The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated, as recommended by the then-Interim Superintendent of Schools, and, if not, whether Respondent (who has been suspended without pay pending the outcome of this dismissal proceeding) should be reinstated with "back salary."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the stipulations of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida, including Plantation Middle School (Plantation). Jean Jones is now, and has been since the beginning of the 1998-99 school year, the principal of Plantation. The 1998- 99 school year was her first as a principal of any school. She had served as an assistant principal for seven years before becoming Plantation's principal. Thomas Fegers is now, and has been since 1993, an assistant principal at Plantation. Milton Roseburr is now, and has been since August of 1995, an assistant principal at Plantation. At all times material to the instant case, Carol Mendelson has been an assistant principal at Plantation. Respondent is a veteran educator. He has been teaching since 1964. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher since 1975. He holds a continuing contract of employment, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Teacher agrees to teach the full period of service for which this contract is made, in no event be absent from duty without leave or to leave his position without first being released from this contract by the School Board, to observe and to enforce faithfully the laws, rules regulations, and policies lawfully prescribed by legally constituted school authorities insofar as such laws, rules, regulations, and policies are applicable to the position held by him. The Teacher agrees that the last salary payment in each academic year may be withheld upon proper notice to the Teacher as to the reasons for said withholding if all duties have not been performed as required by law and regulations of the School Board and the State Board of Education. The services to be performed hereunder shall begin on the beginning date shown above [August 23, 1978] and thereafter as determined by the School Board and are to be performed in the position and school as assigned from time to time by the said School Board. . . . 8. This continuing contract of employment shall remain in full force and effect from year to year, subject to all the provisions herein set forth, unless modified by mutual consent in writing by the Parties hereto, except the teacher may be suspended or removed for cause as provided by law. The Teacher agrees that he may not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Teacher be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. This contract may also be terminated by the written resignation of the Teacher submitted not later than four (4) weeks before the close of the post-school conference period, to take effect at the end of the school year. Such resignation shall be submitted in substantially the form hereto attached described as Exhibit A, and by reference made a part hereof. . . . Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions hereof, unless prevented from so doing by reason of personal illness of the Teacher or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice and, if timely requested by the Teacher, hearing. The contract shall at all times be subject to any and all laws and all lawful rules and regulations, and policies of the State Board of Education and the School Board now existing or hereafter enacted. . . . 14. This contract may be changed or modified only by an amendment in writing executed in the same fashion as the original or by a collective bargaining agreement ratified by the School Board and bargaining agent. No person, officer or employee may modify the provisions of this agreement or make any other contract with the Teacher for and on behalf of the School Board without expressed ratification by the School Board. Provided, however, in accordance with paragraph two hereof both parties agree that this contract shall be modified by the adoption of a subsequent salary schedule as provided in paragraph two and that adoption of such amended salary schedule by the School Board shall constitute expressed ratification. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a classroom teacher at Plantation. For the three school years immediately preceding Ms. Jones' arrival at Plantation (the 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 school years), Respondent was supervised and evaluated by Mr. Roseburr. During this period of time, Respondent had an extremely difficult and challenging teaching assignment. He taught a "self-contained" class of sixth, seventh, and eight grade "drop out prevention" students. "Drop out prevention" students generally struggle academically, lack motivation and focus, have short attention spans, are easily distracted, come to class ill-prepared, do not complete all of their classwork, and are unruly and disruptive in class. Respondent and these "problem" students remained together in the same classroom the majority of the school day, with Respondent providing the students with instruction in all of their academic subjects. Because conventional teaching and behavior management methods did not always work with these students, Respondent needed to be creative and innovative to effectively discharge his classroom duties. Mr. Roseburr was in Respondent's classroom on a daily basis during the three-year period he supervised Respondent. Impressed with Respondent's performance and his "unique knack of knowing what to say and how to say it to students that are difficult," Mr. Roseburr gave Respondent satisfactory evaluations each of the three school years Respondent was under his supervision. The first quarter of the 1998-99 school year, Respondent had the same teaching assignment he had had the previous three school years, notwithstanding his expressed desire to have his assignment changed. In or around September of 1998, Respondent spoke with Ms. Jones about the possibility of having a parent volunteer (Sybil Moton) assist him in the classroom. Shortly after his discussion with Ms. Jones, Respondent sent her the following letter, dated September 14, 1998: I have been assigned to teach 6th, 7th & 8th grade self-contained D.O.P. for several years. I have been doing this at a great disadvantage. There are many Teachers, Team Leader and Department Heads, at this school who would not accept this assignment or be successful with it. I have accepted this assignment and I'm ready to do the best job I can under the circumstances. I have to plan for three grade levels, while other teachers only plan for one. I have to prepare for five subjects, while other teachers only prepare for one. I have five subject area meetings to attend, while other teachers only have one. I have not read any research that support[s] the notion that a teacher, who has as many duties and responsibilities as have been placed upon me, will be more successful or as successful as a teacher, who teaches one subject area or one grade level. Does the research indicate that children placed in this kind of class situation, will be more successful than in the traditional class situation? Is it possible that the children might be at a disadvantage? Each of the previous times when I requested an assistant, I was denied. It was all about money. Now when I ask a parent to help "FOR FREE," I'm told, "I don't think I'll be able to approve Ms. Moton as a parent volunteer." All I'm saying is that, now that I have been loaded down with all of the above, where is the help that goes with it? As of now, I feel that I have been placed in a situation that is headed for failure, and that's not me. I want to be successful at whatever I do, that's why I keep asking for help. These children need so much help, and I want to help them very badly. My difficulty comes from the situation I've been placed in, more so tha[n] the children I work with. After receiving the letter, Ms. Jones circled the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the letter, and, on the upper right hand corner of the letter, wrote the following concerning the representation made by Respondent in this sentence: This is blatantly untrue. If you quote people, make sure you quote them correctly. See me please. She then returned the letter (with her handwritten notations on it) to Respondent. Respondent thereafter, as directed, met with Ms. Jones, who cautioned him that he could not "just . . . go out and recruit parents to work in [his] classroom and not have them approved by the School Board." Mr. Roseburr, although he remained an assistant principal at Plantation, did not supervise Respondent during the 1998-99 school year. Respondent's new supervisor was another assistant principal at the school, Carol Mendelson. On October 7, 1998, Ms. Mendelson conducted a classroom observation of Respondent. Following the observation, she sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated October 12, 1998: OBSERVATIONS During my observation of your class, you were introducing personal narratives to your students. You explained the concept of the first draft and the idea that students would choose their own topic for this assignment. Students were walking around the classroom, talking, drawing, had heads down on the desk without consequences from you. A review of your planbook indicates that plans for the day do not coincide with the lesson being taught by you. SUGGESTIONS Please consider the following recommendations to better assist the students: Setting clear, precise, classroom management rules that are reviewed daily with students will help enforce the rules. Consequences must be fair and consistent. Students were walking around the classroom, talking, drawing, had heads down without consequences from you. It is imperative that you establish and implement specific behavioral and procedural expectations, rules, and consequences in order to stop inappropriate behavior before it becomes more serious. Develop plans which match the curriculum you are addressing on each given day. Please make sure that your grade/planbook is in compliance with School Board policy and includes grades, entry dates, transfer dates, absences, interim grades, ESOL strategies, Standards of Service, and all mandated, pertinent information. Please meet me on Monday, October 22 during your planning period with your grade/planbook up- to-date with the abovementioned information. At the end of the first quarter of the 1998-99 school year, in approximately the first week of November of 1998, Respondent was given a new teaching assignment at Plantation, as well as a new classroom (an uncarpeted portable, smaller than his old classroom). He was assigned to a team consisting of four teachers (including himself) responsible for teaching approximately 120 students divided into four separate groups (Groups A through D), one of which (Group D) contained the students who had been in the "self-contained" class of "drop out prevention" students that Respondent had taught during the first quarter of the school year. Although only one of the four groups had students who were in the school's "drop out prevention" program, many of the students in the other three groups were as difficult for the teachers on the team to deal with as were the "drop out prevention" students. Respondent was the team's math and advanced communication skills teacher. The leader of Respondent's team was Ronald Jackson, the team's social studies teacher. Like Respondent, Mr. Jackson joined the team in November of the school year. In addition to Respondent and Mr. Jackson, there was also a language arts teacher, as well as a science teacher, on the team. On November 19, 1998, shortly after he had undertaken his new assignment, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Ms. Jones. