Health Service to have her daughter examined but did not keep it, nor did she provide any urine specimens from her daughter for testing. Finally, on or about February 26, 1989, she asked her daughter about the pants and in response was told, by Nina, that her stepfather, Respondent, had come into her room while Ms. Young was gone and had "messed" with her. Nina did not go into detail at this time, but as a result, that same day Ms. Young called the Sheriff's Office to report Respondent for alleged sexual battery on Nina. She had not discussed the matter with Respondent before making the call. When the Sheriff's Deputies came to her home, she told them the story that Nina had told her about the abuse which had allegedly taken place on a previous date. Ms. Young's report was made to Deputy Pallitto who, upon hearing the story, notified the representative from DHRS and then interviewed Nina. In her statement made to Pallitto, Nina told the following story: Respondent had picked her up at her grandmother's house on February 13, 1989 and taken her home. Instead of dropping her off as he usually did, he came inside, followed her into her room, and began touching her on her breasts and vagina. When Nina stated she would tell her mother, Respondent allegedly said he would tell her that Nina had used profanity. He then reportedly forced her onto the bed and told her to take off her clothes. He went into the living room and put some music on to play and then returned and undressed himself. He put what apparently was a condom on and told Nina to open her legs. He then attempted to insert his penis into her vagina and it hurt. As he was trying to do this, Nina's brother came in the back door and this caused Respondent to get off her and leave the room. Deputy Pallitto asked Nina to write out her statement, which she did. After completing her affidavit, she was taken to a doctor for a physical examination. Based on her oral statement, her affidavit which was consistent therewith, and the conclusion of the doctor that her physical condition was consistent with a penetration of her vagina by something, Respondent was arrested. During the period that Nina was waiting to see the doctor, she was again asked to tell her story and at this point, told much the same story as she had previously told, both orally and in writing. Several days later, on February 28, 1989, Deputy Pallitto was contacted by the Assistant State's Attorney who advised him that earlier that day Nina, along with her mother and grandmother, had come to his office and recanted her previous story. At Pallitto's request, she wrote out another affidavit which, in his opinion, was much more difficult for her to do than had been the original. In her second affidavit, Nina indicated she recanted because Respondent was not guilty of what she had alleged and she did not want to see an innocent man go to prison. In the second affidavit, Nina indicated her first story was a lie and claimed that when she attempted to tell the truth at first, she was pressured to make a statement implicating the Respondent. It was not indicated who "pressured" her. Ms. Williams arrived at Respondent's house trailer while Nina was writing out her original affidavit, and when she read it, found it to be consistent with what she had heard directly from Nina and from her mother. Ms. Williams took Nina to the doctor because she wanted Nina to have a vaginal exam as soon as possible to see if penetration could be determined. After the doctor indicated that Nina's condition was consistent with penetration by something, she took both Nina and Nina's brother and sheltered them for a month. At the end of that period, the boy was returned home, but Nina was sent to stay with an aunt in Ft. Lauderdale at the request of Ms. Young. This was done after Nina had recanted her original accusation, but according to Ms. Williams, this is not at all unusual. Ms. Williams also indicated that Ms. Young had seen love letter type notes written to Respondent by children from the school. These were not presented because, Ms. Young indicates, she tore them up and threw them away. Ms. Williams alleges that Ms. Young indicated in her initial interview that Nina was not the sort of child who would make up stories. In fact, Ms. Williams' investigation, and the testimony of Ms. Witter, one of Nina's teachers who is familiar with Nina's reputation at school, confirms this. At the hearing, however, both Ms. Young and Ms. Walker, the grandmother, indicated Nina is as likely to tell a lie as she is to tell the truth, and though she had not been in disciplinary difficulties at school before, she has been somewhat promiscuous on at least one occasion with a male cousin. The investigator from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services who, investigated this matter filed her report indicating the situation as a "confirmed" case of child abuse. Mr. Young was thereafter notified of this classification by letter and did not take any action to contest it. It is the policy of the School Board not to hire individuals who are charged with child abuse and placed in the abuse registry. Even if found innocent of sexual abuse on a minor, an individual would not be hired for a custodial position. Two weeks after Respondent was arrested, the State's Attorney decided not to prosecute and Respondent was released from jail. On the