Conclusions This cause coming on to be heard before THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, at its meeting conducted on August 16, 2011, to consider the Recommended Order, entered on June 21, 2011 by the Honorable Claude B. Arrington, Administrative Law Judge of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, having considered the Recommended Order, to which neither party filed exceptions, and being fully advised in the Premises: IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Recommended Order is adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference; and 2. RACHEL VON HAGEN’S professional service contract with The School Board of Broward County, Florida is terminated. Filed September 13, 2011 8:54 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Broward County School Board vs. Rachel Von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order aa AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this \ ( aay of hag » 2011. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD Za Aa By: ia iW. Williams, Chair COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLES T. WHITELOCK, ESQ. Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13" Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 MARK HERDMAN, ESQ. Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater Florida 33761 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Broward County Schoo! Board vs. Rachel von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER Pursuant to Section 120.68, Fla. Sta., a party to this proceeding may seek judicial review of this Final Order in the appropriate district court of appeal by filing a notice of appeal with Noemi Gutierrez, Agency Clerk, Official School Board Records, The School Board of Broward County, Florida, 600 Southeast Third Avenue — 2"! Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this Final Order. A copy of the notice and a copy of this Final Order, together with the appropriate filing fee, must also be filed with the Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2399. If you fail to file your notice of appeal within the time prescribed by laws and the rules of court, you will lose your right to appeal this Final Order. fritz/allwork/doah/employment/vonhagen Rachel final order-final
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department), should grant the application filed by Cynthia McGuire-Moore to obtain a license to operate a child care facility through an entity known as Funhouse Learning Academy, LLC (Funhouse), contrary to the Department’s Notice of Intent to Deny Application, dated March 17, 2020.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating licensed child care providers in the State of Florida. On March 13, 2020, Ms. McGuire-Moore submitted an “Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility” (Application) with the Department. The Application identified Funhouse as the name of the facility to appear on the license. In the Application, Ms. McGuire-Moore disclosed that she had previously owned, and served as director of, a licensed child care facility named “First Steps Learning Academy.” The Application does not reflect Ms. McGuire-Moore’s ownership of another licensed child care facility named “A Step Above Christian Academy.” However, the testimony and evidence presented established that Ms. McGuire-Moore previously owned another licensed child care facility named “A Step Above Christian Academy.” On March 17, 2020, the Department issued a “Notice of Intent to Deny Application,” which denied the Application, and stated: The denial is based on the following: As Owner/Director of A Step Above Christian Academy April 16, 2018 the license to operate A Step Above Christian Academy was revoked following the sixth Class II Violation for standard #3 Sufficient Ratio, in a two-year period. April 3, 2018 (Complaint Investigation) It was reported to the licensing office that Ms. McGuire- Moore had been providing childcare in her home but had asked parents to take their children back to the facility located at 1122 Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune Blvd this week as she would be on vacation. Upon responding to the facility address counselor did not find children in care. They were being cared for by an unscreened individual. Parents were contacted and children were sent home. December 22, 2017 A Cease and Desist letter was provided to Ms. McGuire-Moore while awaiting the final hearing as the facility was again found out of ratio for the sixth time on December 15, 2017 (Routine Inspection). The facility was [sic] also received a fine levied in the amount of $100.00. September 21, 2017 (Routine Inspection) They [sic] facility was found out of ratio for the fifth time and the revocation proceedings were initiated. July 21, 2016 (Complaint Investigation) The facility was found out of ratio for the fourth time and placed on a six-month probationary license and was fined $150.00 (two days out of ratio at $75.00 per day). June 16, 2016 (Complaint Investigation) The facility was found out of ratio for the third time and fined $60.00. Technical Assistance was provided. March 30, 2016 (Routine Inspection) The facility was found out of ratio for the second time and fined $50.00. Technical assistance was provided. December 17, 2015 (Routine Inspection) The facility was found out of ratio for the first time and counselor provided technical assistance. Due to the circumstances noted above we are unable to approve your application to obtain a Child Care Facility license. In Department of Children and Families v. A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, d/b/a A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, Case No. 17- 6871 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 21, 2018; Fla. DCF Apr. 16, 2018), ALJ Lawrence P. Stevenson recommended, after conducting a final hearing, that the Department revoke the license for A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, based on the incidents (i.e., numerous ratio violations) referred to in the Department’s “Notice of Intent to Deny Application” and paragraph 4 above.1 The Department approved ALJ Stevenson’s recommendation in its Final Order. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that A Step Above Christian Academy had been open for approximately three years before the revocation. She provided child care for infants through kindergarten. Prior to owning and operating A Step Above Christian Academy, she provided home daycare for eight years, and was also the interim director of and VPK teacher at Friendship Academy; another child care facility. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that she made a “mistake” when operating A Step Above Christian Academy, and took responsibility for the ratio violations detailed in DOAH Case No. 17-6871 and the Notice of Intent to Deny Application. In the approximately two-and-a-half years since the revocation of the license of A Step Above Christian Academy, LLC, Ms. McGuire-Moore has worked for the Daytona Beach News Journal, delivering newspapers. Ms. McGuire-Moore testified that if granted another license, she would maintain the required ratio of children to staff by “do[ing] a better screening of my teachers that I hire ... Also, if teachers can’t be on time, then, I would just have to let them go and hire someone that can be on time.” Ms. Overly was the Department counselor assigned to investigate A Step Above Christian Academy from 2016-2017, and, in her current position as supervisor, reviewed the Application. Ms. Overly confirmed that the basis for the Notice of Intent to Deny Application was the numerous ratio violations involving A Step Above Christian Academy that led to its revocation. She also stated that, when assigned to investigate A Step Above Christian Academy, she found 52 total 1 A ratio violation occurs when the prescribed ratio of staff to children has not been met. Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.001(4). violations—21 of which were Class II violations that included the ratio violations.2 Ms. Overly testified about various violations—other than ratio violations—that she found when investigating A Step Above Christian Academy, which included: Employing individuals who had not completed required background screening; Failing to maintain a clean environment, noting that during the final inspection before revocation, she discovered that five of the six toilets at A Step Above Christian Academy were backed up and not functioning, that a sink was backed up and had mold, that the ceiling was in disrepair, and that a fence in the back of the yard was “down” several months after a previous inspection; and Receiving a complaint from a parent with a child attending A Step Above Christian Academy who was informed by Ms. McGuire-Moore that she was going on vacation, but that a person named Ms. Lex would fill in for her; when Ms. Overly investigated the day after receiving this complaint, she learned that Ms. Lex had not completed required background screening or the required training to care for children. Ms. Overly also testified that she reviewed the history of another child care facility Ms. McGuire-Moore previously owned—Moore’s Christian Academy—and found that between 2006 through 2008, the Department conducted eight inspections and found five ratio violations. Ms. Overly stated that Ms. McGuire-Moore’s history of owning and operating child care facilities indicates a long and consistent pattern of ratio violations. 2 A Class II violation “is an incident of noncompliance with an individual Class II standard as described on CF-FSP Form 5316.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(e)2. “For the fifth and subsequent violation of the same Class II standard, the Department shall suspend, deny, or revoke the license, and shall also impose an administrative fine of $100.00 per day for each such violation.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(2)(d)2.d. The undersigned finds that the Department established that Ms. McGuire-Moore’s history of owning and operating child care facilities includes repeated ratio violations, which culminated in the revocation of the license for A Step Above Christian Academy, as indicated in the Notice of Intent to Deny Application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the application for a child care facility license that Ms. McGuire-Moore submitted for Funhouse Learning Academy, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Almy-Loewinger, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite 412 210 North Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 (eServed) Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Steven R. Robinson, President Steven R. Robinson, P.A. Suite 300 533 Seabreeze Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 (eServed) Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Thomas Masters, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1 and 6A10.081(2)(a)5, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 743504, covering the areas of elementary education and physical education, which is valid through June 30, 2024. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Since 1994, Respondent has been responsible for the care and development of elementary school-aged children. He became certified to teach elementary education in Florida in 1995, and at that time began teaching physical education (P.E.) for the Archdiocese of Miami. In approximately 1999, Respondent was certified in P.E. He taught P.E. for 19 years and theology for one year. He was the Athletic Director for 18 of those 20 years. Respondent has received no prior Department of Education (DOE) discipline. Respondent’s duties as Athletic Director for the Archdiocese included recruiting volunteer coaches, setting schedules, making sure that the teams were outfitted, securing referees, designing uniforms, improving play spaces, begging for equipment, soliciting donations, and making sure the coaches did a good job. In 2015, Respondent relocated from south Florida to St. Johns County to assist with the care of his mother after his father’s passing. He taught PE in the St. Johns County School District (SJCSD) from 2015 through 2019. In the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent worked at PVPV-Rawlings Elementary School (PV) in a half-day position and in the after-care program. The principal of PV, Kathleen Furness, evaluated Respondent as “effective.” At the conclusion of the school year, Ms. Furness recommended Respondent to the principal at Hartley, Joy Taylor. Ms. Furness did not want him to leave PV, but the school did not have an opening for him. Ms. Furness told Susan Joyner, a third grade teacher at Hartley, that Hartley was getting “the best of the best.” At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a P.E. teacher at Hartley in the SJCSD. He was the P.E. teacher for kindergarten through fifth grade and the only P.E. teacher at the school. Teachers would take their students to P.E. at various times during the week, leave them with Respondent, and come back to get them after their P.E. session. During his time at Hartley, Respondent had a new principal each year. During the 2016-2017 school year, Hartley’s principal was Joy Taylor. During the 2017-2018 school year, Hartley’s principal was Antonio Scott. During the 2018-2019 school year, Hartley’s principal was Dr. Paul Goricki. The 2016-2017 School Year In the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent was hired as the P.E. teacher at Hartley after the school’s long-time P.E. instructor, Coach Beech, retired. When Respondent was hired at Hartley, he noticed that the teachers there were physically affectionate with the students, hugging regularly. School administrators and teachers testified that students regularly hugged teachers. Hartley administration accepted the practice of student-teacher hugs. Amber Phillips holds a degree in elementary education and holds a teaching certificate in elementary education. Ms. Phillips has been teaching first and second grade at Hartley since 2012. Ms. Phillips testified that the younger the students, the more affectionate they are. Children wanted to be comforted and loved. Ms. Phillips testified that appropriate touch is beneficial to student mental health and learning. Respondent was told when he was hired that he fit in at Hartley because he was warm and caring. Respondent immediately helped to increase the students’s activity level and interest in physical activity. By all accounts, Respondent created an excellent P.E. program for his students. He emphasized the importance of physical fitness standards, and instituted the Presidential Physical Fitness Award Program which involved rigorous physical fitness training and testing. Respondent competed with his students by racing and challenging them, and by telling them he could do more sit-ups or push-ups than they could. Respondent played basketball with the students during recess. Joy Taylor, Hartley’s Principal, evaluated Respondent as effective in his 2016-2017 evaluation stating, “You have been one of my ‘most valuable acquisitions.’ You have brought so much positive energy and fitness to Hartley for which I am so grateful. From fund raising to field day, physical fitness tests to basketball team … you have gone out of bounds to bring fun and fitness to our school. I appreciate all your hard work, care and commitment to our students, staff and school!” According to Amber Lewis, a second grade teacher at Hartley during this school year, when Respondent started teaching at Hartley, “he really instilled physical fitness back into them and just wanted them [sic] to be healthy and get plenty of exercise but also encourage them by coaching the kids’ [sic] basketball team and going to kids’ [sic] events after school, and really pitching [sic] in wherever he needed to be. Doubling up and tripling up in classes and they were all happy to go with him any time.” Respondent’s P.E. classes were loud, fast-paced, and action packed. The indoor routines included sit-ups, push-ups, or stretches. The outdoor routines included dynamic or static stretching, jogging, skipping, or galloping. Respondent was a physical and hands on P.E. teacher and coach. He paired students to do sit-ups. One student acted as an anchor to hold the other student’s feet down. Anchoring activated more muscle groups to help the student perform the activity. Respondent helped hold a student’s feet down, lightly touching his feet to assist the student in doing sit-ups. Respondent frequently gave his students high-fives and handshakes. When his students hugged him, he tried to redirect them by telling them to let go, raising his arms to get them to release their hug, continuing to walk until they let go, or redirecting them to a side hug. Occasionally he would have to put his hand on their head in an attempt to let them know that they should let go of him. In P.E. class there was more of a risk of harm from physical contact. Respondent’s students played sports, including flag football and basketball. Respondent prevented collisions between his students, sometimes using physical contact. Students ran into him and he caught them when they would bounce off of him. Respondent would occasionally have to break up altercations between students in his P.E. classes. Respondent was concerned with safety in his class and went over the rules and expectations and gave instruction on the safe use of equipment. Respondent built relationships with his students. He listened to them and took an interest in their activities outside of class. He let his students know that they were important and special. The evidence established that the vast majority of students appeared to enjoy P.E., and liked Respondent. Several Hartley teachers and parents of Hartley students testified on Respondent’s behalf. Those witnesses testified that they observed only positive interactions between Respondent and the students. All agreed Respondent had made many positive contributions to Hartley’s culture and was a positive influence on the students. These witnesses never observed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, and none saw Respondent tickle students or pull their hair. Rhieanna DeGrande, a parent of two Hartley students, testified that she saw Respondent every day from 2016 through 2019 during the school year. She never saw him do anything unsafe or inappropriate. However, she did see him give the students high-fives and hugs, and sometimes the students would “latch onto his legs … they loved him.” Ms. DeGrande heard from other parents and some teachers that Respondent was doing a great job, that he brought a lot of new activities to Hartley, and that he was very involved and loved the kids. Retired St. Johns County Circuit Court Judge and State Attorney Robert Mathis met Respondent in 2016. Judge Mathis volunteered to help coach the basketball team that his grandson joined, and witnessed Respondent regularly interact with the students. Judge Mathis testified that Respondent took care of the kids when they were injured and did not call children babies and tell them to stop crying. He never yelled at the children or was mean to the children. He did not pull their hair or tickle them. He picked them up when they fell down. Respondent patted the kids on the back when they did a good job, and he touched them when he showed them playing technique. Judge Mathis heard good things from the parents; they liked the way their kids responded to Respondent’s coaching. When Judge Mathis heard rumors about Respondent, he wrote a letter to Tim Forson, the Superintendent of SJCSD, and to Hartley’s Principal Goricki. In his letter, Judge Mathis wrote about the positive relationships that he witnessed between the students and Respondent, and about Respondent’s positive impact as a coach. But Respondent was not without his detractors. Crystal Poticny is a kindergarten teacher at Hartley. Ms. Poticny testified that during the 2016-2017 school year, she observed Respondent on numerous occasions “inappropriately interacting with students: touching their neck, shoulders, tickling, picking students up like a sack of potatoes, carrying students on his waist.” She further testified that she saw Respondent poking and squeezing students, and that sometimes the students were crying and yelling “put me down!” Ms. Poticny told Respondent “please stop, put them down, they don’t like that.” Ms. Poticny testified that it made her uncomfortable to watch Respondent interact with students like that. Although Ms. Poticny warned Respondent about his behavior with students, it continued throughout the 2016-2017 school year. She reported her concerns to their principal, Joy Taylor. The 2017-2018 School Year Ms. Poticny also testified that during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent’s behavior with students was the same. She observed Respondent carrying a student on his hip while the student was yelling and screaming. Sometimes the students would be pushing him away and crying and yelling “put me down!” She reported her concerns to their principal, Antonio Scott. Kimberly Sikes is a first-grade teacher at Hartley. When Respondent started at Hartley, Ms. Sikes thought he was a good fit. She testified that Respondent “did a lot for the P.E. program.” However, Ms. Sikes observed Respondent force a student to the ground several times, then tell other students, “Everybody come over and look at so and so, he’s crying like a two- year old.” Ms. Sikes reported the incident to Mr. Scott. Later in the year, Ms. Sikes observed Respondent standing over the