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum describing what she had observed during the observation: This letter is being written to inform you that on this date, I came to your classroom on two different occasions and found the following: Students not on task (talking, 1/ no materials) Students out of their seats and/or being permitted to sit wherever they wished with no management from you and no consequences for non-compliance. 2/ Your plan book was not updated by November 13 as requested. You have been asked to rectify this situation by Friday, November 20. Your plan book reflected no attendance or grades for students. 3/ Your lesson plans are not written appropriately, do not reflect the Sunshine State Standards, and do not reflect acceptable practice for lesson plans as discussed with all teachers during the pre- planning days. Your back is turned to students during your lesson 4/ and you are not aware or monitoring what is happening in your classroom while you are instructing. There is very little instructional organization and no classroom participation from the students. There is no indication that you are doing the daily FCAT warm-ups required for all math students in the school. There is no FCAT folder required for each student to use on a daily basis. Ms. Jones again observed Respondent in the classroom on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, during first period. Respondent had been off from work the previous five days (Thursday, November 27, 1998, Thanksgiving Day, through Monday, November 30, 1998). Upon his arrival at school that morning, before entering his classroom, he was called into an unscheduled student services meeting. Because of the length of the meeting, he arrived at his classroom a "couple [of] minutes" after the first period bell had rung. When he opened the classroom door, he noticed that "the fire extinguisher had been sprayed all over the room." With the students' assistance, he cleaned up as best he could and then started his lesson. When Ms. Jones entered the room, Respondent was in the back of the room taking attendance. The students were "out of control." They had no books and there was no assignment on the blackboard. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated December 1, 1998, describing what she had observed during the observation: On this date I visited you classroom and observed the following: It was 9:00 a.m. and the students were totally out of control. There was no assignment on the board, students had no books. You were in the back of the room finishing your attendance, oblivious to what was going on around you. There were absolutely no reprimands from you for their behavior. In fact, it was I who had to quiet the class down. The class was so loud and unruly, that you did not even hear Ms. Milligan call you over the loudspeaker. I also had to inform you that someone was calling you over the public address system. Although your plan book appears to be updated, you were not following the plans as outlined. In fact, no FCAT warm up was on the board, no books were in use and absolutely nothing in terms of teaching and learning was occurring. This was one half hour after class had started. After I quieted the class down, you proceeded to give out paperwork to students apparently to review it. You handed out papers one by one to students who began to be unruly again. At 10:00 a.m. I visited your classroom again, because I wanted to speak with Mr. Roseburr who was outside your door. However, when I went inside the classroom, there was still no work on the board for students, although books were on the desks. Students were talking and looking around and not on task because there was no task to be on. When I questioned what the students were doing, you explained that you had papers to return and that you[] were going to review their work. Once again, you passed out papers one by one, taking away from instructional time and giving students opportunity to misbehave. 5/ It is apparent to me that there is a lack of classroom management in terms of student behavior, and a greater lack of lesson management since there are no clear expectations for students and no method for simple housekeeping chores as attendance and returning papers. You are oblivious to their behavior 6/ and provide no consequences. Most obvious, is the lack of meaningful work for students. There was none provided. Given those circumstances, students will find an easy opportunity to misbehave. Should these conditions, including delivering lessons as outlined in your plan book, not improve immediately, you will be placed in documentation for unsatisfactory performance. On December 7, 1998, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated December 16, 1998, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: On Monday, December 7, 1998 I observed you teaching your class from 9:15-9:45 A. M. Based upon my observation the following are suggestions/comments for your consideration. I found the classroom to be orderly; however, your students were talking loudly as you attempted to teach by talking louder. The class continued talking out loud with no consequence or redirection by you. While the entire class was being disruptive you gave one check to a student for talking, even though the entire class was talking. Never once did you get the class under control and, for some unknown reasons, you continued talking with no one listening. Please be advised that this is unacceptable. It does not make sense to try to shout louder than your class. You must first bring the class under control by confronting the misbehavior. This did not occur. Your attendance was neatly done, listing tardies and absences. Grades were virtually non-existent, and the few that were there did not have names to identify who they belong to. Grades must be clearly recorded next to the appropriate student's name. 7/ Lesson plans from 11/9/98-11/30/98 were incomplete. There were no warm up activities. Additionally, you identified the 504 student's strategies as they were to "do 1/2 of the assignment." The strategies need to be based on the student's needs as they related[] to the written 504 plan. 8/ ESOL strategies written were, "Students may sign out a book if requested." This is unacceptable. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. On December 17, 1998, Respondent received a memorandum from Ms. Jones notifying him that his "performance [was] unsatisfactory and that [he was being] placed in the Documentation process of the IPAS System effective December 17, 1998." In the memorandum, Ms. Jones explained that she was "moving [Respondent] from Development to Documentation" because of her "concern" regarding his performance in the areas of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management." The memorandum further advised Respondent that "the 1997 Florida Legislature [had] amended Florida Statu[t]e 231.29 [to] state[] that the School District shall place a teacher on performance probation for 90 calendar days from the receipt of this notice of unsatisfactory performance." Respondent signed the memorandum and dated it (December 17, 1998), acknowledging his receipt of the document. "IPAS" is the acronym for the School Board's "Instructional Personnel Assessment System." Under "IPAS," "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" are three of the ten "performance areas" in which instructional personnel are evaluated. The other seven are "instructional planning," "lesson management," "student performance evaluation," "communication," "records management," "subject matter knowledge," and "professional competencies." 9/ Ratings of either "S" (satisfactory), "N" (needs improvement), or "U" (unsatisfactory) are given in each "performance area." With input from Respondent and Gary Itzkowitz, a Broward Teachers Union field staff representative, Ms. Jones, Mr. Fegers, and Dr. Cathy Kirk, the School Board's coordinator of teacher evaluation, developed Performance Development Plans for Respondent in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "behavior management," and "classroom management." Each plan was dated January 7, 1999, and indicated that Mr. Fegers would be the "assessor" and that the "follow- up/review date" was March 5, 1999. The "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to create interest through the use of materials and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and backgrounds of students (6B-5.004). Fails to use different types of questions to obtain desired learner responses. Fails to ask questions which are clear and requires students to reflect before responding. Fails to circulate about the room as students engage in seatwork and assist students as needed. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Ms. Greifinger [the chairperson of Plantation's math department] will meet and discuss various motivational teaching techniques such as (a) Use of visual aids, manipulatives, and critical thinking activities, etc. by January 14, 1999. Ms. Cranshaw will assist with scripting questions related to the content during lesson planning 2-3 weeks in a row by January 29, 1999. Mr. Jones will observe Ms. Greifinger focusing on questioning techniques and follow-up by discussing implementation in classroom during his planning time by January 22, 1999. Mr. Jones will read the FPMS Domain document (domain 3) on circulating and assisting and discuss with Mr. Fegers. Follow-up assistance will be provided by Mr. Fegers and/or Mrs. Jones via observation and follow-up conferencing. Expected Outcomes and Timeline Teacher Will: Create interest through use of material and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and backgrounds of students (6B- 5.004) by April 13, 1999. Use different types of questions to obtain desired learner responses by April 13, 1999. Ask questions which are clear and require students to reflect before responding by April 13, 1999. Circulate about the room as students engage in seatwork and assist students as needed by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "behavior management" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by: Establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. Formulating appropriate standards for student behavior. Identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction (6B-5.007). -Fails to demonstrate an awareness of what all students are doing. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Mr. Jones will observe Ms. Greifinger's class to witness her technique in behavior management. Discussion to follow by January 21, 1999. Mr. Jones will observe Mr. Lyons' class to witness his techniques in behavior management by January 28, 1999. Discussion with Mr. Fegers and Mr. Lyons to follow. Mr. Jones will observe Mr. Watkins' class to witness his techniques in behavior management by January 28, 1999. Mr. Jones will receive assistance from Ms. Mendelson, Mr. Fegers, Mr. Roseburr and selected teacher(s) to develop a behavior management plan including rules, rewards and including consequences by January 14, 1999. Mr. Jones will develop a phone log system which will indicate conversations, conferences with parents, specific student infractions, and disposition of all of the above with the assistance of Ms. Mendelson by January 21, 1999. Mr. Fegers will observe classroom to help identify inappropriate behaviors and follow-up with discussion to include appropriate ways to desist inappropriate behavior by January 28, 1999. Expected Outcomes and Timeline Maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice. Establish routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students by April 13, 1999. Formulate appropriate standards for student behavior by April 13, 1999. Identify inappropriate behavior and employ appropriate techniques for correction (6B-5.007) by April 13, 1999. Demonstrate an awareness of what all students are doing by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "classroom management" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to create and maintain an organized and pleasant working environment in the classroom. Fails to encourage students to participate and contribute to class activities. Fails to establish an environment conducive to positive peer interaction. Fails to identify individual social, emotional and/or physical needs that might affect school success. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Mr. Watkins will assist in the setting-up and organizing of the classroom to include aesthetically appealing academic and social environment by January 14, 1999. Ms. Greifinger will discuss different student activities that will foster participation and interaction 2-3 times by February 11, 1999. Should a 504 student be assigned to your team, Ms. Hogan will review 504 plans and discuss ways to modify curriculum and implement in classroom (Date to be determined). Expected Outcomes and Timeline Create and maintain an organized and pleasant working environment in the classroom by April 13, 1999. Encourage students to participate and contribute to class activities by April 13, 1999. Establish an environment conducive to positive peer interaction by April 13, 1999. Identify individual social, emotional and/or physical needs that might affect school success by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "[s]trategies" set forth in the Performance Development Plans were reasonably designed to enable Respondent to improve his performance in the areas of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management." These "[s]trategies" were implemented. Those at the school asked to assist Respondent provided him the requested assistance (with Respondent's cooperation). 10/ On January 27, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. On February 1, 1999, Mr. Fegers and Ms. Jones met with Respondent to discuss Mr. Feger's January 27, 1999, observation. In addition, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 9, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: This is a follow up to our conference on Monday, February 1, 1999. On Monday, February 1, 1999, we met to discuss my observation of your teaching that occurred on Thursday, January 27, 1999 from 1:38-2:13 P.M. Ms. Jeanie Jones, our Principal, was also present at the follow up conference. Based on my observation we discussed the following suggestions/comments for your consideration: All students were seated when I arrived. Your rules were not posted. 11/ You were working on F-CAT testing exercises. At 1:55 A.M. I observed eight students not doing any work. I stated my concerns that the students should not be given 30 minutes to do an assignment without you following up to see if they are on task. I recommend that additional assignments be given so that students do not sit and do nothing. The class is becoming increasingly noisy with no redirection from you. This is unacceptable. Finally, you stated to the class, "Alright people listen up!" Nothing followed that comment so the class continued talking. The talking continued because of down time, with students having nothing to do. You then started passing out papers one- by-one to students randomly which took a great deal of time. By this time most of the class was off task. This is unacceptable. Varied instructional activities as well as pacing of assignments would eliminate the majority of the misbehavior. This did not occur. We agreed that I would come back this week for another observation. Mr. Fegers next observed Respondent in the classroom on February 5, 1999. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 9, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during his February 5, 1999, observation: On Friday, February 5, 1999, I observed you teaching your class from 8:50-9:20 A.M. Based on my observation are the following suggestions/comments for your consideration. I found the classroom to be orderly with all students seated at t[]he beginning of my observation. You reviewed the rules and expectations with your class. Your rules were also posted. One student was seated with a washcloth on top of his head. He was not asked to remove it. This is unacceptable and you will need to redirect inappropriate behavior that does not follow the code of conduct. I observed you passing out six writing assignments to students for talking. I observed you circulating and assisting students on division, simplifying fractions and multiplication. I observed you redirecting inappropriate behavior back to the assignment. Some students were requesting pencils at 9:15. Please make sure all students have something to write with at the beginning of the class. This should also be part of your discipline plan, that students come to class with paper and pencil prepared to work. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Respondent provided Mr. Fegers with the following written response to Mr. Feger's memorandum concerning the February 5, 1999, observation: #1. Thanks for the positive observation. #2. Yes this is true. I will follow your suggestion. #3. Thanks for the positive observation. #4. Thanks for the positive observation. #5. I have tried your suggestion, it doesn't work. They don't care and they don't want to work. That's why they don't come prepared. On February 17, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Ms. Jones. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 17, 1999, regarding her "observation [of] February 17, 1999." It read as follows: On this date I observed your C group in a math class. You were teaching least common denominators for fractions and had several examples on the board. Students came into the room noisily and it took about 7 minutes to get them quieted down and settled for work. You reminded them of the behavior rules. Some students were unprepared for work and had no notebook paper or pencils. Although there were stated consequences for students who misbehaved, there were no consequences for unprepared students. At the beginning of the lesson, you had a student hand out SAT review packets to each student and told them it was due on Friday and that the packet would be their homework for the next two days. You said that anybody could help them with the answers. I am questioning why you would give such a large body of work to these students and then ask them to complete it on their own. These students would benefit far better from you working out each problem with them, and/or allowing them to work in cooperative groups on a small number of problems at a time. This assignment is a concern to me, because I feel that it is a frustrating assignment to these students. Additionally, and most importantly, this is review for the SAT and they need your direct instruction and supervision. They will give up on this assignment because it is too much for them to "bite off" at one time. Students need to be taught to their instructional level, not their frustration level. Again, I feel that teacher directed instruction and cooperative learning activities would be more successful with these students, especially for the SAT review which is critical. I did not feel the answers to the examples should have already been up on the board; however, you did go over each problem thoroughly and had the students figure out how you arrived at the answer. You stopped disruptive behavior and gave two writing assignments out to disruptive students. You helped them learn how to use their calculators properly. You got students to raise their hands for answers and had students contributing to the lesson. You told the students you were going to give them examples of similar math problems to work out themselves, but the four problems you gave them were not exactly the same as the examples i.e., you did not provide a problem with mixed numbers. I see that you are making an effort to work with your students and that you are preparing lessons for them. Your classroom discipline appears to be improving, but still needs some work as students are still coming unprepared for classwork. Please continue to pay attention to the needs of your students, particularly when it comes to assignments that you request they do on their own. On March 3, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated March 5, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: On Wednesday, March 3, 1999, I observed you teaching your class from 1:35-2:05 P.M. Based on my observation the following are suggestions/comments for your consideration: The students were extremely noisy. You were seated on a stool in the front corner of the room. 12/ You were not redirecting student misbehavior. No attempt to stop the misbehavior occurred. I did not observe you reviewing the rules and expectations that students were to follow. I strongly recommend that you follow the discipline plan as [you] indicated you would. You had three math problems on the overhead for students to do. One of which was the following, "5 is what % of 20?" The students were confused with not only this problem but also the other two. You went over the problem, but not step by step so that the students could follow along. They were confused. It would have been much more beneficial if the exercise or problems were broken down into simpler forms so that your class could understand. You did not take into consideration the appropriate levels or activities of classwork that meet the students' needs. Also the directions should have been clear, brief, and explicit for student understanding. This did not occur. 