day of his release, a letter advising him that he had been suspended with pay pending a recommendation for disciplinary dismissal by the Board was delivered to him by Mr. Galbraith, the then Assistant Superintendent. This letter advised Respondent he was entitled to an informal conference after the Superintendent had conducted an investigation into the allegations. The investigation was conducted and Respondent requested an informal conference which was scheduled for March 23, 1989. However, before that conference could take place, the Board was advised of a decision of the 5th District Court Of Appeals which afforded Respondent a due process hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Respondent was so advised and requested the formal hearing, and as a result, the dismissal action was held in abeyance pending the formal hearing. Before the formal hearing could be held, however, Respondent's one year contract with the Board expired and, though he had been rehired almost automatically every year since he started with the Board in 1983, on this occasion, because of the allegations against him, Mr. Wolf, the Principal at Rimes, declined to offer him a contract for the following year. At about the same time, the Board advised him to vacate the trailer he occupied on campus. Consequently, no disciplinary dismissal has ever been executed. Shortly after his release from jail in March, 1989, Mr. Young left the area and secured alternative employment in Orlando. He has never requested that he be reinstated after the charges against him were dropped. His sole contest of the Board's action is the request for hearing on the dismissal action. While working with the Board, Respondent was paid approximately $520.00 every two weeks. On or about April 1, 1989, he secured work with a firm in Orlando and has been making $6.25 an hour working 50 hours per week, with overtime for all hours over 40. Though Respondent previously claimed he did not want his job back, he now claims he does, but in light of his current income and the fact that he is currently working in an area away from the locus of the incident, it is found that his stated desire for reinstatement is not sincere. Once Respondent was arrested his principal, Mr. Wolf, recommended to the Board that he be dismissed. School Board Policy 4.06(1), dealing with non- instructional personnel, provides that a staff member may be discharged during his term of office for "good and sufficient reasons". Both Mr. Wolf and Mr. Galbraith advised Dr. Sanders that under the circumstances of this case, wherein an employee who deals on a regular basis with young children is arrested for an offense which, as here, involves allegations of sexual misconduct with a child, the interests of the children and the school system would be best served by his dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Anthony Louis Young, be awarded back pay for the period from the date the charges against him were dismissed to the end of the 1988 - 1989 school year. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2620 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted in this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. & 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire 100 West Main Street Leesburg, Florida Dr. Thomas E. Sanders, Superintendent The School Board of Lake County, Florida 34749 201 W. Burleigh Blvd. Tavares, Florida 32778 Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esquire 312 West 1st Street, Suite 605 Sanford Florida 32771 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 231.3605(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), by engaging in alleged harassment, inappropriate interactions with colleagues, or misconduct. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 2000, the School Board employed Respondent as a Plant Operator at Seminole High School. The School Board transferred Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School on May 22, 2000. On August 2, 2000, Respondent earned a satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that he is a "hard worker," a "good team worker," and "he works well with others." On February 15, 2001, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "good team worker" and is "always willing to help others." On September 17, 2001, the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods Elementary School (Cypress Woods). The two individuals who had previously served as Night Foremen were Barbara Moore (Moore) and Kevin Miller (Miller). At Cypress Woods, Sharon Sisco (Sisco) was the Principal, Marilyn Cromwell (Cromwell) was the Assistant Principal, and Candace Faull (Faull) was the Head Plant Operator. As Head Plant Operator, Faull supervised Respondent as well as Moore and Miller. Each Night Foreman had "poor communication problems" with Faull. Between the fall of 2000 and the spring of 2002, Respondent, Moore, and Miller each supervised individual Plant Operators at Cypress Woods, including Alice Mertz (Mertz). Mertz had problems with taking instructions from each Night Foreman and with taking complaints "over their head[s]" directly to Faull. Faull attempted to "set up" both Miller and Moore for disciplinary action by the School Board. During the fall of 2000, the School Board received numerous complaints from Miller and Moore about the abuse they suffered at Cypress Woods. On