same boy, as the boy was crying, point in his face and say to the boy, “You’re nothing but a little baby.” Ms. Sikes told Respondent, “That’s enough.” She thought that after she reported her concerns to Mr. Scott during the 2017-2018 school year, the matter would be resolved. During the week of February 26, 2018, several kindergarten teachers spoke with Mr. Scott regarding what they perceived to be inappropriate interactions between Respondent and some of the students. On March 2, 2018, Mr. Scott met with Respondent to discuss those concerns. One of the matters Mr. Scott addressed was an incident involving a student reporting that Respondent choked him. Respondent explained to Mr. Scott that “he had his hand on the child’s neck, and the child held his hands, and then he could pick them up like a magic stick.” Mr. Scott told Respondent he could not in jest touch children and play around, “we can’t treat children like they are our nieces and nephews or our own children.” At the conclusion of the March 2, 2018, meeting, Mr. Scott believed he had forcefully made his point with this verbal warning to Respondent about such contact with students. However, just a week later, on March 9, 2018, Mr. Scott had to address another matter regarding Respondent touching a student. A student reported that “Respondent had taken her and forced her to the ground.” Mr. Scott asked Respondent about what the student reported. Respondent told Mr. Scott that the student was going to throw mulch at another student, therefore he felt it was necessary to do a “takedown move” on the student in order to disarm the student. The student was eight years old. As a result of these March 2 and March 9 incidents, on March 9, 2018, Mr. Scott gave Respondent a letter of improvement. In the letter, Mr. Scott stated, among other things: As we move forward, I expect you to: An apology is to be given to the student who was forced to be seated. It is recommended you enroll in a Crisis Prevention (CPI) course which is offered periodically by the district. The administration is to be contacted for assistance if a student is causing a disruption or unsafe environment. Mr. Scott also warned Respondent by telling him specifically, “your livelihood is in jeopardy, make sure that you act accordingly so that this does not force some other steps in terms of progressive discipline.” Approximately five weeks later, Mr. Scott prepared his written evaluation of Respondent for the 2017-2018 school year, commenting as follows: Tom: Your commitment to elevating the school’s PE program and willingness to go above and beyond has not gone unappreciated. In preparation for a successful 2018-2019 school year you are encouraged to carefully reflect on all feedback given to you either in person or in I-Observation. It has been a pleasure to work alongside you and to support you this year. Antonio Mr. Scott assigned a Final Summative Score of 3.39, a score placing Respondent on the high end of the effective scale. The 2018-2019 School Year In early November 2018, while in Respondent P.E. classroom, Ms. Sikes heard Respondent say to one of her students, B.P., “Hey, Big Head, Big Head.” Ms. Sikes believed that B.P. had been in Respondent class long enough for Respondent to know his name. Ms. Sikes asked B.P. how it makes him feel for Respondent to call him “Big Head.” B.P. responded, “It makes me sad.” Ms. Sikes testified that to call a student “Big Head” is “degrading, it’s humiliating.” “Would you call the overweight kid, the fat kid in class. It’s really no different than that.” While doing a writing assignment, B.P. and C.R. told Ms. Sikes that Respondent pulled their hair “to get them from one place to another and that he roughs them up or jacks them up and grabs his shirt and pulls it real fast. . .and it shakes them up back and forth.” These statements were consistent with what she had seen in the past. Ms. Sikes reported the students’ statements to their parents and to Assistant Principal Kathleen Baker. On October 31, 2018, Ms. Baker went to the playground to see Respondent regarding a behavior incident involving a student on his basketball team. While they were speaking, three female kindergarten students came up to Respondent to tell him that one of the girls (T.R.) was sad and was crying. Respondent took the little girl and tipped her upside down, holding her by the waist and told her to “tip that frown upside down.” He then put her back down. T.R. was not laughing, but she stopped crying. Ms. Baker wrote in a statement after the incident “[w]hile I was uncomfortable with this, I could tell he meant it to be in jest and that he thought it would cheer the girl up. I did not talk to him about the situation at the time due to multiple issues that had to be addressed immediately.” Susan Joyner taught elementary school for 37 years, and holds a degree in early childhood and elementary education. She taught kindergarteners for ten years. She retired at the end of the 2016-2017 school year. That year she taught third grade at Hartley and interacted frequently with Respondent. Ms. Joyner testified that her students loved Respondent, although he was a tough teacher and had high expectations of his students. According to Ms. Joyner, her students could not wait to go to P.E. class with Respondent, and after class were very excited about what they had done and what they had accomplished. At hearing, Ms. Joyner was questioned on cross-examination about her reaction to the “turn that frown upside down” incident. She testified as follows: A. Let me turn that frown upside down. I think that’s pretty creative. And it’s also—and I also think it’s a distraction—so many problems are so minimal and for somebody to turn somebody upside down, a five-year-old and just have fun with them and—Listen, I’m old school. I started teaching a long time ago when every little remark and every little thing that we said to students wasn’t such a big deal. Q. So that scenario that I just gave you, that’s okay with you; is that right? A. Well, you know, I would have had to have been there to witness it. Can you give me more details? So afterwards did the little girl stop crying and go off and play with the rest of her class and continue in the activity? What happened afterwards? I don’t know. Did she go screaming to her teacher when the teacher picked her up? Was she balling her eyes up. You know, “Why did you pick me up and put me upside down.” What did the other kids--I don’t know. There’s so many details that you are not telling me that I am not going to judge a teacher for trying to a make a five-year-old happy. I’m not going to negatively judge them. If their intent was to turn their frown upside down, I’m not going to trash that teacher. According to Ms. Sikes, even if it is not done with malice or intent to hurt the child, turning a student upside down “it’s crossing the barrier of inappropriately touching students.” It’s common sense … “as teachers we don’t interact with children that way.”1 The next day, November 1, 2018, Ms. Baker received an email from Ms. Sikes. The email stated: I am writing this letter on behalf of Nichole Poticny and myself with concerns of situations that have been occurring during our class' P.E. block. Two