13/ Two students were reading a magazine, 14/ five were sleeping (literally), right under your nose, one was working with your attendance sheet while class was supposedly going on. This is unacceptable and you will need to redirect inappropriate behavior that does not follow the code of conduct. Additionally, I question why a student was working with a confidential document. 15/ I observed an atmosphere of animosity within the class, as evidenced by your voice inflection and you telling several students to shut up. You also asked me to speak to a student who you claimed had a beeper. I removed the student after the observation was finished and escorted him to the office. The student did not have a beeper. You accused the wrong student. You had claimed that the beeper went off in class, which it may have, but it was not the fault of the young man you requested I remove. Based on the observation done to date your performance in the areas identified in your Performance Development Plan are unsatisfactory. Ms. Jones, on March 5, 1999, filled out an "IPAS" evaluation form rating Respondent "unsatisfactory" in "overall performance" and in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" and rating him "satisfactory" in the remaining seven "performance areas." That same day, she and Mr. Fegers met with Respondent and Mr. Itzkowitz to discuss this "mid-point evaluation," which Ms. Jones showed to Respondent during the meeting. Respondent was advised that he ”needed to utilize appropriate instructional techniques to engage his students, encourage his students to participate and contribute to class activities, demonstrate an awareness of what his students are doing and stop all inappropriate behavior before it spreads or becomes more serious." In addition, he was reminded that "the 90th day [of his probationary period] was April 13 per Florida Statutes 231.29 and the documentation process of the IPAS system." Pursuant to a request made by Mr. Itzkowitz, on Respondent's behalf, at the "mid point evaluation" meeting, the following additional "strategy" was added, effective March 5, 1999, to the "Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance" portion of the "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan: Mr. Fegers, Ms. Greifinger and Mr. Jones will meet to plan a lesson, modeled by Ms. Greifinger and implemented by Jones & observed by Fegers by 3/17/99. On or about March 17, 1999, in accordance with the "model[ing]" requirement added to the "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan, Ms. Greifinger, in Respondent's presence, taught a lesson to Respondent's students. Mr. Fegers was present for approximately five to ten minutes of the lesson. During the lesson the students behaved, by and large, as they did when Respondent was teaching them. There were students off task and walking around the classroom to whom Ms. Greifinger "had to speak." Respondent noticed that there was one student who had his head on the desk and was listening to a Sony Walkman. Ms. Greifinger said nothing to this student. Mr. Fegers was supposed to observe Respondent teach the lesson that Ms. Greifinger had "modeled." He had initially planned to conduct such an observation the week before spring break, but upon reconsideration (without consulting with Respondent or Mr. Itzkowitz) he determined that, in fairness to Respondent, such an observation should be conducted after spring break. The last school day before spring break was March 26, 1999. Respondent worked that day. It was the last day he reported to work. Sometime after the beginning of spring break, Respondent determined that, because of job-related stress and anxiety (resulting, in part, from his belief that he was being treated unfairly by school administrators), he was not able to perform his assigned duties at Plantation. Accordingly, he did not return to work on April 5, 1999, after the end of spring break, and he remained out of work thereafter. In accordance with School Board policy, each week that he was out (prior to the initiation of disciplinary action against him), he provided advance notice that he would be absent by telephoning "sub- central" and advising of his anticipated absence and the resultant need for the School Board to hire a substitute teacher to teach his classes. On occasion, Respondent also telephoned Ms. Jones' secretary (at the secretary's home) to let the secretary know that he would be absent. Respondent, however, did not initiate any direct contact with Ms. Jones. On or about April 12, 1999, Ms. Jones sent to Respondent, by certified mail, a letter, which read as follows: Please be informed that your 90th day according to Florida Statute 231.29 and as indicated on your Performance Development Plan is April 13. Due to your absenteeism, we were unable to meet for a final evaluation. We will meet in my office on Monday, April 19 at 12:15 P.M. Please call this office as soon as possible to inform us if you will be attending this meeting. Respondent neither telephoned Ms. Jones, nor attended a meeting with her on April 19, 1999. On that date (April 19, 1999), Ms. Jones filled out an "IPAS" evaluation form rating Respondent "unsatisfactory" in "overall performance" and in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" and rating him "satisfactory" in the remaining seven "performance areas." In Ms. Jones' view, although at certain times during the probationary period Respondent had shown some improvement in his performance, "[t]here was nothing [in the way of improvement] on a consistent basis." At no time, however, did Ms. Jones believe that Respondent's performance was so deficient as to warrant his immediate removal from the classroom. Although Mr. Roseburr was not charged with the responsibility of supervising Respondent, he did have occasion to go to Respondent's classroom and see Respondent interact with his students. During these visits, it appeared to Mr. Roseburr that Respondent was discharging his teaching duties in the same satisfactory manner he had during the three previous school years. Respondent was "always in control and working with the students." Mr. Jackson, the leader of Respondent's team, also had a favorable view of Respondent's performance during the 1998-99 school year. According to Mr. Jackson, Respondent "always showed professionalism, spoke to the students in a positive light, . . . [and] would go out of his way to try to get them interested to do their work," employing "[v]ery creative" tactics to accomplish his objective. Another teacher at the school who had the opportunity to see Respondent perform in the classroom during the 1998-99 school year was Claire Peterson. Ms. Peterson provided special instruction to low performing students in the school's "pull out" program. She had occasion to visit Respondent's classroom about every other day to "pull out" students in the program. During these visits, she noted that Respondent's students "seemed to be on task" and "doing what he asked of them," for the most part, and that "education was taking place." 16/ She thought that Respondent was doing a "great job." On or about April 19, 1999, Ms. Jones began her efforts to make telephone contact with Respondent. Her efforts were unsuccessful. She left messages on Respondent's answering machine asking that he inform her when he intended to return to work. Respondent did not return Ms. Jones' telephone calls. By memorandum dated April 22, 1999, Ms. Jones recommended to Dr. Dorothy Or, the then-Interim Superintendent of Schools, that Respondent's employment be terminated. The memorandum read as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.29, I am writing to inform you that Eugene Jones, teacher, has completed his 90 calendar day performance probation and has failed to correct his performance deficiencies. I do not believe that Mr. Jones can correct said deficiencies and his employment should be immediately terminated. I have complied with all applicable provisions of Florida Statutes 231.29 and have appropriate documentation (see attached). Please inform me of your final decision in this matter. By letter dated April 30, 1999, Ms. Orr advised Respondent that she was recommending that the School Board formally suspend him, without pay, from his teaching position for "unsatisfactory job performance." On or about May 3, 1999, Mr. Itzkowitz, on behalf of Respondent, sent Ms. Jones the following letter: I have recently spoken with Eugene Jones. As you are aware, Mr. Jones has been ill and is currently under a doctor's care. He has informed me that you have tried to contact him by mail but that he is not in receipt of said correspondences. As a result, on behalf of Mr. Jones I request copies of any letters sent to him by your office in the past ninety days. Upon receipt, I shall forward them to Mr. Jones. Additionally, I request that a meeting be scheduled for the purpose of discussing Mr. Jones' annual assessment for the current school year. Both Mr. Jones and I would like to meet with you. I look forward to hearing from you on each of these matters. The meeting that Mr. Itzkowitz had requested in his May 3, 1999, letter was held in "the middle of May." At the meeting, Ms. Jones did not ask any questions regarding Respondent's absence from school. After seeing a physician about the stress and anxiety he was experiencing, Respondent applied for social security and long-term disability benefits. In applying for long-term disability benefits, Respondent submitted a completed Long Term Disability Claim Employee's Statement form, dated May 14, 1999, to the School Board's carrier, UNUM. The following are questions that were on the form concerning his "disability" and "the condition causing [his] disability" and the entries Respondent made in response to these questions: Why are you unable to work?