October 10, 2000, Sisco issued specific directives to Faull, instructing her "not to make or engage in negative conversation [with] . . . the crew (or other staff) regarding the Night Foreman." On March 14, 2001, Sisco reprimanded Faull and again counseled her "not to make or engage in negative conversation made by the night crew (or other staff) about the night foreman." On March 20, 2001, Cromwell instituted a Success Plan. The Plan instructed the Plant Operations crew to "refrain from gossip and negative comments about each other." The Plan required the Plant Operations crew to maintain a Communications Log. During the spring of 2001, Cromwell monitored the behavior of the Plant Operations staff through regular meetings. The Plant Operations crew continued its historical behavior after the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods in the fall of 2001. On February 1, 2002, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from Sisco. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "great team worker" who "gets along with staff." On February 28, 2002, Respondent touched Mertz on her buttocks in the break room at Cypress Woods in the presence of at least two other people in the room. The physical contact occurred when Mertz walked past Respondent on her way out of the break room. Respondent admits that his hand made contact with the buttocks of Mertz. However, Respondent claims that the contact was incidental, not intentional, not inappropriate, and did not satisfy the definition of sexual harassment. Mertz did not confront Respondent but left the room. However, Mertz later filed a sexual harassment complaint with her employer. Campus police investigated the matter on March 1, 2002. The investigation included statements from Mertz, Respondent, and Mr. Todd Hayes (Hayes), one of the individuals who was present in the break room at the time of the incident. All three testified at the administrative hearing and provided written statements during the investigation. Mertz and Respondent also provided deposition testimony during pre- hearing discovery. Respondent also provided an additional statement on March 5, 2002, during an interview with Michael Bissette (Bissette), Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). On March 18, 2002, Bissette determined that Respondent had committed harassment, inappropriate interaction, and misconduct in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v) authorizes disciplinary action for each offense that ranges from a caution to dismissal. Bissette recommended to the Superintendent of the School Board that the School Board dismiss Respondent from his employment. By letter dated March 18, 2002, the Superintendent notified Respondent that Respondent was suspended with pay from March 13, 2002, until the next meeting of the School Board on April 16, 2002. If the School Board were to adopt the recommendation of dismissal, the effective date of dismissal would be April 17, 2002. Respondent requested an administrative hearing, and the School Board suspended Respondent without pay on April 17, 2002, pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Some inconsistencies exist in the accounts provided by Mertz. For example, Mertz claims in her testimony that the incident occurred "around 2:30 p.m." The investigation report by the campus police shows that Mertz claimed the incident occurred around 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. Other inconsistencies exist between the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. For example, Mertz testified that five people were in the break room at the time of the incident and that she did not confront Respondent or say anything to Respondent. Hayes recalls that only four people were in the room and that Mertz did turn and say something to Respondent such as, "Oh stop it." Inconsistencies regarding the time of the incident, the number of people in the break room, and whether Mertz said anything to Respondent at the time are not dispositive of the material issues in this case. The material issues are whether the physical contact by Respondent was intentional, sexual, and offensive, whether it was inappropriate, and whether it constituted misconduct within the meaning of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. Respondent claims that he touched Mertz accidentally while he was putting his keys into a pocket at the particular time that Mertz walked in front of Respondent. Mertz walked between Respondent and Hayes in a manner that prevented Hayes from observing the actual contact by Respondent. However, Hayes did observe Respondent's movements up to the time of the actual contact. When Respondent was approximately a foot away from Mertz, Respondent moved his left hand from his side in an upward direction with his palm up and fingers extended to a point within an inch or so of the right buttock of Mertz. Respondent's arm was always extended and did not move in a sideways direction that would have occurred if Respondent had been putting keys into his pocket or reaching for keys in his pocket or on his belt. Respondent had a smirk on his face and laughed. The testimony of Hayes at the administrative hearing concerning Respondent's hand and arm movements was consistent with the accounts by Hayes in two written statements provided during the investigation. Mertz felt Respondent grab