of my students have made me aware that Tom Masters has pulled their hair in an effort to move them to the corner of the room after getting out in a game, or touching other friends during a game. They also mentioned that he "pushes and shoves them." I have heard him directly call one of my students "big head," and when questioned he said, 1 Respondent alleged that Ms. Poticny and Ms. Sikes had mounted a “campaign” against him. However, there is no evidence of any animus by these fellow teachers against him, nor evidence of any other motivation for them to mount such a campaign. "I don't know his name. He has a big head so I call him big head." There are other instance that we have observed and we would like to further discuss with you in private. Nichole and I would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience. Ms. Baker met with Ms. Sikes on the morning of November 2, 2018. Ms. Sikes told Ms. Baker about what she observed and what the students had reported to her. Later that morning, the parents of B.P. arrived at the school and wanted to speak with an administrator. They told Ms. Baker that Respondent called B.P. “Big Head,” that he is pulling B.P.’s hair and this is unacceptable and administration needed to do something about it. C.R.'s mother also requested a meeting with Ms. Baker. They talked over the phone about Respondent pulling her son’s hair. On November 2, 2018, Ms. Baker interviewed Ms. Poticny regarding her concerns about Respondent. During that interview, Ms. Poticny told Ms. Baker that: "Yesterday he took a little girl's head with both hands and shook her face because she said she had a headache. He makes the Kindergarteners do 30 push-ups at the beginning of each class. If they don't have a partner, he is their partner and stands on their feet. If they don't do 30 push-ups, he puts them in the corner. He is tickling kids all the time - their stomach, their neck, under their arms. He will grab them around the waist. He has picked kids up and carried them under his arm.” Two hours following her interview with Ms. Poticny, Ms. Baker (and Kyle Dresback, an administrator with the District Office), met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. According to Ms. Baker’s notes, at the meeting Respondent admitted to calling B.P. “Big Head,” but stated he did not recall pulling students' hair. However, he did acknowledge patting students on the head and shoulder and grabbing basketball players by the shirt while demonstrating technique. On November 5, 2018, Catherine Hutchins, the Director of Human Resources, received two telephone calls from parents regarding Respondent's interactions with their children. On November 6, 2018, Ms. Hutchins met with Respondent. When asked about turning T.R. upside down, Respondent admitted that he did it and stated that he “went too far” by doing that. When asked about calling B.P. “Big Head,” Respondent told Ms. Hutchins “he had forgotten the boy’s name so he just said “Hey, 'Big Head.’” On November 7, 2018, Catherine Hutchins issued Respondent a letter of reprimand. The letter of reprimand reminded Respondent of the incidents of March 2, 2018 (putting his hands around a student’s neck), March 9, 2018 (doing a “take down” move on an eight-year-old student), October 31, 2018 (turning student upside down), and reports of calling a student “Big Head” and pulling students' hair. The letter of reprimand informed Respondent that he was suspended without pay for two days, among other things, and directed “you will not put your hands on students during any P.E. class or when coaching students for any reason.” On December 14, 2018, Dr. Goricki issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for tickling a student “really hard” on his neck. This incident occurred at or around the same time Respondent received the November 7, 2018, letter of reprimand. On January 15, 2019, Dr. Goricki issued Respondent a Final Letter of Reprimand. The letter of reprimand alleges that on January 9, 2019, Respondent forcefully pushed a student during a physical education class. When presented the letter and requested to acknowledge receipt in writing, Respondent wrote at the bottom of the letter, “I do not agree with many parts of the content of this letter.” The Administrative Complaint reflects that Respondent successfully grieved the Final Letter of Reprimand and the letter was rescinded. The evidence of record does not support a finding that Respondent inappropriately pushed a student during a P.E. class. In March 2019, Dr. Goricki informed Respondent that he would not be renewed for employment for the 2019-2020 school year. Respondent left that meeting angry, and then began to contact parents and tell elementary school students that Dr. Goricki “fired him” and petitioned for their support. Because Respondent's communications were disruptive to the school environment, he was removed from campus before the end of the school year. Despite being non-reappointed, and being removed from campus prior to the end of the school year, Principal Goricki’s performance evaluation of Respondent, dated April 9, 2019, rated Respondent in the high range of “effective.” The Child Witnesses Among the students who testified at the hearing were B.P. and T.R. During the 2018-2019 school year, these students were in kindergarten. It was obvious that these young children were shy and nervous about participating in this process. Some of the students became emotional during questioning, but the undersigned concludes that this was the result of being “placed in the spotlight” in a room full of serious-looking adults, as opposed to their feelings toward Respondent, who was also in the room. When asked by his mother whether Respondent ever calls him by his name, B.P. said, “No, he only calls me ‘Big Head.’” Ms. Sikes was a witness to at least one such incident. B.P. also told his parents that Respondent pulled his hair. B.P. credibly testified Respondent called him “Big Head.” Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent called B.P. “Big Head,” instead of his given name. T.R. told her parents that Respondent tickled her and turned her upside down. She also told them that it scared her. It is undisputed that Respondent picked T.R. up by her waist and turned her upside down. Ms. Baker witnessed it and Respondent admitted it. T.R. testified that picking her up and turning her upside down made her a little scared. While the possibility exists that Respondent could have dropped T.R. when inverting her, he did not, and she was not harmed. Rather, she was startled, and stopped crying. Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent picked T.R. up by her waist and turned her upside down. Corrective Measures In the 2017-2018 school year, Principal Scott recommended that Respondent enroll in a crisis intervention prevention (CPI) course. However, when Respondent tried to enroll during the 2017-2018 school year, he was told that he could not enroll because “he was not on the team.” The school administration decided who was on the behavior management team. Mr. Scott did not know that he needed to facilitate Respondent’ enrollment in the CPI course. In the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was permitted to take the CPI course. In the course, Respondent was taught appropriate techniques to use on students when they were out of control. Those techniques included physical touch under certain circumstances. Ms. Hutchins agreed that there were circumstances when it was appropriate to touch students to keep them from harming themselves or other students. Ms. Sikes also testified that there were circumstances when touching students was appropriate. Following his receipt of the November 7, 2018, reprimand, Respondent had a conversation with all of his Second to Fifth grade classes about the student/teacher relationship, boundaries, and appropriate touch. Respondent attended six mandatory counseling sessions through the Employee Assistance Program. The purpose of the sessions was to assist Respondent with understanding the proper boundaries between student and teacher. The Allegations in the Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint alleges the following: Just prior to and during the 2018/2019 school year, Respondent was put on notice not to touch students inappropriately multiple times when he received the following warnings and/or discipline: On or about March 9, 2018, Respondent received a Letter of Improvement for putting hands on students. On or about November 11, 2018, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand for inappropriate hands on students. On or about December 14, 2018, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand for inappropriately touching a kindergarten student. On or about January 15, 2019, Respondent received a Final Letter of Reprimand for pushing a second grade student. Respondent successfully grieved this discipline and the letter was rescinded. During the 2018/2019 school year, Respondent ignored all warnings and inappropriately put his hands on students. Respondent's conduct included but may not have been limited to: Respondent aggressively tickled students. Respondent pulled students’ hair in efforts to direct the students. Respondent grabbed students by their shirts and pushed them against a wall. Respondent lifted a female student off the ground and turned her upside down in an attempt to get her to stop crying. During the 2018/2019 school year, Respondent repeatedly embarrassed B.P., a six-year-old, male student, by referring to B.P. as "Big Head." It is found that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent inappropriately lifted a female student off the ground and turned her upside down in an attempt to get her to stop crying. Petitioner also proved by clear and convincing evidence that during the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent repeatedly embarrassed B.P., a six-year-old male student, by referring to B.P. as "Big Head." None of the other allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint were proven by clear and convincing evidence.2
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), and rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., that Respondent receive a Reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of 12 months from the date of the final order, with conditions of probation to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric J. Lindstrom, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Heidi B. Parker, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, provides for licensing of child care facilities by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"). It mandates minimum standards for personnel, physical facilities, sanitation and safety, nutritional practices, admissions and record keeping, transportation safety, child discipline, and plans of activities. Section 402.306, Florida Statutes, allows counties whose licensing standards meet or exceed state minimum standards to perform child care facility licensing in that county rather than HRS performing that activity. Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, was originally enacted in 1974 to provide minimum standards for the growing number of commercial day care facilities. In the definitional section of that Chapter, the legislature specifically defined a child care facility and further specified those programs and facilities exempted from the child care facility licensing laws. Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes, provided as follows: "Child care facility" includes any child care center or child care arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: public schools and non- public schools which are in compliance with the Compulsory School Attendance Law, chapter 232; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps; and Bible Schools normally conducted during vacation periods. [Emphasis supplied.] Due to extensive publicity involving certain abuse incidents by personnel at child care facilities and public opinion, the child care facility licensing laws were revisited in 1984. In a special session, the Legislature strengthened some requirements of Chapter 402 and provided for screening and background checks of personnel in child care facilities and for reasonable parental access to children in those facilities. Chapter 84-551, Laws of Florida. Due to the insistence of HRS and certain counties performing their own child care facility licensing that pre- kindergarten programs in schools required those schools to obtain licensure as child care facilities, Chapter 402 was further amended in 1985 to clarify the exclusion of schools. As amended, the statutory definition of child care facility now provides: "Child care facility" includes any child care center or child care arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: public schools and non- public schools and their integral programs; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps; and Bible Schools normally conducted during during vacation periods. [Emphasis supplied.] Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes 1985. The Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement regarding the amendment of Chapter 402 provides that this change is a "Technical amendment which clarifies that public and non-public school programs are not subject to licensure as child care facilities." Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6. Following the 1985 amendments to Chapter 402, HRS and the Palm Beach County Health Department (which was responsible for child care facility licensing in Palm Beach County) jointly requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the scope of the statutory exclusions from child care licensing laws for public and nonpublic schools and their integral programs. The specific question posed was as follows: Do the exemptions under s. 402.302(4), F.S., as amended, and s. 9, Ch. 77-620, Laws of Florida, apply to public and nonpublic schools which offer: Prekindergarten classes during regular school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? Infant care during regular school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? School age child care services before and after school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? In a lengthy analysis of the statutory exclusion of schools from child care facility licensing requirements, the Attorney General concluded: In sum, then, and unless and until legislatively or judicially determined otherwise, it is my opinion that the exemptions under s. 402.302(4), F.S., as amended by Chs. 84-551 and 85-54, Laws of Florida, and s. 9, Ch. 77-620, Laws of Florida, apply to public and nonpublic schools which offer prekindergarten classes or infant care during regular schools hours or school age child care services before and after school hours. . . . AGO 55-74, p. 7. Attorney General Opinion 85-74 also provides at page 3 as follows: Thus, public schools and nonpublic schools and their integral programs are not "child care facilit[ies]" for purposes of ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., as amended. The term "integral programs" is not defined within ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., as amended, or Oh. 85-54, Laws of Florida; however, the word "integral" has generally been defined as "[c]onstituting a completed whole; . . . lacking nothing of completeness." See, 46 C.J.S. Integral p. 1100; Ballentine's Law Dictionary 645 (3rd ed. 1969). And see, Random House Dictionary of the English Language Integral p. 738 (unabridged ed. 1967) (pertaining to or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component; necessary to the completeness of the whole); Webster's Third International Dictionary Integral p. 1173 (1966) (composed of constituent parts; making up a whole). Of., Matezak v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 299 F.Supp. 409, 413 (D.C.N.Y. 1969)("integral" means part of constituent component necessary or essential to complete the whole). Whether a particular child care center or arrangement constitutes an integral program for purposes of s. 402.302(4), FS., as amended, would appear to present a factual question which can only be reached on a case-by-case basis. [Emphasis supplied.] During the special session in 1984 and the regular session in 1985, the Legislature increased funding for HRS' child care facility licensing activities and also created 48 additional staff positions for those licensure activities. Several HRS employees determined that (1) the Attorney General's Opinion was confusing, (2) it was too difficult to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a program was an integral part of a school or a child care facility, and (3) the exclusion of schools from child care facility licensing requirements was inconsistent with legislative intent of protecting children. Accordingly, HRS drafted an amendment to Rule 10M-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, to define the term "integral program". The "rule package" prepared by HRS in compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, commences with the following language: Reason rule is being filed or amended: Chapter 402.302(4), Florida Statutes, provides the definition of a child care facility. Public and non public schools and their integral programs are precluded from this definition as a child care facility and therefore are not subject to licensure. . . . The term "integral programs", which is not defined by statute, is ambiguous and has been the subject of various interpretations by public and non public schools. For purposes of licensure, this rule amendment is necessary in order to clarify which specific child care programs in the public and non public schools are required to be licensed. Without the rule amendment, some schools will continue to interpret their "integral programs" as meaning their infant and preschool programs, or before and after school programs, thereby avoiding licensure and resulting in no regulation by the department . . . Rule 10M-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, as proposed, would provide as follows: (1) Child Care Standards and Licensure. Child Care Standards included in this chapter were adopted by the department to protect the health, safety and well being of the children of the State who receive child care in child care facilities as defined in Section 402.302, Florida Statutes, and to promote their emotional and intellectual development and care. Public and nonpublic schools and their integral programs are not child care facilities as defined in Section 402.302(4) Florida Statutes, and are not subject to licensure. The term "integral programs" includes school activities which are directly related to the educational component of the school for 5 year old kindergarten programs through grade 12, and extra curricular activities, such as sport teams, school yearbook, school band, meetings, and service clubs. The term also includes child care programs administered directly by the school to care and supervise children from 5 year old kindergarten through grade 12 before and after the school day. The term "integral program" does not include child care programs for children below 5 year old kindergarten, such as infants and preschoolers, and child care programs which are contracted by the school to provide care and supervision for children from 5 year old kindergarten through grade 12 before and after the school day. The proposed rule as published and noticed by HRS, although defended by HRS vigorously in this proceeding, is not in fact the rule that HRS intends to adopt. HRS now admits that it has no authority to regulate any program in a public school since only the Florida Department of Education can regulate public schools. HRS intends, therefore, to delete the reference to public schools in its proposed rule and to only regulate nonpublic schools although it admits that such regulation of only nonpublic schools would therefore be discriminatory. HRS further intends to amend its proposed rule so as to clarify that those nonpublic schools which are religious in affiliation will continue to enjoy the additional exemption from child care facility licensure given to them by Section 402.316(1), Florida Statutes, which provides: The provisions of ss. 402.301-402.319, except for the requirements regarding screening of child care personnel, shall not apply to a child care facility which is an integral part of church or parochial schools conducting regularly scheduled classes, courses of study, or education programs accredited by, or by a member of, an organization which publishes and requires compliance with its standards for health, safety, and sanitation. However, such facilities shall meet minimum requirements of the applicable local governing body as to health, sanitation, and safety and shall meet the screening requirements pursuant to ss. 402.305 and 402.3055. Failure by a facility to comply with such screening requirements shall result in the loss of the facility's exemption from licensure. Petitioner Florida Association of Academic Nonpublic Schools (hereinafter "FAANS") is comprised of approximately 25 associations of schools. Additionally, archdioceses, which are separate corporate entities, and which own and operate schools, are direct members as are county organizations and the Florida Catholic Conference. The organization itself represents nonpublic schools in the state of Florida before state agencies, including the Legislature which it actively lobbies. It has a direct relationship as a state representative, one of only five in the country, with