The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Petition dated August 6, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Woods has been a teacher with the School Board since 2004 and has met the NCLB Highly Qualified Standards for Elementary Education, K-6. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, he was employed under a professional service contract as a kindergarten teacher at Rosenwald Elementary School in South Bay, Florida.2 As a classroom teacher in Palm Beach County, Mr. Woods' employment is subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between The School District of Palm Beach County, Florida and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teacher's Association ("Collective Bargaining Agreement"). Disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Woods by the School Board prior to the events giving rise to this proceeding. On March 07, 2007, the School Board issued a Written Reprimand to Mr. Woods for using unnecessary physical force on a student. In the reprimand, Mr. Woods was "directed to cease such conduct immediately" and "to desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future." Mr. Woods was advised that, if he failed to do so, he would be subject to "further disciplinary action up to and including termination." On January 28, 2009, an incident occurred in Mr. Woods' kindergarten classroom during the portion of the school day when Mr. Woods read the class a book and the students participated with questions and discussion. Mr. Woods observed student B.M. fighting with and punching another student. Mr. Woods made physical contact with B.M. when he separated the two boys and when he led B.M. to an area of the carpet where Mr. Woods told B.M. to sit in time-out. B.M. did not request any medical attention as a result of this incident, and there was no indication that B.M. suffered bruising or any type of injury as a result of Mr. Woods' actions. A second incident involving Mr. Woods and student J.C. occurred on February 3, 2009. The incident occurred during recess, close to the end of the school day, when Mr. Woods' students were on the playground. J.C. ran past other students filing onto the playground to the slide. Mr. Woods had previously placed J.C. in time-out, and J.C. had been told to sit on the playground with several other students who were also in time-out. As J.C. slid down the slide, Mr. Woods moved to the end of the slide to intercept J.C. so he could lead J.C. to the area where the other students were sitting in time-out. When J.C. reached the end of the slide and stood up, Mr. Woods reached for him, but J.C. went limp and began falling to the ground. Mr. Woods grabbed J.C.'s jacket to keep him from falling to the ground and possibly injuring himself on the end of the slide.3 The School Board conducted investigations of the allegations against Mr. Woods, and, after going through all of the pre-disciplinary steps required by the collective bargaining agreement, the Superintendent of the Palm Beach County school system issued a Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Termination from Employment dated June 25, 2009, advising Mr. Woods that he intended to recommend to the School Board that he be suspended without pay and his employment with the School Board terminated at the July 22, 2009, School Board meeting. Article II, Section M of the collective bargaining agreement governs the discipline of employees. Article II, Section M1. of the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides: "Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action." Summary and findings of ultimate fact The School Board failed to present sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Woods is guilty of the conduct with which he has been charged in the Petition. For the reasons stated in Endnote 3, the evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to produce a firm conviction in the mind of this trier of fact that the School Board's allegations that Mr. Woods used excessive physical force during the playground incident involving Mr. Woods and J.C. are true. The evidence presented by the School Board is, likewise, not sufficient to cause this trier of fact to believe without hesitancy and with a firm conviction that the School Board's allegations that Mr. Woods used excessive physical force during the January 28, 2009, incident involving B.M. are true. The only evidence presented by the School Board relating to the charges that Mr. Woods used excessive physical force to break up a fight between B.M. and one of his classmates was Mr. Woods' live testimony and the transcript of B.M.'s deposition testimony, which was placed into evidence in lieu of his live testimony.4 Mr. Woods' testimony that he did not use excessive physical force on B.M. but made only as much physical contact with B.M. as was required to separate him and his classmate and to lead B.M. to the area in which B.M. would spend his time-out period is credited over that of B.M. B.M.'s deposition testimony that, when breaking up the fight, Mr. Woods grabbed his shirt and pulled and pushed him back and forth, striking his chest several times, is not sufficiently persuasive to convince this trier of fact to credit B.M.'s version of events rather than Mr. Woods' version. The credibility and weight of B.M.'s deposition testimony was diminished by the failure of either attorney to establish on the record that B.M. knew the difference between the truth and a lie and felt an obligation to tell the truth, see J.B.J. v. State, 17 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); by B.M.'s persistent fear that he was going to be sent to jail; by the prompting of B.M. by Ms. B., who attended the deposition and is presumably B.M.'s mother or a close relative, to tell "everything you came home . . . and told me"; and by the explanations given to B.M. during the deposition that the purpose of the deposition was to find out if Mr. Woods had done something wrong and if he was in trouble and should be punished. In addition, B.M.'s deposition testimony is not corroborated by the testimony of the three classmates whose deposition testimony was received into evidence in lieu of their live testimony or by the testimony of any third party. Finally, B.M. gave a confused account of the events leading up to Mr. Woods' alleged use of excessive force but, at the same time, recited verbal exchanges he had purportedly had with the boy with whom he was fighting, the effect of which was to give the impression that B.M. did not recall the incident with Mr. Woods and was telling a story. For these reasons, B.M.'s testimony is not sufficiently credible or persuasive to support a finding that Mr. Woods used excessive physical force when separating B.M. and his classmate on January 28, 2009.