her right buttock. She felt Respondent's hand tighten on her buttocks. Mertz did not feel Respondent inadvertently touch her. The physical contact Mertz felt on her buttocks was consistent with the observations by Hayes. The testimony of Mertz at the administrative hearing concerning the physical contact is consistent with accounts by Mertz in three written statements provided during the investigation and in her pre-hearing deposition. Respondent's testimony concerning his hand movements in the break room does not possess the consistency present in the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. When asked on direct examination what happened, Respondent testified: I was walking towards the cabinet to get the flags after we'd had a meeting, to leave; she walked by me -- I -- walked behind her. I had my keys clipped to my right side of my belt and they were flopping against my leg. I wasn't going to need my keys so I started to reach over with my left hand to open my pocket because I had my keys in my right hand to put them in, because my pants were tight and there was a top pocket to put them in and as my hand came up and around that's when I hit her, I brushed against her. Transcript (TR) at 284. On cross-examination, counsel for Petitioner asked questions that provided Respondent with an opportunity to reconcile his testimony with ostensibly divergent accounts during the investigation. Q. The day after the incident you wrote a statement for the police officer, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. And in the statement you said Ms. Mertz asked you to grab her can, didn't you? * * * A. Yes, this is what I wrote but I misquoted it. She said that she was going to grab her can. Q. But you wrote in the statement that Alice said, grab my can? Is that what you wrote? A. That's what I wrote but that "my" is her, not me. * * * Q. Let me ask you . . . Did you write in your statement, "and with my left hand I whacked at her to say, hey"? A. Yes. But I was using that as a description on the type of motion it was. It was like a, you know, a hey, type of motion that I came across. TR at 285-286. In Respondent's initial written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with his "open" left hand as if to say hey but did not know where contact was made. In a second written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with the "back" of his left hand. In an interview with Sisco, Respondent claimed that he and Mertz were just joking. During direct examination, Respondent did not testify that he whacked at Mertz as if to say "hey." Rather, Respondent testified that his left hand inadvertently came in contact with Mertz as a result of Respondent reaching for his keys. The account provided by Respondent during direct examination at the hearing is consistent only with Respondent's testimony in his pre-hearing deposition. The statements given during the investigation are closer in time to the actual event. The actions of Hayes and Mertz immediately following the incident are consistent with their testimony that Respondent intentionally grabbed the buttocks of Mertz in a sexual manner. Hayes asked another individual in the break room if she had observed the incident. He later reported the incident to Faull before speaking to Mertz. Mertz was initially shocked and left the break room; she later reported the incident to her employer. The physical contact by Respondent created an offensive environment for Mertz. Mertz was initially completely in shock. She then became angry and eventually became so angry she "wanted to strangle" Respondent. Mertz cried and was very upset when she completed a written statement for Sisco. She did not tell her husband immediately because she did not want to upset him. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz constituted sexual harassment within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24 and 8.241. The physical contact was "unwanted sexual attention," "unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature," and "physical contact" that had the purpose of creating an "offensive environment" within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24(2)(a), (2)(b)4, and 8.241(2)(a)1, respectively. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz violated the prohibitions in School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v). The physical contact was harassment that created an offensive environment in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m). It was an inappropriate interaction that violated Policy 8.25(1)(p). It was misconduct that violated Policy 8.25(1)(v). Respondent has no prior disciplinary history. The physical contact engaged in by Respondent is his first offense and is a single isolated violation of applicable School Board policy. Respondent has never asked Mertz on a date, never seen her outside work, never made any sexual comments either to her or about her, and has never touched her when they were working alone together on the night shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three charged offenses, suspending Respondent without pay from April 17 through September 17, 2002, and reinstating Respondent to his former position on September 18, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline Spoto Bircher, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Ted E. Karatinos, Esquire Seeley & Karatinos, P.A. 3924 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Dr. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-3536 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Is Respondent school teacher guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, by failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety? Is Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kelly L. Bradley, Florida Teaching Certificate 768569 (expiration date June 30, 2000), is a certificated teacher in the State of Florida and held a teaching certificate in 1998-1999. She taught at Lola M. Culver Elementary School during the 1998-1999 school year and was an employee of Petitioner Duval County School Board. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner from January 1996 through October 1996, as a substitute teacher at several elementary schools and was employed full time at Lola Culver commencing October 1996, teaching emotionally handicapped students. This was her first full-time job as a teacher. She received satisfactory evaluations with favorable comments for each of her three years at Lola Culver. She has no record of prior discipline. During most of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent and Kristy L. James, another certificated teacher, were co-sponsors of the School Safety Patrol at Lola Culver. Respondent volunteered to replace another co-sponsor who left in mid-year. This was her first experience as a Safety Patrol co-sponsor. A "reward" trip near the end of each school year was traditional for Lola Culver's Safety Patrol members. Ms. James had been a co-sponsor of the Safety Patrol for the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 school years, but neither she nor Respondent had received any significant instruction in the duties and responsibilities of sponsors. Near the end of the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. James and Respondent planned an overnight trip to Orlando for Safety Patrol members for June 4-5, 1999, a Friday and a Saturday. Ms. James exclusively handled the paperwork for approval of the June 4-5, 1999, field trip by Lola Culver's current principal, Carolyn Davis. She also exclusively handled the permission slips and medical authorizations signed by parents and all arrangements for "chaperones." Swimming had been on the agenda sent home by Ms. James and approved by the prior principal in each of the previous school years. Swimming was also on the 1999 agenda, which instructed students to pack a swimsuit. For the 1999 trip, Ms. James also sent another document, outlining the cost of the field trip for students and soliciting chaperones, and permission slips/medical releases to all the children's parents. Only the agenda mentioned swimming. The permission slip did not expressly mention swimming or solicit information about a child's ability to swim. It solicited only health information and authority to treat in an emergency. Eight fifth grade students (boys and girls) went on the trip, including Litoria Gibson, a non-swimmer, who ultimately drowned while on the field trip. Nowhere on the signed permission slip returned to Ms. James did Litoria's parents state that she could not swim or should not swim. Unbeknownst to anyone concerned, Litoria's mother had instructed Litoria "not to get in the water" during the field trip.1 Respondent and Ms. James went on the trip as co- sponsors and as chaperones. Respondent invited a personal friend and substitute teacher, Eric Lee, to go on the trip as a chaperone. Ms. James' husband, Joey, came along in the same capacity, and two parents, Gail Brown and Hazel Morningstar, also went on the trip. Hazel Morningstar testified that she had considered herself present on the trip only to watch her own son and, based on an oral promise to Rita Whorten's parents, to watch Rita Whorten. In a conversation during the planning stages, Ms. James stated that Rita Whorten would be "with" Ms. Morningstar and her son. At no time material did Ms. Morningstar affirmatively notify anyone she would not act as a group chaperone. In fact, she considered herself to be a chaperone. Gail Brown is the mother of Marcus Brown, one of the Safety Patrol students. Ms. Brown testified that she only went on the trip because she does not allow her son to go on trips involving water by himself, even though Marcus knows how to swim. She further testified that she did not feel any chaperoning responsibility toward any child but her own. However, she knew the teachers would assume that she was going to chaperone all the children, and she never affirmatively notified anyone that she would not act as a group chaperone. The group traveled via a school bus, driven by Petitioner's approved bus driver, Patricia Benton. Ms. Benton was paid for driving the bus, but personally paid for her teenage son, whom she brought along on the trip. Ms. James had asked Ms. Benton to drive the bus, and Ms. Benton's son's inclusion in the trip was in the nature of a "perk" for Ms. Benton. Ms. Benton's son was never considered either a responsible adult or a chaperone. Ms. Benton had accompanied Ms. James and the Safety Patrol on a similar field trip at the end of the 1997-1998 school year and had participated in watching over the children at that time. However, herein, Ms. Benton testified that on the 1999 trip she considered herself only along