the United States Department of Education. It is involved in accreditation and has a code of ethics with which all schools (both direct members and indirect members) must comply. FAANS presently represents 943 schools with approximately 230,000 students, out of the approximate 1,750 nonpublic schools in the state of Florida. A majority of the schools represented by FAANS operate educational programs for children under 5 years of age. For the most part, these school programs are not licensed as child care facilities although some of the schools have licensed their programs under duress rather than have their programs closed by the child care facility licensing agencies. All of the nonpublic schools represented by FAANS comply with the Florida Department of Education requirement that they annually submit statistical information including the number of students and faculty in their prekindergarten programs for the Department of Education's Nonpublic School Data Base. Petitioner Jacksonville Country Day School presented no evidence in this proceeding. Petitioner The Cushman School is a nonpublic school in Miami, Florida, and is an indirect member of FAANS. It has been in operation for 62 years and has operated educational programs for children under 5 since it was founded. It begins enrolling students at the age of 3 years (and on rare occasion 2 years) and offers education through grade 6. It is not presently licensed as a child care facility. Under the proposed rule as published in the June 6, 1986, Florida Administrative Weekly, The Cushman School would be required to obtain a child care facility license, the economic impact of which would be significant. First, it would lose its exemption from property taxes as an educational institution at a speculated cost of approximately $10,000. Structural modifications would need to be made to the school for bathing and sleeping facilities. Additional requirements, such as fencing and child-staff ratios, would come into play imposing more costs on the school. The Cushman School possesses historic site status which means even minor repairs, let alone structural modifications, have extensive restrictions imposed as to how they can be done and the materials that can be used. The end result is that if the proposed rule goes into effect, The Cushman School will have to discontinue its educational programs for children under 5 years of age. The economic impact of compliance with child care facility licensing requirements by schools is not unique to The Cushman School. Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, requires each agency proposing or amending a rule to provide a detailed economic impact statement. The purpose of an economic impact statement is to promote informed decision-making by ensuring an accurate analysis of economic factors, and those factors an agency must consider are clearly specified. An agency must also consider the impact of a proposed rule on small businesses as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. There are nonpublic schools throughout Florida which fit the statutory definition of small business. It is clear from the economic impact statement for proposed rule 10M-12.001 that HRS did not consider the impact of the rule on small business nonpublic schools. Also to be considered is the cost to an agency of implementing the rule. According to HRS' impact statement, actual implementation statewide will only cost $31. There is no consideration of additional staff time and paperwork to process applications, issue additional licenses, or conduct additional inspections. There is no comment in the economic impact statement of the impact on competition and the open market for employment, or any indication that such an analysis is inapplicable; rather, the agency's estimate of effect on competition speaks to potential cost savings from deregulation of before and after school care programs. Similarly, the required analysis of the costs or economic benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule speaks in terms of deregulation and substantial savings and is, accordingly, deceptive. An agency is also required to provide a detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the estimates required in the economic impact statement. The only detailed statement in HRS' economic impact statement refers to the costs of printing and mailing, publication of the proposed rule in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and conducting a public hearing on the proposed rule. There is no hint of the data and method used, if any, in reaching other conclusions contained within the economic impact statement. The economic impact statement accompanying proposed rule 10M-12.001 is inadequate. Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, further requires that an agency proposing a rule give notice of its intended action and the specific legal authority under which its adoption is authorized. As set forth above, the rule proposed by HRS does not reflect its intended action since the rule purports to apply to both public and nonpublic schools and HRS intends to further amend the rule so as to exclude its application to public schools and its application to religious nonpublic schools. As to the specific legal authority under which the proposed rule is authorized, HRS cites, at the end of the proposed rule, as its rulemaking authority Section 402.301, Florida Statutes. That section is entitled "Child care facilities; legislative intent and declaration of purpose and policy". Nowhere in that legislative intent section is HRS authorized to promulgate rules. The proposed rule thus fails to fulfill that requirement.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Bay County School Board (School Board), had just cause under Subsection 1012.67, Florida Statutes (2008), to terminate the employment of Respondent, Thomas Walker, because of his absence without leave.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed under a Professional Services Contract and teaches at Bozeman School in Bay County. Respondent, without approval or notice to the administrator or staff of Bozeman School, failed to appear for his teaching assignment in the latter part of November 2008. After repeated attempts to reach Respondent, Dr. Tommye Lou Richardson, Director of Human Resources for Bay District Schools, ascertained that Respondent was incarcerated in the Coffee County Jail in New Brockton, Alabama, for his failure to pay child support. Respondent's absence was willful and without approved leave.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent and finding that he has forfeited any compensation since January 14, 2009, the date of his suspension without pay by the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy Duncan & Jackson Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 32402-1579 J. E. Sawyer, Esquire 203 South Edward Street Enterprise, Alabama 36330 Thomas Walker 26802 Highway 69A, North Altha, Florida 32421 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 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 William V. Husfelt, Superintendent Bay County School Board 1311 Balboa Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401-2080