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Petition filed against Ricky Woods, immediately reinstating him, and awarding him back salary for the period of his suspension, as provided in Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 23rd day of April, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven T. George, began teaching in the Bay County school system in the fall of 1977. He was employed as a physical education teacher and as a coach. The Respondent has had an exemplary record as an instructional employee of the Bay County School Board until he encountered personal problems during the 1988-89 school year. During the 1988-89 school year, he was employed as a physical education teacher and assistant football coach at Mosley High School. During that school year, his supervisor, Assistant Principal Sarah Cooper, observed his performance deteriorate unexpectedly and in a way which was out of character from his previous level of performance and demeanor. She found occasions when he was not properly supervising his class and when he had not done lesson plans, as required by the school administration. Ms. Cooper had to assist the Respondent in developing a semester examination, however, he ultimately used an examination given to him by another teacher. Thereafter, he administered the examination but did not complete the grading of it and failed to complete his grade book, which responsibility was ultimately performed by Ms. Cooper. Additionally, during the 1988-89 school year, the Respondent was observed to become increasingly isolated from other members of the faculty. His behavior became characterized by unpredictability, excessive arrogance, argumentativeness, anger and verbal aggression, which was entirely different from the personality traits which he had exhibited and which his co-workers and supervisors had observed since he had been with the school system. Indeed, female teachers in the physical education department were reluctant to be alone in the workroom with him because of the advent of these objectionable personality traits. The Respondent, during this period of time, was undergoing a divorce, or the aftermath of one, which involved a very emotional custody dispute with his former wife concerning custody of their daughter. During the 1988-89 school year, he was observed to repeatedly burden his co-workers and school administrators with the details of his personal problems and to exhibit uncharacteristic and rather severe emotional outbursts of both anger and grief. After being counseled by his supervisors concerning what they believed to be rather bizarre behavior, when measured against his prior performance and demeanor in other school years, the Respondent ultimately voluntarily admitted himself to Charter Woods, a psychiatric treatment and evaluation facility. The Respondent spent approximately 5-1/2 months in that facility, underwent treatment in response to his supervisor's advice to "get some help", and returned to Mosley High School to complete the 1988-89 school year. For the remainder of that school year, the Respondent satisfactorily assumed and carried out all of his responsibilities and performed his work as a teacher in good fashion. His temperament and demeanor had returned to that of the friendly and caring teacher and co-worker which he had formerly been before his personal problems developed. His supervisor, Ms. Cooper, gave him a satisfactory annual evaluation at the conclusion of the 1988-89 school year. The Respondent's emotional difficulties and related performance difficulties as a teacher reappeared in the 1989-90 school year. During the pre-planning phase of his teaching and coaching duties for the 1989-90 school year, in August of 1989, the Respondent was observed to be very disruptive, argumentative, and, indeed, hostile to a visiting speaker at a seminar for instructional personnel. He was observed to repeatedly interrupt the speaker with arrogant, argumentative questions and comments, during the course of which behavior he was observed to be pacing back and forth at the rear of the room where the seminar was conducted while all other attendees at the seminar were seated and listening to the speaker. This arrogant, argumentative behavior was so apparent and so inappropriate for the seminar-type setting in which it occurred that his supervisor felt it necessary to apologize to the speaker at the lunch break on that day. Additionally, during this pre-planning phase of the school year, which is before the children arrive for the school year, the Respondent was observed to have difficulties in his dealings and relationships with other coaches arising out of his increasingly arrogant, argumentative attitude and behavior. Because of this and, inferentially, because his supervisors were aware of his emotional difficulties with which they had had experience the previous school year, the decision was made to relieve him as assistant football coach at Mosley High School. A meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Tucker, the Principal, and Mr. Cochran, the head coach, to explain that action to the Respondent and to explain to him that he would still continue as a physical education instructor. In the course of that meeting, the Respondent became very emotional, hostile, and argumentative. He exhibited frequent angry outbursts to the extent that he would not allow Mr. Tucker or Mr. Cochran to adequately explain the basis of the personnel action directed at him. The Respondent ultimately, angrily departed from the meeting before it was completed. On that same day, he left Mosley High School without administrative permission and went to Cherry Street Elementary School on some mission related to his daughter, who was a student at that school. She had been the subject of a bitter custody dispute between the Respondent and his former wife. He is accused of interfering with the operation of Cherry Street Elementary School on that occasion, although the record does not reflect what his conduct was at Cherry Street Elementary School that day. The 1989-90 school year then commenced at Mosley High School with the arrival of the students. The Respondent assumed his regular duties as a physical education instructor. He was observed, early in that school year, on a number of occasions, to fail to control behavior of students in his gym class and to fail to be in his gym class at appropriate times which amounted to inadequate supervision of his students on those occasions. His planning for his classes was observed to become sporadic, with repeated occasions when he failed to have lesson plans prepared. Also, in the fall of the 1989-90 school year, he was observed to forget his keys to the physical education area on a number of occasions. He would, on repeated occasions, forget, from one period in a school day to the next, what he was to teach that following period. He would have to be reminded by his colleagues. He would also forget to call his students in adequate time at the end of the physical education period for them to dress for their next classes. He had to be reminded by his colleagues to do this. He would also repeatedly forget when he had extra duty, such as "door duty" and locker room assignments. His general level of cooperativeness with his colleagues declined markedly. His behavior became harsh and rude to his colleagues and to students. He was observed to be very harsh and rude to a new student coming into his physical education class and spoke loudly, in an abrasive manner to the student in front of the class, embarrassing that student. These problems occurred repetitively and in rapid succession during the first month of the school year in September of 1989. Because of the nature of the problems, the past history of the Respondent's emotional instability whereby he had lost his ability to be a caring, productive, well-performing teacher (which had been his unblemished record of behavior and performance for all the years he taught prior to the 1988-89 school year), Mr. Tucker, the Principal, felt that he had to act quickly to prevent an even worse situation occurring in the 1989-90 school year when he observed that the Respondent's emotional instability of the year before was recurring. Consequently, Mr. Tucker requested that the superintendent, Mr. Simonson, meet with the Respondent in an effort to resolve his difficulties in the matter of his perceived emotional instability and resulting declining performance. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Simonson, and Mr. Tucker on September 30th. At the meeting, the Respondent was confronted with the fact of his displayed emotional instability and related declining teaching performance, at which point he became very belligerent and hostile. He was, alternatively, on the verge of tears and shouting in anger. Because of the above-stated reasons for the meeting and because of the emotional instability which was so apparently displayed by the Respondent during the meeting, Mr. Simonson gave the Respondent three days of sick leave to allow him to remain at home and get some professional attention to try to regain his emotional stability before returning to the classroom. The Respondent's problems persisted, however. Although the precise date is uncertain, at approximately this time, the Respondent announced that he was going to seek election as Superintendent of the Bay County school system in opposition to Mr. Simonson. The Respondent testified himself that he elected to run for this office while he was still a teacher at Mosley High School in part, at least, to save his job because he believed that the Bay County school administration and particularly, Mr. Simonson, would be reluctant to discharge him while he was a political candidate in opposition to Mr. Simonson because of the bad impression that might make on the electorate. Shortly after he made this announcement, again on an undetermined date in the fall of 1989, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the "Baker Act", Section 394.467, Florida Statutes. Apparently, the Respondent's family members had him committed although the precise reasons are not of record. The Respondent expressed the belief at hearing that his family members had him committed because of his announcement to run for Superintendent, although that is not established to be the case. The Respondent, at the time he was committed, believed that he did not suffer from a mental condition justifying his commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. The Respondent has since come to understand that he suffered from a manic-depressive condition, also known as a "bi-polar disorder". As a result of this eventuality, Mr. Simonson determined that the Respondent should not be teaching in the school system during such a period of emotional instability. In order to be fair to the Respondent, he did not want to actually suspend him from his duties. Accordingly, Mr. Simonson elected to place the Respondent in the status known as "overused sick leave", which means that the Respondent, although he had used up all of his annual and sick leave, could still be carried on the personnel records as an employee in terms of retaining his retirement and insurance benefits, although he was not paid for the time he was absent from his duties as a result of this decision and as a result of his emotional condition. Accordingly, the Respondent was, in this fashion, removed from his instructional duties and from his job site in the fall of 1989, after his involuntary commitment, pursuant to the Baker Act. Thereafter, in the fall of 1989, the Respondent obtained treatment at the "Life Management Center" in Bay County under the care of Dr. Nellis. Dr. Nellis diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from manic-depression and prescribed Lithium to treat his manic condition. The Respondent responded well to treatment, such that Dr. Nellis, late in the fall of 1989, opined that he was fit to return to work as a teacher. The Respondent apparently accepted the fact of his illness, continued taking his medication after being released by Dr. Nellis, and was returned to his duties with the Bay County school system at Rosenwald Middle School in late January or early February of 1990. Once again, he returned to his "old self", in terms of his adequate performance as a teacher, his emotional stability, good relationships with colleagues and students, and his prior demeanor as a genuinely caring teacher. His performance for the remainder of 1990 through the end of classes in June was good. He worked for the remainder of that school year as a physical education instructor, which is the field in which he is certified as a teacher. The Respondent had also been seen by Dr. Zumarraga beginning in November of 1989, who also found him to be manic-depressive, and who informed Mr. Simonson, by letter presented to Mr. Simonson by the Respondent, that the Respondent was taking medication for his illness and had exhibited acceptable behavior. As a result of those assurances by the Respondent's psychiatrist, Mr. Simonson had allowed the Respondent to return to work at Rosenwald Middle School in approximately early February of 1990. Apparently, sometime in late spring or early summer of 1990, the Respondent had doubts that he was still suffering from his condition and consulted another physician for an additional opinion. Apparently, he quit taking his medication sometime during the summer of 1990 as a result of that consultation. In late August of 1990, the Respondent returned to Rosenwald Middle School as a physical education instructor. Ms. Love, who had been Assistant Principal at the school, had moved up to the position of Principal. In the spring of 1990, the Respondent had been quiet and cooperative, had gotten along well with colleagues and students, and had performed his duties well, after undergoing treatment and being placed on a program of medication for his manic- depressive disorder. In the fall, however, he was immediately observed by Ms. Love and others of his colleagues and supervisors to have reverted to the arrogant, abrasive and extremely assertive attitudes and behavior, which he had exhibited in the fall of 1989, prior to securing treatment. Before these attitudes and behavior had manifested themselves, however, and immediately upon the start of the 1990-91 school year, given his long and worthwhile experience in the physical education field in the county system, Ms. Love asked the Respondent if he would work on a plan for a "middle school olympics" athletic event. The Respondent agreed to do this and immediately began setting about the formulation of a plan whereby all of the middle schools in the county would participate in the olympics athletic event on a given day at Tommy Oliver Stadium. He arrived at a plan to accomplish this and drafted it in memorandum form. Instead of sharing it with Ms. Love, however, he transmitted it directly to the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson. This was a departure from appropriate procedures for the planning of such events because the Respondent did not transmit his plan to Ms. Love for her initial approval before its being communicated to supervisory personnel at the county district level. The Respondent became somewhat obsessed with the idea of planning and conducting the olympics event, devoting an inordinate amount of time and energy to it. In early September, the Respondent brought a student to the office for disciplinary reasons asserting that he had caught the student stealing or "going through the lockers". Upon questioning of the Respondent by Ms. Love, it was learned that he did not find the child in the locker room or dressing room actually invading lockers, but found him in the locker room area where he was not supposed to be. He accused the child of stealing or attempting to steal when he had not actually observed him do this. The Respondent was criticized in this action for not having actually observed the child stealing and yet accusing him of it and for having brought prior behavior of the child up in his disciplining of the child, which Ms. Love felt to be inappropriate. In fact, the Respondent had some justification for suspecting this particular child of wrongful conduct or illegal activity because of past disciplinary violations committed by the child of a similar nature. At approximately the same period of time, in early September, the Respondent was observed to have grabbed a child by the arm in the act of admonishing the child for some alleged miscreant behavior and stating that "I am going to break your little arm". Ms. Love counseled the Respondent about these two instances and gave him an "improvement notice" on September 7, 1990 concerning them. An improvement notice is a disciplinary memorandum or report to a teacher such as the Respondent by which the Principal admonishes a teacher for inappropriate behavior and directs steps for improvement of the situation which