-- c[h]ronic anxiety state/job stress. Does your current condition prevent you from caring for yourself?-- No. Before you stopped working, did your condition require you to change your job or the way you did your job?-- Yes. I could not perform my job d[ue] to my condition. Is your condition related to your occupation?-- Yes. Last day you worked before the disability-- 3-26-99 Did you work a full day?-- Yes. Date you were first unable to work?-- 4-5- 99. Have you returned to work?-- No. If you have not returned to work, do you expect to-- Yes, if I'm allowed, full time, (date) unknown. As part of the application process, Respondent also had his treating physician, Edwin Hamilton, M.D., complete and submit to UNUM a Long Term Disability Claim Physician's Statement. On the form, dated June 3, 1999, Dr. Hamilton stated, among other things, the following: Respondent's primary diagnosis was "chronic anxiety state"; Respondent's symptoms were "inability to sleep, stress, [and] nervousness"; Respondent's symptoms had first appeared "prior to 4/99"; Respondent had first been unable to work "prior to 4/99"; Respondent's first visit to his office had been April 1, 1999, and his last visit had been April 20, 1999; Respondent's condition was work related 17/ ; Respondent had been referred to a medical social worker and advised to see a psychiatrist 18/ ; Respondent should not and could not "work in the present school classroom environment"; Respondent's prognosis was "guarded at this point"; Respondent had not "achieved maximum medical improvement"; he "expect[ed] fundamental changes in [Respondent's] medical condition" in "more than 6 months"; Respondent "should remain out of the school classroom environment for the time being"; and Respondent "may be able to improve on medical/psychiatric consults." By letter to Ms. Orr, dated May 17, 1999, Mr. Itzkowitz "request[ed] a formal 120 hearing on [Respondent's] behalf." On May 18, 1999, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent, without pay, pending the outcome of the "formal 120 hearing" Respondent had requested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order immediately reinstating Respondent and paying him his "back salary." DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of April, 2001.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether just cause exists for the termination of Respondent Dale W. Reichard's (Respondent) employment under a professional services contract with Petitioner Seminole County School Board (Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact Dr. Vogel is the district school superintendent of the School District of Seminole County, Florida. Prior to his current employment, he was employed as the district superintendent in St. Lucie County, Florida for six and one-half years. Prior to his employment by the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida, he was employed as assistant superintendent for personnel and administrative services by the School Board of Osceola County, Florida, for 17 years. The Respondent is employed by the Petitioner at Oviedo High School on a professional service contract, pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 1012.33(3), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is employed as "instructional personnel," as defined by Subsection 1012.01(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The employment relationship between the Respondent and the Petitioner is established pursuant to the state law of Florida and the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Education Association, Inc., and the Petitioner. The Respondent's employment can be terminated for just cause only. The Respondent was arrested at Oviedo High School on May 9, 2007, on a felony warrant issued by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, for the offense of possession of cocaine. The Respondent's arrest resulted from a May 2, 2007, visit to the Respondent's residence by undercover investigators employed by the Volusia County Sheriff's Department. The Respondent was cooperative with the investigators and readily admitted that he was in possession of cocaine and gave the cocaine to them. An ensuing search of the Respondent's residence resulted in the investigators finding approximately 12 grams of material which field-tested presumptive positive for cannabis. The Respondent was charged in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, with possession of cocaine under information 2007-01526CFA WS. Subsequent to the Respondent's arrest at Oviedo High School on May 9, 2007, Dr. Vogel, as district school superintendent, placed the Respondent on suspension with pay and recommended to the Petitioner that the Respondent be suspended without pay pending termination. By letter of May 10, 2007, Dr. Vogel advised the Respondent that he would recommend to the Petitioner that the Respondent be terminated for misconduct in office. Dr. Vogel's recommendation for suspension without pay and termination was based on information provided to him by Robert Lundquist (Mr. Lundquist), the principal of Oviedo High School, and John Reichert, who is the executive director for Human Resources. By Petition for Termination, filed with the DOAH, the Respondent was further charged with conduct unbecoming an employee of the Petitioner by reason of his possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Proceedings for termination were abated pending resolution of the criminal charges then pending in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida. The Respondent entered into a Substance Abuse Offender Referral Agreement with the Office of the State Attorney, Seventh Judicial Circuit, which provided that the criminal prosecution would be dismissed if the Respondent successfully complied with the terms and conditions therein prescribed. The Respondent successfully completed his obligations under the Substance Abuse Offender Referral Agreement, which included counseling and random drug testing. The criminal prosecution was dismissed via a nolle prosequi of the charge entered on August 3, 2007. Mr. Lundquist has been the principal of Oviedo High School commencing with the 1996-1997 school year. Mr. Lundquist is the administrative head of Oviedo High School. At the time of the incident herein described, the Respondent held the position of teacher of American Government and chairman of the Social Studies Department at Oviedo High School. In addition, the Respondent was the boys' volleyball coach. The Respondent was considered to be a good teacher by Mr. Lundquist. Three weeks prior to the Respondent's arrest, Mr. Lundquist had a conference with the Respondent in which Mr. Lundquist communicated that he had heard through the Seminole County Sheriff's Department that there was a possibility that the Respondent was involved in drug use. Mr. Lundquist advised the Respondent that, if the information Mr. Lundquist had received was correct, the Respondent should stop his drug use and get help. Later that same day, the Respondent contacted the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to set up an appointment. The original appointment was for May 2, 2007. However, the Respondent was contacted by EAP and informed that the appointment had been changed to May 3, 2007.1 Mr. Lundquist has received no negative communications or comments from teachers regarding the Respondent. Several teachers who were members of the Respondent's department, and several teachers that observed the Respondent's arrest, asked Mr. Lundquist about the matter.2 Several students also had questions about the matter of the Respondent's arrest. Mr. Lundquist did not respond to the students. Mr. Lundquist has received no communications, either written or oral, from parents regarding the matter. To Mr. Lundquist's knowledge no information about the matter was published in local papers or broadcast by local radio or television stations. Mr. Lundquist confirms that the Respondent's performance as department chair, classroom teacher, and boys' volleyball coach during Mr. Lundquist's tenure as principal of Oviedo High School has met all performance expectations of the Petitioner and that the Respondent has continuously met the assessment criteria as specified in Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, and as found in the official agreement between the Seminole Education Association, Inc., and the Petitioner. Mr. Lundquist believes that a teacher's role goes beyond what is taught in the classroom on a daily basis. Mr. Lundquist believes that a teacher has an obligation to his or her colleagues, students, students' parents, and the community to uphold moral standards. Mr. Lundquist believes that a teacher is expected by students and the community to be a person of integrity and to display good sound judgment and moral character, both in school and in their community. Mr. Lundquist's trust in the Respondent has been destroyed by the Respondent's use and possession of cocaine and marijuana. Mr. Lundquist believes that the Respondent's use and possession of controlled substances, cocaine and marijuana, constitutes a betrayal of the trust reposed in the Respondent by Mr. Lundquist regardless of the fact that the Respondent voluntarily admitted to law enforcement that he used and possessed cocaine and marijuana at the time of the consent search of his home. Mr. Lundquist believes that the Respondent's conduct would diminish his effectiveness in the classroom and that it would be an error in judgment to place him back in the classroom. Mr. Lundquist believes that he can no longer trust the Respondent to supervise students involved in an extracurricular activity, e.g., volleyball, especially in light of Mr. Lundquist's belief that the Respondent apparently ignored the "heads-up" that Mr. Lundquist gave him during their conversation about what Mr. Lundquist had heard from law enforcement about the Respondent's suspected drug use. Dr. Vogel is aware that the criminal charge against Respondent was dismissed upon the Respondent's completion of a pretrial diversion program. Dr. Vogel believes that the Respondent's effectiveness as a role model for students was destroyed by his admitted criminal conduct and that a teacher's behavior extends beyond the classroom and the teacher's school's campus. Dr. Vogel believes that he can no longer trust the Respondent to be in presence of students, either as a teacher or a