to drive the bus and watch over her own son. Indeed, neither Ms. James nor Respondent counted Ms. Benton as a "chaperone" in calculating the "one chaperone per every ten children" that they understood to be Petitioner's requirement for field trips. Nonetheless, both teachers considered Ms. Benton to be another responsible adult. Ms. Benton admitted that at times on this trip she was prepared, if necessary, to discipline any disrespectful children. Neither teacher inquired of Ms. Benton if she could or would swim. Respondent and Ms. James considered themselves, Joey James, Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Morningstar to be chaperones. Neither teacher ever inquired of Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, or Ms. Morningstar whether they could or would swim. This was Respondent's first overnight field trip. As teachers and Safety Patrol co-sponsors, Respondent and Ms. James regarded themselves as jointly responsible and in charge. Everyone else appears to have looked to Ms. James for leadership. The bus departed from Lola Culver Elementary School at 7:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 1999. After arriving in Orlando, the group spent most of the day at Sea World. While the group was at Sea World, Respondent and Ms. James assigned responsibility for specific children to specific adults, except for the bus driver, Ms. Benton. No adult protested the assignments. At Sea World, Respondent and Eric Lee were responsible for Litoria Gibson and Makia Hicks. These assignments were essentially designed to keep everyone together and to keep the children under supervision in the amusement park, but they were not intended to last beyond the Sea World portion of the trip. However, no reassignment of responsibility for any child occurred after the group departed Sea World. In the late afternoon, the group was bused to Howard Johnson's South International, a motel. After they checked in, the students were allowed to go swimming in the motel pool. Upon arrival at the motel at approximately 5:45 p.m., room keys were distributed, and it was agreed that adults and children would meet by Ms. James' room, which fronted on the pool area. The children were instructed not to go to the pool until the adults were ready. The pool at the motel was a very large one located in an interior courtyard. The water was 3.5 feet deep at the shallow end and 5.5 feet deep at the deep end. No lifeguard was provided. Nonetheless, the pool had been used safely for the 1998 Safety Patrol field trip, and Ms. James and Ms. Benton were familiar with the motel layout and the pool. Ms. James considered herself a good swimmer, having been a swimmer since childhood. She was comfortable around water. Respondent was an experienced swimmer and athlete. She had learned to swim in early childhood, had had formal lessons during high school, and had done a lot of pool training in connection with playing college volleyball. She had continued to swim regularly in her adult life. She was trained in CPR. Some of the adults, including Respondent, and all of the children met as agreed and proceeded to the pool area. Prior to going to the pool, Respondent briefed all the children on not running or wrestling in the pool and pool area. Initially, Ms. James remained in her room to make a telephone report to Lola Culver's principal, Carolyn Davis. Joey James and Ms. Morningstar arrived at the pool dressed to swim. Litoria Gibson went to poolside wearing a red jumpsuit which would not be considered an unusual item for a child to wear to go swimming. The children entered the pool for the first time at approximately 6:00 p.m., under the direct supervision of Joey James and Ms. Morningstar, who got into the pool's shallow end with some of them. Ms. Morningstar asked who could not swim. Litoria Gibson and another girl raised their hands. Litoria said, "I can't swim." She never volunteered that she was not allowed in the water. Ms. Morningstar told the two girls that they should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Litoria Gibson was tall for her age, approximately the same height as Ms. Morningstar. Ms. Morningstar invited Litoria into the pool and spent 15-30 minutes with her in the pool's shallow end. They squatted to get wet and acclimated to the water. Ms. Morningstar showed Litoria how to stand so that the water only reached her chest and how to doggie paddle and told Litoria that if she got in trouble she could lie flat on her back and float. Litoria then felt comfortable in the water and, giggling happily, entered into dunking games with the other children. When Ms. Morningstar left the pool for the sauna, she warned Litoria to stay in the shallow end of the pool, only chest-high in the water, or get out of the pool altogether. Ms. Morningstar assumed that all the parents' respective permission slips would have alerted the teachers as to which children could or could not swim, so she did not tell anyone which students could not swim. At various times before 7:30 p.m., Joey James and Ms. Morningstar disciplined students by taking away water toys and calming rowdy behavior. Eric Lee arrived at the pool dressed to swim and able to swim shortly after the children entered the pool, but he stayed on the sidelines at the deep end and would not enter the pool. Respondent arrived at the pool dressed to swim and swam a little