led to that criticized behavior. On September 14, 1990, Ms. Love had another formal conference with the Respondent, since she had seen his arrogant, abrasive, overly-assertive behavior with colleagues and students continuing. She discussed with him his inappropriate behavior towards students and faculty and the matter of the Respondent's disciplinary referral of a student to the guidance counselor. He had referred a student to the guidance counselor for discipline and had been overbearing and abusive to the guidance counselor in his communication with her concerning the disciplinary referral. Ms. Love counseled him about the basic procedures involved in referring students for discipline, which specifically do not involve the guidance counselor. Rather, disciplinary referrals should appropriately go to the administration of the school, as delineated in the teacher's handbook, which the Respondent had previously been provided. Additionally, Ms. Love felt that the Respondent had exhibited a pattern of not turning in required documents in a timely manner; therefore, she gave him an improvement notice for these matters dated September 28, 1990. In fact, however, it was not established by the Petitioner that the Respondent had been untimely in turning in any required documents, reports, and the like, other than one report which had been due on a Friday, when he was absent due to illness and which he promptly turned in on the following Monday. During the fall of 1990, the Respondent was observed to frequently share details of his custody dispute and problems concerning his child and problems with his wife or former wife through notes, letters and conversations with other members of the staff in an inappropriate manner. He appeared to be emotionally preoccupied with these personal problems while on duty. On the third day of school in the fall of 1990, Mr. Simonson located his office temporarily at Rosenwald Middle School. He had done the same thing at other schools in the county that were having disruptions caused by on-going construction during the fall. Rosenwald Middle School at this time was undergoing construction work, including work on its air-conditioning system, such that many of the students and teachers did not have the benefit of air- conditioning. Mr. Simonson, therefore, elected to spend a day or so at Rosenwald Middle School on a sort of "Bob Graham Work Day". Ms. Love announced that fact over the public address system during the morning announcements on that day. The Respondent came to Ms. Love's office a short time later carrying the school's daily bulletin in his hand. He seemed hostile and agitated, leaned over her desk and shook the bulletin in her face, stating to her that he wanted her to sign on the bulletin her name and the statement she had made about the reason the Superintendent was at the school on that day. He further stated to her, in effect, that he was "fixing to be fired" and that he wanted Ms. Love to admit and put in writing on the face of the morning school bulletin the real reason, as he felt it, why the Superintendent was at the school that day. Ms. Love refused to do this and considered this behavior to be bizarre and threatening, given that the Respondent obviously felt that the Superintendent had been on campus that day to "spy on him". During late September of 1990, the school embarked, at the behest of Ms. Love and other administrators and teachers, on a "school spirit week" contest. The contest involved decorating the doors of the classrooms by the students, using as themes for the decorations certain words which denoted various aspects of "school spirit". The doors were to be decorated during "trust class time". "Trust classes" are classes which meet for approximately fifteen minutes or so at the outset of the school day, somewhat analogous to what is commonly known as "homeroom classes". The students were allowed to decorate the doors during their trust class time. Ms. Love accused the Respondent of keeping students overtime in their trust class, which required them to miss part of their next class and be tardy to that class in order to decorate his room door. In fact, she gave him an "improvement notice" in the nature of a reprimand for this on September 28, 1990. It was not proven, however, that the Respondent had actually kept students late at his behest for this purpose. In fact, his testimony is that he required no students to stay in his trust class working on door decorations after the time for the trust class to be over and instructed them to obtain permission from their other teachers should they elect to stay overtime to decorate the doors. The Hearing Officer having weighed the testimony, candor and credibility of the witnesses on this issue, including the ability of the witnesses to have knowledge of the facts concerning the time and methods employed to accomplish the door decoration effort, this violation of school procedures was not proven. The door decoration contest was judged on September 28, 1990 and the Respondent's class did not win. The Respondent became very agitated and angry at this result to the point of requesting and obtaining a meeting with Ms. Love concerning it. His temper and emotions were out of control on this occasion. He behaved in a loud, abrasive, and angry manner, even to the point of alternately crying, shaking, and shouting. He accused Ms. Love of penalizing his children by denigrating their efforts in the door decoration contest in order to hurt him, claiming that her actions really were a personal vendetta against him in the course of which the children were victimized. In the midst of his emotional outburst concerning this matter, he refused to listen to any explanation which Ms. Love attempted to give him but repeatedly interrupted her efforts to explain how the contest was judged and its rules. He even attempted to call a newspaper concerning the incident. He was inordinately obsessed with the conduct of the contest and with the result. As this incident with Ms. Love was progressing, Corporal Lassiter, the school Resource Officer, observed and heard part of it. In his view, having observed the behavior of the Respondent on this occasion and being aware of the Respondent's past history, Mr. Lassiter considered the possibility of initiating an involuntary Baker Act hospitalization at that moment, because of the Respondent's behavior. During the course of this confrontation with Ms. Love, Mr. Lassiter or others persuaded the Respondent to step across the hall to a different office to calm down. After he went into the other office with Mr. Lassiter and another administrator, Mr. Barnes, the Respondent's behavior continued to be somewhat bizarre. His demeanor toward Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes alternated from being very angry and upset with them to calling them, and acting toward them, as though they were good friends. At one point, he told Mr. Lassiter that when he got elected Superintendent, all would hear about this incident in the newspaper and the reasons for it all "would become very clear". He stated then that Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes would have good employment positions with him when he became Superintendent. Alternatively, before making these statements and also after making these statements, he became angry and hostile to both men, saying, in essence, that they were "all against me", becoming accusatory toward them and asserting, in essence, that Mr. Lassiter, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Love, and others in the administration were seeking to do him harm. Partly at the instance of Mr. Lassiter, the Respondent finally calmed down sufficiently to accede to Mr. Lassiter's recommendation that he call a substitute to take over his classes for the remainder of the day. A substitute was called and Mr. Lassiter then escorted the Respondent to his truck in order to see that he