coach, because he can no longer serve as an effective role model for students. Dr. Vogel's recommendation for suspension without pay and termination is solely based on the nature of the conduct, the Respondent's arrest for possession and use of cocaine. Dr. Vogel acknowledges that he has received no complaints regarding the Respondent from teachers, students, or parents; that he is aware of no publicity regarding the Respondent's arrest; and that he is aware that the Respondent's performance as a teacher and department chair was satisfactory. It is Dr. Vogel's professional belief that a teacher who possesses and uses cocaine can no longer serve as a positive role model for students and, thus, is no longer effective as a teacher. The Respondent was arrested along with a friend in 1981 for possession of marijuana. The Respondent participated in a pre-trial diversion type plan through the Orange County, Florida, court system, and the charge was ultimately dismissed upon his completion of the program. The Respondent did not acknowledge the 1981 arrest for marijuana on his application for employment with the Petitioner because he believed that the charge had been expunged or sealed.3 The Stipulation of Facts included expressions of support for the Respondent by various colleagues which are set forth verbatim as follows: Diana N. Cabana has been a teacher for 10 years, during which Dale Reichard was the Department Chair for Social Studies, and is aware of the reasons for Mr. Reichard’s termination. Ms. Cabana describes Mr. Reichard as a colleague and friend, who has also been an excellent mentor. In addition to being a colleague of Mr. Reichard, Ms. Cabana is the parent of two students taught by Mr. Reichard, and believes that he was instrumental in their development both as students, and as citizens active in the community. Ms. Cabana further describes Mr. Reichard as an excellent teacher, and stated her sincere hope that he would be allowed to complete his teaching career. Jean Davis has been a colleague of Mr. Reichard for 15 years, during which time Mr. Reichard was also the volleyball coach of Ms. Davis' son. Ms. Davis is aware of the reasons for Mr. Reichard’s termination. Ms. Davis describes Mr. Reichard as an individual worthy of appreciation from both the school system and parents for his diligence and hard work. Ms. Davis states that Mr. Reichard is highly motivated and a self-starter who encourages students to get involved in their school activities, such as homecoming and powder puff football, as well as clubs and sports. According to Ms. Davis, Mr. Reichard has established a solid reputation as a highly regarded teacher and coach. Parents viewed Mr. Reichard as a role model, instilling sportsmanship, building confidence, and motivating students to congratulate the other team with a positive attitude – win or lose. In short, Ms. Davis believes that Mr. Reichard has clearly demonstrated through his job performance and dedication that he is an asset to the Seminole County School District. Joan Stone has been a colleague of Mr. Reichard for approximately 20 years, and she is aware of the reasons for his termination. Ms. Stone describes Mr. Reichard as very enthusiastic and states that his attitude made an impact on the social studies department at Oviedo High School. According to Ms. Stone, Mr. Reichard had a great way with the students, and many of his past students would be glad to tell you that he was and still is their all-time favorite teacher. Ms. Stone stated that Mr. Reichard’s keen interest in his subject-–American Government --influenced his students who developed their own interest in politics. Many of the students registered to vote as a result of his encouragement. Finally, Ms. Stone states that Mr. Reichard’s presence at Oviedo High School is definitely missed. Mary Ellen Woods first became acquainted with Mr. Reichard in 1985 when he was placed in her classroom as a senior intern from the University of Central Florida. According to Ms. Woods, it was quickly apparent that Mr. Reichard was no ordinary intern in that his depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject he was teaching far surpassed any other intern she had in her classroom before or after that time. Ms. Woods took pride in Mr. Reichard’s development over the years, including when Mr. Reichard was awarded Teacher of the Year and was appointed Social Studies Department Chairman. Ms. Woods also states that Mr. Reichard was not only an outstanding classroom teacher but a dedicated coach as well. He mentored numerous young people on the volleyball court and soccer field. Ms. Woods worked with Mr. Reichard in coaching powder puff football for many years, and his rapport with students was superb both in the classroom and through athletics. According to Ms. Woods, Mr. Reichard has created countless active citizens by inspiring an interest in this country’s democratic process as a teacher of American Government. Mr. Reichard made sure the young people in his class had the opportunity to register to vote thus establishing a lifelong habit of active participation in the political process. Mr. Reichard also inspired young people to have confidence in themselves through his coaching. According to Ms. Woods, Mr. Reichard was an integral part of the Oviedo High School family. He always had a smile for everyone and was universally liked and respected by the entire faculty and staff-– and still is. Mr. Reichard was a teacher that everyone knows because his students spoke so highly of him people made a point to see who he was. He generously helped anyone who needed it, and assisted many new teachers in getting acclimated to the high school environment. He was a good friend to those who needed an ear. He has always been a good friend to me and many others. Finally, Ms. Woods states that Mr. Reichard is the most naturally gifted teacher she have ever known, and that she sincerely hopes he will be permitted to share that gift once more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order reinstating the employment of the Respondent, Dale W. Reichard. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 June, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a school teacher, committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate 716424, covering the area of Economics. This teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995 (sic). During the 1993-1994 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Ft. Pierce Westwood High School, in St. Lucie County School District. On or about December 15, 1993, Respondent showed an "R" rated video, Posse, to her students. The video contained profanity, nudity and scenes depicting sexual acts. On or about January 6, 1994, Respondent was issued a Letter of Reprimand and was suspended for one (1) day without pay effective June 9, 1994, for demonstrating poor judgment and violating school procedures in showing the video.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violating Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 15th day of May, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl J. Zahner, II, Esquire Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Monique Carter 1901 Valencia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34946 Sam Carter 1901 Valencia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34946 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen P. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against his Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Frederick Dingle Charles, holds teacher's certificate number 264894, issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of substitute teaching. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1992. During the 1989-90 school year, respondent was employed by the Dade County School Board as a teacher at Homestead Middle School. On or about September 20, 1989, respondent was arrested and charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Number 89-627-CR-Aronovitz. On October 15, 1990, he was found guilty of such charge and committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 121 months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of respondent, Frederick Dingle Charles, be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of June 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 13th day of June 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Frederick D. Charles # 41454-004 Metropolitan Correctional Center 15801 S.W. 137th Avenue Miami, Florida 33177 The Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed offenses, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, sufficient to justify the imposition of discipline with regard to Respondent's Florida educator's certificate, and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 720360, covering the area of business education, and was employed in the Santa Rosa County School system during the 2000-2001 school term as a business education teacher at Milton High School. Student S.B. was born April 19, 1983, and attended Milton High School for four years. During that time, she knew Respondent as a teacher and coach at the school. As a senior during the Fall of 2001-2002 school year, S.B. and her friend, J.N., another female student, called Respondent on the telephone as a joke. They told him they were coming to see him at his house. He said okay. That night, as the two female students left Respondent's home after staying about an hour, Respondent kissed S.B. on the mouth. Later, Respondent called S.B. at her home or placed calls to her cellular telephone on several occasions. S.B. also called Respondent. Sometimes, these telephone calls lasted for an hour or more. During the 2000-2001 school year, S.B. visited Respondent at his home on at least four and possible as much as six different occasions. Each visit occurred in the evening at Respondent's home when S.B. and Respondent were the only persons present. Respondent was a 33-year-old teacher and S.B., a 17-year-old student. Respondent and S.B. kissed and embraced each other on each of the visits by S.B. to Respondent's home. On the last visit, Respondent removed S.B.'s shirt, fondled her breasts through her bra and touched her vaginal area through her clothing. Respondent laid on top of S.B. and pressed his penis against her vagina through their clothing. Respondent professed his love for S.B. and talked to her about a future together following her graduation from high school. Respondent and S.B.'s relationship became the subject of rumors at Milton High School in March of 2001. Approximately three teachers had conversations with the Milton High School assistant principal that something was going on between S.B. and