while Ms. Morningstar was in the shallow end and Joey James was in the deep end. Makia Hicks got into the pool with Respondent and said "Can you stand in here with me?" Respondent questioned Makia, and determining that Makia indeed could not swim, Respondent told her, "Well, you can come in here and I'll show you how to kick your feet." Respondent did not overhear the similar conversation between Litoria and Ms. Morningstar. (See Finding of Facts 33- 34). Later, Respondent got out of the pool and took Makia and Jessica Hayes to the hot tub. She made sure Makia got out of the pool at that time. Respondent, Makia, and Jessica then returned to the pool and were playing around. Ms. James, dressed to swim, arrived at the pool about the time Ms. Morningstar first went to the sauna. Mesdames Brown and Benton arrived poolside sometime after everyone else and remained there for most of the time until 7:30 p.m., in adjoining chairs and approximately midway between the deep and shallow ends of the pool. During this period, Ms. Benton made several trips to and from the jacuzzi and Ms. Brown made at least one trip to and from her room. Neither woman was dressed to swim. By their own accounts, both women were adequate but not trained swimmers, and neither of them intended to swim. When Ms. James arrived poolside, Respondent got out of the pool and she and Ms. James chatted in adjoining poolside chairs on the side opposite from Mesdames Brown and Benton. Makia sat on the edge of the pool with her feet in the water. Fifteen to 20 minutes after arriving poolside, Ms. Brown overheard that Litoria and one other child (she was not sure which child) could not swim. When Ms. Brown heard this, Litoria was already "walking the wall" (moving via her hands on the lip of the pool wall) into the deep end of the pool. Ms. Brown asked Litoria if she could swim and when Litoria said she could not swim, Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end of the pool. At least twice more before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end from the deep end, but Ms. Brown did not alert anyone else that Litoria was venturing into the deep end. She also assumed that Litoria's parents had informed the teachers that Litoria could not swim, so she did not tell anyone that information either. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Ms. Benton overheard or otherwise figured out that Litoria could not swim. She also assumed that Ms. James and Respondent knew Litoria could not swim and therefore, she did not mention it to them. After being poolside for awhile, Ms. James and Respondent went to Ms. James's room to telephone for pizza for everyone's dinner. Where, precisely, each of the other adults were during this brief period of time is in some dispute, and it may be that Ms. James and/or Respondent came and went from Ms. James's room more than once. Ms. James and Respondent did not specifically designate any adult to be in charge at the pool in their absence(s). Nonetheless, by all accounts, Mesdames Brown and Benton were fully dressed in poolside chairs most of this time and Joey James, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Morningstar were in and around the pool most of this period of time. Later, when it was anticipated that the pizza delivery man would be arriving, Ms. James and Respondent again left the poolside together. As they walked past Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton, Ms. James said, "We're going for the pizza." Neither Ms. James nor Respondent gave any specific instructions concerning the students. Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton acknowledged that they had heard Ms. James say that both teachers were leaving the pool area. Ms. James and Respondent left the pool area and entered a motel corridor off a door leading to the pool area. The children and pool area could not be adequately observed and monitored from this motel corridor. Joey James and Mr. Lee arrived in the corridor simultaneously with the two teachers. Ms. James gave the men instructions to go to the bus and retrieve a cooler of soft drinks and take the cooler to the picnic area at the far end of the pool. Ms. Morningstar arrived in the corridor in time to hear the foregoing instructions concerning the cooler. This meant there were now five adults not watching the children. Respondent then gave Ms. Morningstar enough specially-printed T-shirts for all members of the party, told her the T-shirts would be distributed during dinner, and asked her to take the T-shirts to the picnic area and set up for dinner. Respondent also asked Ms. Morningstar to "check on the kids."2 Ms. James and Respondent assumed the foregoing instruction meant that a third adult (Morningstar) would then be joining the two adults (Brown and Benton) already poolside to watch over and protect the eight students. Ms. Morningstar immediately went to the pool area, carrying the T-shirts. Ms. James, who had the money to pay the delivery man, and Respondent immediately went up an interior hallway toward the hotel lobby to await the pizza delivery man. The six pizzas Ms. James had ordered would require two people to carry them all, but additionally, Respondent wanted to talk to Ms. James alone because she had a concern and planned to defer to Ms. James's field trip experience as a long-time Safety Patrol sponsor.3 On her way to the