was removed safely from the campus without further incident with colleagues or students. As the Respondent was getting into his truck, preparing to leave the campus, he told Mr. Lassiter to "tell Ms. Love that she can kiss my ass". Teachers are required to be at Rosenwald Middle School by 7:30 a.m. The first bell rings at 7:37 a.m., and the "trust class" begins at 7:45 a.m. On approximately six occasions during September of 1990, Ms. Love had to sit in on the Respondent's trust class because he was late arriving at his class. She gave him an improvement notice concerning this deficiency on September 28, 1990. Additionally, on two separate occasions, Mr. Lassiter handled the Respondent's trust classes when he was late. The next school day after the incident concerning the door decoration contest on September 28, 1990 was October 1, 1990, a Monday. The Respondent was approximately 20 minutes late to school that day. Ms. Love, being concerned about the ramifications of the behavior she had witnessed in the Respondent the preceding Friday, met with the Respondent when he arrived at school for purposes of determining his state of mind and to talk to him about his tardiness. She found him still agitated, although not as much as he had been on Friday, the 28th. He continued to accept no responsibility for those actions and for his tardiness. He denied even being late, and as a result, Ms. Love assigned the school Resource Officer, Corporal Lassiter, to accompany the Respondent whenever he had students with him for the remainder of the day. It should be pointed out, however, that on most of the occasions when the Respondent was tardy to his first class during September of 1990, it was because he did not have a key to fit his office and would have to look for another co-worker to let him in. He was given a key at the outset of the school year which did not fit. Consequently, he disposed of it, ordering another key, the provision of which to him was delayed for unknown reasons. Later that same day, the Respondent brought between 20 and 30 students to the office for being tardy to class. The procedure for handling tardies at Rosenwald Middle School is that if a child is tardy, a teacher counsels with the child at first. The parents are contacted, the child is assigned to "team detention", and a student misconduct form is forwarded to the appropriate administrator upon tardies becoming repetitive. It is unusual to bring a student to the Principal's office for tardiness. The Respondent explained when they arrived at the Principal's office that all of the students were late to class and that Ms. Love should do something about it. This was a departure from normal procedures in dealing with tardy students. It should also be pointed out, however, that the school administration had recently issued a memorandum admonishing teachers that they should deal more severely with tardy students. When this entire group of students proved to be tardy on the day in question, the Respondent volunteered, with the agreement of the other physical education teachers/coaches, to escort the students to the Principal's office for disciplinary reasons concerning their tardiness. The other teachers involved agreed. On that same occasion, on October 1, 1990, when the Respondent had the group of students waiting outside the Principal's office, he apparently had some sort of confrontation with a student named Malackai. Apparently, the student was arguing with him and denying being tardy, which was the reason he was brought to the office. The Respondent offered to wrestle the student after school and "tear him limb from limb". This action caused Mr. Lassiter to step between the Respondent and the student and to send the student to Ms. Love's office to prevent any further such confrontation. Although the student was large for his age, these actions by the Respondent intimidated the student. On that same day, the Respondent was giving a lesson in softball on the softball field. He was being observed by Mr. Lassiter at the time at the behest of Ms. Love, who was concerned about his emotional stability. During this lesson, the Respondent, for unknown reasons, began rather randomly talking about accidents, lions, the dangers of eating red meat, and some sort of discussion of suicide. When he observed a student not paying attention to him, he hit the student on the head with a clipboard. He then continued his rambling discussion. A few minutes later, the same child asked when they would be allowed to play softball; and the Respondent hit him with the clipboard again. The student got tears in his eyes and was intimidated by the Respondent's conduct. When Mr. Lassiter observed that the Respondent might be about to commit the same act for a third time, he stepped between the student and the Respondent in order to prevent this from happening again. Physical education teachers are required to supervise students by direct observation in their locker room where they dress out for physical education classes and then dress in their regular clothes again at the end of classes. This is necessary in order to prevent fights and horseplay in the locker room, which can be dangerous. On October 1, 1990, during the Respondent's period to supervise the boys' locker room, he attempted to telephone Mr. Tucker, the Principal at Mosley High School. While he was on the telephone, he left the locker room class unsupervised and was unable to observe and supervise the locker room from the location of the telephone in the coach's office. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent again left his physical education class unsupervised while he was talking on the telephone for some 15-20 minutes. During the month that the Respondent had worked with Mr. Kent in the physical education department, Mr. Kent felt that although the Respondent generally had handled his duties well, he had spent an excessive amount of time on the telephone, rather than being in his assigned area. October 2, 1990 was the Respondent's last day of employment with the Petitioner. He was suspended with pay and shortly thereafter, the School Board met and accepted the Superintendent's recommendation to suspend the Respondent without pay based upon the conduct described in the above Findings of Fact occurring in August and September of 1990. The Board took the positions that this conduct amounted to gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. In the Amended Administrative Complaint, on which this matter proceeded to hearing, which was filed on July 30, 1991, the factual allegations of the Complaint assert that the suspension action was taken based upon "alleged gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office"; however, the Amended Complaint actually charges that the factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint violate Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, concerning misconduct in office allegedly so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system and charges incapacity (as a subset of incompetency) alleging violations of Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, after the suspension occurred, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the Baker Act on the day following an apparent arrest for DUI, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and having a concealed firearm. The Respondent was convicted of none of these charges but, rather, pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving and to a misdemeanor weapons charge. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In fact, the weapon which the Respondent had in his car was believed by him to be legally possessed since it was merely the 22 pistol with which he used blanks for training his bird dogs. The pistol happened to be on the floorboard of his car when he was arrested by the officer. The Respondent spent a short period of time at Bay Medical Center, pursuant to involuntary Baker Act commitment on this occasion. Also, in 1990, at an undetermined time in the fall, he voluntarily admitted himself to the Rivendell Psychiatric Center for approximately 2-1/2 weeks in order to receive additional evaluation because he was unsure whether he was actually manic-depressive or not. Thereafter, while still suspended from his employment, in May of 1991, the Respondent apparently had an argument with his parents at their home in Bonifay and then left their home to return to his own home in the vicinity of Panama City in Bay County, Florida. Rumors apparently were communicated to law enforcement officials to the effect that the Respondent had threatened to kill his parents and had left their home with a high-powered rifle and was journeying to Panama City to his own home. Apparently, as a result of such reports, after the Respondent was at his own home, to his surprise, law enforcement vehicles and numerous law enforcement personnel, especially the Bay County Sheriff Department Swat Team, arrived in his yard, and, by megaphone, demanded his surrender. A television news crew was present at the scene and filmed the incident, which may have received billing as an "armed confrontation" between the swat team and the Respondent. In fact, this is untrue. When the Respondent observed the law enforcement officers arriving on his premises in a number of vehicles, he telephoned his attorney to inform him of the situation and then went to the door in response to the directive that he come outside. When he went to the door to ascertain why the law enforcement officers were at his residence, he was armed with a fork and a hamburger. He was charged with no crime in connection with this incident, although, apparently, he was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act once again for a brief period of time. The incident was disseminated to the public on the electronic media. However, no armed confrontation was proven to have occurred, nor was there any proof that the Respondent ever threatened to kill his parents. Although Mr. Simonson testified that there would be a great public outcry if he reinstated the Respondent because of this incident and the other incidents, there was no showing by the Petitioner that the incidents occurring at Rosenwald Middle School leading to the Respondent's suspension nor the incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase were ever communicated to the public generally or to parents of students of the Bay County school system or the students themselves. It was not shown by the Petitioner that the Superintendent or other officials of the Petitioner received any complaints from parents or members of the general public concerning the Respondent, his behavior, or his teaching performance. The incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase and the swat team confrontation, delineated in the above Findings of Fact, did not occur while the Respondent was on school premises nor while he was engaged in his duties as a teacher or coach. With regard to either incident, he was not shown to have committed any crime or conduct which can constitute misconduct in office. Both incidents occurred in the Respondent's private life, away from his employment and away from the School Board premises. The only conduct shown to have been disseminated in the public media involved the Respondent being taken into custody at his home by the Sheriff's swat team because the television news crew was there filming the incident. He was charged with no crime on that occasion and was shown to have committed no form of reprehensible conduct. He was merely involuntarily committed shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Baker Act. None of that can constitute misconduct in office, much less misconduct in office which in any way abrogates his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system involved. The Respondent has been taking Lithium and Prozac for his manic- depressive condition since 1989. He is presently under the treatment of Dr. David Smith, a licensed psychologist; and Dr. Ben Pimentel, a licensed psychiatrist, at a facility known as the "Life Management Center", as an outpatient. Both of these professionals opined that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, the symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission, as they are at the present time. Indeed, in the past, since he first began taking medication for his condition in 1989 after being diagnosed as manic-depressive, at those times when the Respondent was taking his medication, his behavior and his teaching performance was up to the good and satisfactory standard which he had consistently exhibited from 1977 through the 1987-88 school year. It is only on those occasions when he has ceased taking his medication, in the apparent belief that his problem was not a chronic one, that he has exhibited the emotional instability, such as that displayed at Rosenwald Middle School in August and September of 1990, which is the subject of this proceeding. Indeed, both Drs. Smith and Pimentel, the only experts testifying in this proceeding, who testified for the Respondent, established that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, his symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission and he will be competent to teach in terms of both his emotional stability and his ability to perform his duties as a teacher. Although Dr. Smith acknowledged that the rudeness exhibited by the Respondent on the occasions at issue in this case and his behavior involving striking a student and offering to wrestle a student might be behavior unrelated to the bi-polar disorder, the totality of the evidence supports the finding that, in the Respondent's case, given the many years of his teaching experience when he was a calm, caring, competently-performing instructional employee with behavior not characterized by such outbursts and aggressiveness, such conduct is, indeed, directly related to the present, active nature of his disorder on those occasions. On those occasions, he was not taking his medication. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent needs to continue his medication. If he does continue his medication, he will be competent to continue teaching or to once again teach because his symptoms will remain in remission. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent may need the motivation of a court order or employment directive or condition to insure that he continues his medication because if he obtains a medical opinion that he is no longer sick, he may not take the medication and stop the treatment. Additionally, Dr. Pimentel finds that the Respondent will require monthly counselling sessions and monitoring of his medication level to make sure it remains at a therapeutic level. Under those conditions, however, he would be capable of resuming his teaching duties. The Respondent, in his testimony, expressed the wish to obtain another medical opinion to make sure, in his view, that he is still manic- depressive, although he accepts the diagnosis that he is manic-depressive and is willing to continue his medication and to submit to monthly monitoring of his medication and monthly treatment by his presently-treating professionals.