Respondent. The assistant principal confronted Respondent on March 16, 2001. Respondent denied any involvement with the two female students, S.B. and J.N., beyond two visits with them at his home where, he claimed, nothing happened between him and S.B. The assistant principal spoke with S.B. on March 16, 2001, and again confronted Respondent. This time, Respondent confessed to the relationship. He admitted to three or four occasions when he had kissed S.B. in the course of her visits to his house and that he had rubbed her breasts over her shirt. Respondent's improper conduct with S.B. became common knowledge among faculty, parents, and students at Milton High School. As a result of his admitted misconduct with S.B., the Santa Rosa County School District suspended Respondent on April 12, 2001, and that suspension continues in effect pending the outcome of this proceeding. Respondent's actions with regard to S.B. is immoral. A 33-year-old male teacher kissing, fondling, and hugging a 17-year-old student is an act of moral turpitude. Respondent's involvement with S.B. and the resulting publicity have seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent's conduct and actions with S.B. exposed the student to conditions which were, or could have been, harmful to her mental and physical health. Respondent's actions knowingly and intentionally exposed S.B. to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Respondent exploited his relationship with S.B. for personal gain. Respondent carried on a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old girl in order to satisfy his own romantic and sexual desires.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate No. 720360. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 5th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 237129, covering the areas of social studies and work experience coordinator. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies instructor at Columbia High School in the Columbia County School District. Respondent has been a school teacher since January, 1967 and has taught school in the Columbia County School District since 1968, excluding two (2) years for military service. Respondent has a good record as a teacher in the Columbia County School District and has never been accused of any professional misconduct in the past. Adrianne Lewis (Lewis) was a sixteen (16) year old student at Columbia High School in the first semester of the 1985/86 school year and became acquainted with the Respondent when she was a student in his third and sixth period classes. Lewis did not start in Respondent's sixth period class until two (2) weeks after the beginning of school in August, 1985 and was required to make up work missed during the first two (2) weeks. Respondent has a consistent policy with regard to make-up work which requires all students to make up work either before or after school and not during class. During the first six (6) weeks of school, Lewis made up several tests that she had missed both before and after becoming a student of Respondent. The complaining witness, Adrianne Lewis, testified that on two (2) separate occasions, most probably in September, 1985, the first time during a school pep rally and the second time while she was taking a make-up test after school, the Respondent, among other things, kissed her on the mouth and neck, fondled her breasts, rubbed and fondled her derriere, attempted to put a balloon under her shirt and asked why she was afraid of him and sex. However, the more credible evidence is that: (a) On September 13, 1985, Lewis went to Respondent's classroom during a school pep rally to take a make-up test, arriving around 2:50 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (b) After Lewis turned in the test, Respondent spent approximately ten (10) minutes with Lewis discussing a problem she was having; (c) During the time Lewis was in the Respondent's classroom and office, Ken Stark was in an adjoining classroom with connecting windows which had only a portion of the view blocked; (d) Later in September, 1985, Lewis stayed after school to take another make-up test, arriving around 3:30 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (e) During the time Lewis was in Respondent's office turning in the test, Respondent's elder son, John D. Evans, III was present and observed no misconduct on Respondent's part in regard to Lewis and; (f) Respondent, at no time during these two (2) occasions or any other occasion, improperly touched Lewis or engaged in any misconduct with respect to Lewis. During the second six (6) weeks of school, Lewis began missing class regularly. Due to a School Board policy concerning unexcused absences, Respondent consulted with Tom Grubb, Guidance Counselor, and was instructed to contact Lewis' parents. Respondent was unable to contact Lewis' parents or her grandmother, with whom she lived, but did contact her aunt, Denise Lewis. Respondent informed Denise Lewis of Lewis' absences and the need for Lewis to makeup her work or risk failing. Respondent's conversation with Denise Lewis occurred during the week of October 28, 1985 and about one (1) week later Denise Lewis conveyed the message to Lewis. Lewis did not mention the alleged improper touching by Respondent to Denise Lewis at this time but did say that Respondent did not like her and was going to fail her anyway. When Denise Lewis informed Lewis' grandmother of her absences, Lewis became upset because her grandmother had not previously known about Lewis' absences. On or about October 31, 1985, Lewis reported to Sergeant James Rutledge that she had been improperly touched and fondled by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. During the week of November 6, 1985, Lewis again reported to Sergeant Rutledge that she had been improperly touched by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. Rutledge went with Lewis and her girlfriend to the dean's office and notified the dean that Lewis was outside and needed to talk to him. On or about November 6, 1985, Lewis became upset with Respondent about calling her aunt and angrily told him not to call her aunt again. Lewis told Respondent that she was going to inform the administration of his alleged misconduct. Thereafter, the matter was reported and investigated by the administrator. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Respondent was arrested and charged with battery. Subsequent to the arrest, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida filed a No Information and the cause was dismissed. There was no evidence to prove that Respondent's conduct had reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. There was no evidence that Respondent had exploited the teacher/student relationship with the minor female student for his own personal gain, exposing her to harm and unnecessary embarrassment. There was no evidence that Respondent had: (a) accepted or offered any gratuity, gift, or favor to, or from, anyone; (b) used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; (c) intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or; (d) failed to make reasonable effort to protect student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3994 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Rejected that portion of the finding of fact concerning Lewis requesting Respondent to sign, and Respondent signing, a balloon as immaterial and irrelevant. The balance of the finding of fact is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The fact that Lewis skipped classes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis took a second test before December, 1985, is adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis reported the alleged incidents is adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis told the Respondent that she had reported the alleged sexual contact to the administration is adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The fact that a No Information was filed and the case dismissed is adopted in Finding of Fact 16 but that the State Attorney dismissed because the contact was consensual is rejected as hearsay that does not supplement or explain any other evidence in the record. 19-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. In these findings, the Petitioner relies mainly on the testimony of Lewis, testimony which I did not find credible. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 7.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 16.-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 20.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practice Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Brooks Meyer, Brooks, and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Monroe Shannon, violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what are the appropriate sanctions?
Findings Of Fact The commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Mr. Shannon holds Florida Educator Certificate 734423, covering Educational Leadership, School Principal, and Business Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times material to this case, Mr. Shannon was employed as an assistant principal at Congress in the Palm Beach County School District. He is a 16-year employee of the School District. Mr. Shannon was transferred to Congress as assistant principal during the early portion of the 2011-2012 school year. Ms. Gina Marie Dempsey was an eighth-grade teacher at Congress during the 2011-2012 school year. She had been introduced to Mr. Shannon early in the school year and saw him frequently in the lunchroom or hall, but other than that, had little reason to be in contact with him, for he was the assistant principal for the seventh grade. Ms. Dempsey credibly testified that Mr. Shannon was a little inappropriate in his comments to her. He asked her where her friends hung out, whether he could be her friend on Facebook, and if she wanted to go out with him for drinks. When he asked her out, she indicated she did not hang out with administration. On September 15, 2011, there was an open house at Congress. Ms. Dempsey was dressed up, wearing stiletto heels. As the open house concluded, Ms. Dempsey was walking down the hall toward her car when she encountered Mr. Shannon. No one else was in the hall. He told her, "I really like those heels. I would like to see you only in those heels." As he made this statement, Mr. Shannon was rubbing his hand in the general area of his genitals. He then asked Ms. Dempsey if she needed an escort to her car. She said no. Mr. Shannon said, "It is getting dark and you need protection." Ms. Dempsey told him that she had an Easton bat in her car and that she could take care of herself. Mr. Shannon