picnic area, Ms. Morningstar found all the children, including Litoria, in the deep end of the pool. Most were playing dunking games. Apparently, Litoria sometimes participated in dunking, but when Ms. Morningstar spotted her, Litoria was holding onto the pool wall. She was blowing bubbles in the water between her outstretched arms and occasionally pushing off a few inches, floating on her face, and then grabbing the wall again. Ms. Morningstar said, "Litoria, are you sure you feel comfortable? Because you don't know how to swim." Litoria replied, "No, ma'am, I feel comfortable. I'm here with everybody and everybody's beside me." Ms. Morningstar did not consider Litoria in danger as close to the wall as she was, with children near her in the pool, and with Ms. Brown, Ms. Benton, and other adult strangers nearby. She proceeded to the picnic area, passing Brown and Benton in their chairs, and telling them she was going to set up for pizza. At about this time, a few minutes before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown was approached by a little girl who wanted to get her pool shoes from her room. Ms. Brown told the child to get her key and she would go with her so that the child would not be alone in a motel room. As they rounded a corner of the deep end of the pool, Ms. Brown spotted another little girl clinging to the side and sobbing, "She tried to drown me!" Then there was a clamor from the other children and Ms. Brown noticed that Litoria, in her red outfit, was floating face down, only inches from the edge of the pool. Just then, Ms. Benton approached and also saw Litoria. Both women screamed. Ms. Morningstar and Mr. Lee, who were in the picnic area, heard the screams and ran to the deep end of the pool to help. With the help of two of the boys and Eric Lee, Ms. Brown hauled Litoria out of the pool. The adults peeled away from Litoria's face a plastic mask designed to cover the wearer's eyes and nose, but not the mouth. The face mask's breathing tube had been lost. Blood came profusely from Litoria's mouth.4 The teachers were notified where they were waiting for pizza in the motel lobby. They returned immediately to render aid. A qualified bystander rendered CPR. Medical attention was summoned via "911." Although Litoria's pulse and breath sounds were revived at poolside, she ultimately died of drowning Christine Arab, General Director of Human Resources for the School Board, holds Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Elementary Education, and is a doctoral student in curriculum and education. She has been a certified elementary and exceptional student education classroom teacher. In her opinion, Respondent did not take reasonable efforts to protect her students in that she failed to determine which children could and could not swim and left the pool area without making sure that at least one of the adults was prepared to be in the pool with the children, was able to rescue the children, and had agreed to accept the responsibility to oversee and rescue the children from the water if necessary. It was the absence of these precautions by Respondent that mattered to Ms. Arab, not the length of time that Respondent was absent from poolside. Ms. Arab stated, concerning the other adults' behavior on the field trip that, "[G]iven what they each understood their role to be or commitment to be - I think there's a lot of blame to go around . . .." She also described various acts and omissions of the other adults as either reasonable or unreasonable. However, I do not assign the weight to her personal opinions on these subjects that I do to her professional opinion as an educator concerning Respondent's duty of supervision and effectiveness as a teacher. There is no School Board policy defining the duties of "chaperones." The School Board did not prove that it had any specific written policy against swimming on field trips. Ms. Arab conceded that if Ms. James's prior principal had approved swimming for the previous year's field trip and the current principal, Ms. Davis, had not disapproved swimming in 1999, there was no way the teachers could have divined there was any "no swimming on field trips" policy. Principal Davis was disciplined by a 21-day suspension without pay for her flawed oversight of the field trip. This is a very severe penalty for an administrator. Ms. Arab had input into the School Board's decision to prosecute this case. In her opinion, the severity of a termination recommendation against Respondent was warranted because Respondent's flawed oversight of the field trip itself was such that the public and the School Board could have no future confidence in Respondent. Ms. Arab felt the only way the School Board could trust Respondent henceforth would be under the closest supervision and that would be ineffective teaching in the School system. However, Ms. Arab also conceded that had Litoria not drowned, Respondent's failures would not have risen to the level of a terminable offense.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, through her failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety, and of a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office, suspending her without pay for six months, and requiring her to repeat her supervised one year of beginning teacher training upon her return to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2000.