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Steven T. George, be suspended for a period of two years, but that the suspension be abated and the Respondent immediately reinstated to his duties as an instructional employee of the Bay County school district, with all of the rights of a tenured teacher, under the following circumstances which should remain in effect for a probationary period of two (2) years: His psychiatrist shall file monthly with the School Board a detailed report of his attendance at counselling sessions and the result of his monthly blood tests to ascertain if his medication remains at therapeutic levels. He is required to maintain the therapeutic levels of Lithium and Prozac or such medication as his physician and psychiatrist deem medically appropriate. If he fails to attend counselling sessions or to maintain therapeutic blood levels of his appropriate medication for any two (2) consecutive months, then this should be determined to be, at law, willful neglect of duty, subjecting him to dismissal as a teacher with the Bay County school district subject to the Respondent's right to contest such an employment action, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in this forum. There should be no award of back pay in light of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. There should be no award of attorney's fees in light of the above Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law , and the opinion in Werthman v. School Board of Seminole County, Florida, 17 FLWD 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA, opinion filed May 15, 1992; Case Number 91-1831). The cases cited by the Respondent seem to accord the Respondent a hearing opportunity on the issue, with award of fees being discretionary. The Werthman decision appears contra in termination proceedings, however. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except that it was not proven that he had "gone through Ms. Love's mailbox". Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 28-29. Accepted. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 33-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-39. Accepted. 40. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-47. Accepted. 48. Rejected, as not, in its entirety, being in accordance with the preponderant, competent evidence of record. 49-56. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 57-61. Accepted. 62. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant evidence. 15-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 24-30. Accepted. 31-36. Accepted. 37. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 38-41. Accepted. 42-48. Accepted. 49-51. Accepted. 52. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 53-54. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 64-72. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. (Second No. 74). Accepted. 75-78. Accepted. 79. Rejected in the sense that it was proven by the Petitioner that at the time he was suspended, the Respondent was incompetent to teach due to incapacity related to his emotional instability. 80-85. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent P.O. Drawer 820 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, SALE, ET AL. 304 Magnolia Avenue P.O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 David Brooks Kundin, Esq. DOBSON & KUNDIN, P.A. 210 South Monroe Street P.O. Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert David Ferris, holds Teacher's Certificate No. 172775 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, on May 11, 1977. This certificate covers the areas of elementary education, administration/supervision, and junior college. In 1983 the Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher, and taught at Jefferson Davis Middle School in Palm Beach County until his termination which was effective on September 19, 1983. Some time between June 1 and September 16, 1983, the Respondent unlawfully killed his wife, Kathleen Ferris, by strangulation. The Respondent was charged with first degree murder, and was convicted of this crime by the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. This conviction is presently being appealed. The Respondent was also charged with the murder of his son, George Ferris, but this charge was dismissed subsequent to the Respondent's conviction for murder of his wife. There was extensive news coverage of the arrest of the Respondent, of the Respondent's trial, and of his eventual conviction on the charge of murder. These events appeared in the newspaper and on the television continuously. During the investigation stage, police officers were in the Jefferson Davis Middle School constantly, making inquiries of both students and teachers about the Respondent. As a result, the students were adversely affected, and the morale of the teachers was low. The nature of the Respondent's act of killing his wife, together with the awareness of the incident on the part of the students, parents, staff and the community due to the notoriety it received, so impaired the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher and employee of the school board, that the Respondent could not be re-employed in any capacity in the Palm Beach County public schools.
Recommendation Based on he foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking Teacher's Certificate No. 172775 held by the Respondent' Robert David Ferris. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. Second Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert David Ferris DOC 103324 Baker Correctional Institution P. O. Box 500 Olustee, Florida 32072 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education. The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practice Services Section 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in this case concern whether the Petitioner, School Board of Bay County, should terminate the Respondent from his position of employment and his status as a continuing contract teacher for allegedly committing "misconduct in office."
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Wayne Davidson, has been employed by the School Board of Bay County since 1983. Respondent obtained a continuing contract with the County School Board in accordance with terms of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, approximately one year after his first employment. He has worked in various instructional positions at Rosenwald Middle School since becoming employed by the Bay County School Board. He has received an extra salary supplement for being a team leader, a position with supervision over other teachers, has served as the chairperson of the English Department at Rosenwald Middle School, and has worked in many voluntary extracurricular activities. The Respondent has received above satisfactory performance evaluations since his employment with the School Board. During the 1989-90 school year the Respondent taught an alternative program known as P.A.S.S. The P.A.S.S. or P.A.S.S. Program is designed to help students who have been retained, and who may be experiencing academic or emotional problems, or both. Having never taught in that program, the Respondent initially took a lenient approach to both his teaching and his classroom management. Sometime during the middle of November 1989, however, he recognized that some students were taking advantage of the less structured classroom atmosphere to the detriment of their own and classmates' academic and social progress. Consequently, Mr. Davidson sought advice from a colleague who recommended that he employ a more tightly structured class program and procedure. He was advised to maintain discipline and keep the students busy. He implemented these changes, and some students did not thereafter perform as well and rebelled against the imposition of more structure and discipline. Students in the alternative program P.A.S.S. could either be "mainstreamed" or "promoted" in accordance with their academic progress in that program. Sixth grade students in the P.A.S.S. Program could be promoted midyear to the seventh grade under certain exceptional circumstances with a strong recommendation from the classroom teacher. Seventh and eighth grade students could not be promoted midyear, but could be promoted for two years at the end of the school year in the P.A.S.S. Program. According to Ida Conner, the current P.A.S.S. teacher at Rosenwald Middle School, it would be unusual for a student to be promoted midyear and virtually impossible without the recommendation of that student's primary teacher. Soon