said, "All right, all right." Ms. Dempsey felt that the heel comment was "off color." She believed his statements and actions were inappropriate, especially for a married administrator to direct to a teacher. Ms. Dempsey reported the incident to her assistant principal, Ms. Cheryl Van Voorhies, saying she did not want Mr. Shannon in her classroom or her hallway. Ms. Michele Wertman (now Ms. Regan) graduated from Florida Atlantic University in 2009. During the 2011-2012 school year, she was 23 years old and had taught for two years. She was teaching seventh-grade English at Congress. Shortly after the start of the school year, a student in her fourth-period class, which was always difficult to manage, made an inappropriate sexual remark toward her. Ms. Wertman went to Mr. Shannon, as the new assistant principal for the seventh grade, to find out what should be done. Rather than assist her, Mr. Shannon told her, "Well, you know you are a sexy teacher, what do you expect?" or words to that effect. Ms. Wertman immediately reported the incident to Ms. Janis Rosencrans, the Classroom Teachers Association representative, who credibly testified that Ms. Wertman was visibly upset and in tears when she did so. Ms. Rosencrans in turn advised the principal, Ms. Harris, about the incident. This incident made Ms. Wertman upset and uncomfortable, particularly since Mr. Shannon had earlier asked if she was on Facebook, asked if she and her roommate wanted to go out for drinks, and asked if he could take her out. She had declined and had never socialized with Mr. Shannon. She did not feel it was appropriate for an assistant principal to be seeking a personal relationship with a teacher he supervised. Ms. Wertman continued to have problems with the behavior of her students in her fourth-period class. She concluded it was just a bad combination of students, since her other four classes were wonderful. She approached Mr. Shannon to see if some students could be switched because the existing classroom dynamic was not at all conducive to learning. In response, Mr. Shannon told her that perhaps she needed to transfer to a "west school" and that she was probably "too white" to work at Congress, which was a predominately black school. Ms. Wertman was shocked and upset and started crying in Mr. Shannon's office. She had gone to Congress as a student and never felt that she was out of place because of her race or color. Mr. Shannon then told her that "if you don't do A, B, or C, then, it will cost you your job and you won't be here next year." Ms. Wertman did not know what Mr. Shannon meant by this last remark, but became insulted and angry at the way Mr. Shannon was treating her. She immediately left and went to see Ms. Rosencrans. After hearing Ms. Wertman's story, Ms. Rosencrans told Ms. Wertman that she should go to the principal, which she did. Ms. Harris told Ms. Wertman that she would report the incident. On several occasions, Mr. Shannon would use his key to enter Ms. Wertman's locked classroom unannounced. While Mr. Shannon, as the assistant principal for seventh grade, had authority to observe seventh-grade teachers and evaluate them, Ms. Wertman never received any evaluations from any of these visits. She stated: And he would just take his aide key and he'd walk in and he'd stalk around the classroom and holding his belt buckle and he kind of like threw his weight around, like just his body language. Ms. Wertman felt intimidated and uncomfortable with these visits. On one of these occasions, Mr. Shannon told her fourth-period students: You know, you guys should really listen to Ms. Wertman. You have a really, you know, sexy teacher . . . . You have a fine looking teacher here. Ms. Wertman felt that she was being sexually harassed by Mr. Shannon and that Ms. Harris was allowing it to go on. She thought that if this was how the school system operated, she could not teach any longer. She quit her job on the last day before the Christmas break. She did not return to teaching during the rest of that school year and the year following. S.D., formerly an eighth-grade student at Congress, also testified about an incident involving Mr. Shannon. She testified that he told her that he "wished she was old enough," that he told her she "couldn't handle him," and that he "grabbed her [best friend's] behind." That testimony, however, was not clear and convincing. First, her testimony was a bit unclear as to when and where the statements were made. She said the statements were made in a conference room with another assistant principal present. But at another point in her testimony, she said that Mr. Shannon made the comment "walking through the hallway just saying that he wished I was old enough." Second, while she alleged that at least one other student and another assistant principal were present when the statements were made, there were no corroborating statements or testimony from them that they heard the statements or why they might not have heard them if they were made. Third, there were inconsistencies between her written statement given on the date of the incident and her later testimony at hearing. In her written statement, she stated that Mr. Shannon touched her face, but said nothing about him inappropriately touching her friend. At hearing, she stated that he had earlier "grabbed her [best friend's] behind," but said nothing about him touching her face. If Mr. Shannon had "grabbed the behind" of her friend, it seems remarkable that that incident would not have been part of her original written statement. Finally, Mr. Shannon testified that S.D. was being confrontational and that there was nothing sexual about the conversation. He testified that S.D. had balled up her fists and that comments that he "wished she was old enough" and about her "not being able to handle him" were related to her aggressiveness. At one point during cross-examination, S.D. seemed to concede that this might be the case: Q: Isn't it true when he said he wished you were old enough, again, that was in response to you coming at him physically and him wishing you were not a minor at the time? A: Yep. S.D.'s testimony, taken as a whole, was simply not precise or explicit enough to leave a firm conviction as to the truth of her allegations. On February 2, 2012, T.S., an eighth grader at Congress, encountered Mr. Shannon in the hall. Mr. Shannon put his arm around her and whispered in her ear, "You need a man." T.S. testified that Mr. Shannon's putting his arm around her did not make her feel uncomfortable, but that Mr. Shannon's whispering that "you need a man" in her ear did. T.S. testified that as far as she knew, in the crowded hallway with all of the students busy making their way to their classes, she was the only one that witnessed the conversation. At her next class, T.S. asked her reading teacher, Ms. Banks, if she "could keep a secret." When Ms. Banks told her she could, T.S. then replied, "well, I can just say it because they [the other students] know." After T.S. relayed what had happened, Ms. Banks directed T.S. to write a statement about the incident. In February 2012, Mr. Shannon was investigated for alleged acts of sexual harassment. In a letter from Ms. Mara Stafford, the director of Recruitment and Retention for the School District of Palm Beach County, dated February 16, 2012, Mr. Shannon was advised that he was to be the assistant principal at Citrus Grove Elementary School. He did not begin working there, however, because he was subsequently called and told he would not be reporting to the new position. On May 16, 2012, Mr. Shannon received a letter from Ms. Janis Andrews, chief academic officer of the School District of Palm Beach County, advising him that he would not be recommended for reappointment. The letter advised him that he could apply for vacant positions for which he qualified. His employment was thereby terminated a couple of weeks later at the end of his contract period. Mr. Shannon applied for a teaching position with many schools. There was an opening at Carver, and he was interviewed by the principal there, Ms. Lena Wallace. Mr. Shannon was hired for the teaching position and was reassigned to Carver. Mr. Shannon was issued a letter of reprimand by the School District dated August 20, 2012. Mr. Shannon's actions and remarks toward Ms. Dempsey when he encountered her in the hall after the open house constituted sexual harassment. Mr. Shannon's actions directed toward Ms. Wertman, his comments to her, and comments about her to her students, constituted sexual harassment and discriminatory conduct. Mr. Shannon's actions directed toward Ms. Wertman and his comments to and about her, unreasonably interfered with Ms. Wertman's performance of her professional and work responsibilities. Mr. Shannon's conduct toward T.S., an eighth-grade female student, constituted sexual harassment and failed to protect her from conditions harmful to learning or her mental health. However, there was insufficient evidence that he exposed her to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. These inappropriate behaviors of Mr. Shannon seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee in the School District. There was no evidence that Mr. Shannon engaged in any inappropriate behaviors after he was given a teaching position at Carver beginning with the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Wallace, aware of allegations against Mr. Shannon, advised him that if there were any incidents involving him, that she would "fire him immediately, and it would stick." Ms. Wallace testified that Mr. Shannon was very student-oriented, did everything that was expected of him, and worked professionally. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Shannon had been employed as a teacher at Carver for three school years. There was no evidence that Mr. Shannon's teacher certificate has been subjected to prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Monroe Shannon, in violation of sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and implementing rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(5)(d). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission impose upon Mr. Shannon a fine of $500.00 for each offense, for a total fine of $2,000.00, and revoke his educator certificate for a period of two years. It is further RECOMMENDED that educational employment upon recertification be subject to three years of probation as provided by section 1012.796(7)(d) with conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission to be reasonably necessary to ensure that there will be no threat to students and that he will be capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 31st day of July, 2015.