after the imposition of more structure and discipline on his P.A.S.S. students, two students, April Holland and Theresa Cooley, initiated complaints against the Respondent immediately prior to the Christmas holidays in 1989. They were seventh grade students and both Theresa Cooley and April Holland had started off the year successfully. They initially performed well in the Respondent's classes. With the changes the Respondent imposed regarding structure and discipline in November 1989, which required more accountability of the students, Theresa and April began to receive "zeros" for failing to turn in work, so much so that at the time the Respondent was suspended from his duties both April and Theresa had enough zero grades for simply failing to turn in required work that their earlier A averages had declined to "Cs or Ds." Those two students never completed the missed assignments, and informed the Respondent that they had no intent to complete the assigned work. On January 11, 1990, the Respondent was suspended from Rosenwald Middle School. The two primary complaining students were Theresa Cooley and April Holland. Shortly thereafter they were promoted in midyear without the recommendation of the Respondent. For unknown reasons these students were offered the unique opportunity, unlike any other seventh grade students, to take a test in order to determine eligibility for midyear promotion. On the day of Halloween in the fall of 1989, teachers and students alike at Rosenwald School dressed in costume. The Respondent dressed in costume and wore a "Freddie Kruger" mask to jokingly frighten students. Respondent stood behind the door and grabbed students by the shoulder and shouted "boo" as they entered the room. Most of the students viewed the behavior as in a spirit of fun and were not embarrassed or scared by his actions. It was only in late December that Theresa Cooley and April Holland first indicated that they were allegedly upset by the Respondent's actions. Prior to that time not one student, including those two girls, ever complained about the incident. Indeed, Theresa Cooley even asked to borrow the mask on that occasion. April Holland testified that the Respondent hugged her from "the side" during this incident. Theresa Cooley also testified that the Respondent "sort of like" hugged April. Another student, Amy Sims, stated she had never observed the Respondent touch another student, or make any advances which could be construed as sexual advances. At the hearing, Theresa Cooley in her testimony impugned her earlier claim that the Respondent had attempted to touch her improperly with his tongue. Theresa confirmed that she had also discussed her testimony as to this issue with her cohort, April Holland, prior to the hearing. Indeed, at hearing, Theresa could not with specificity state when or where the incident allegedly occurred. She reported that when she and April discussed the matter, she thought she said it occurred in the classroom, but April believed that she had said it occurred in the lunchroom. Significantly, not one other student observed the alleged misconduct either in the classroom or the lunchroom on Halloween, or any other day for that matter. Finally, Theresa admitted that the Respondent did not say anything "out of the way" on Halloween, and that she borrowed the mask on that same day. According to the Respondent, one day during Study Hall, April Holland asked him if he ever had "dirty thoughts" about his students. Mr. Davidson responded that to do so would make him a "dirty old man." His only comment was directed toward thoughts of disciplining certain students. The inherit inconsistencies in the testimonies of Theresa and April on this issue result in that testimony being insufficient to establish their claim as it relates to the factual conduct and legal violation with which the Respondent is charged. Although the students reviewed one another's statement immediately prior to testifying by their own admission, neither could recall when the incident allegedly occurred and who may have been present. According to April, the incident in all likelihood occurred in Amy Sims' presence. Amy Sims, however, did not corroborate this claim in any way. So too, Theresa Cooley stated that the incident may have occurred in class. However, no other student confirmed the incident in any way. The testimony regarding allegations that Respondent made sexually suggestive remarks and offensive gestures is equally unreliable. Theresa Cooley and April Holland referred to an incident involving another student who did not testify at hearing. They alleged that the Respondent directed the student named "Brandy" not to sit on a desk because he was "going through a divorce and like sex eight to ten times a week." Theresa Cooley and April Holland testified essentially exactly the same regarding this alleged incident. These statements were supposedly made in the classroom in the presence of the entire class. Amy Sims, another witness for the Petitioner, was initially called to corroborate Theresa and April's claims. On cross- examination, however, she admitted that her statement on direct examination was false and that in fact Mr. Davidson did not make the statement as alleged by Theresa and April. The most plausible explanation was proffered by the Respondent who stated that he informed Brandy that the manner in which she was seated was not ladylike. Upon making this statement, he observed a student giving him "the bird" and responded to that student that the gesture did not bother him because he was use to getting it eight to ten times a week. Students Mike Everett, Mike Nobles, Rayfus Williams, Jack Pardue, Katrina Harris, and Marlena Bullock all testified that they never heard the Respondent make any inappropriate or sexually suggestive remarks during class. None of these students received any promise of or derived any actual benefit by their testimony. Also, the testimonies of April and Theresa are not credible as they relate to allegations that the Respondent made other improper comments and gestures. Respondent indicated that the same students first initiated a discussion of "three on one," apparently part of a discussion in slang terms of certain sexual activity. Later, in an attempt to chastise them for their conduct, he rebuked them while seated at his desk in his classroom during the school day. The Respondent did not make the comment as alleged by April and Theresa. No other witnesses corroborated these allegations. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that the Respondent would have made such comments when the alleged incident was said to have occurred during regular school hours when students and adults could have been present at any time. Finally, none of these students reported the alleged incident at the time, but rather waited until December to make the allegations known. Teachers and students alike testified as to April's and Theresa's reputations for credibility in their school community. Both girls do not have good reputations for telling the truth, especially as viewed by fellow classmates. The Respondent, on the other hand, was considered by his former supervisor and colleagues to have an excellent reputation for telling the truth. When coupled with the testimony relative to the girls' reputations in the school for being untruthful, the inherent inconsistencies of their statements, their own admissions that at times their stories were not accurate and, finally, the improbability of the assertions as compared with undisputed facts, the most favorable inferences rest in favor of the Respondent. Certain students allege that the Respondent used derogatory language in oral and written form in referring to Assistant Principal Carol Love. Hereto, the inconsistencies in the stories of April and Theresa undermine their reliability. Kim White, another student who testified that the Respondent made these statements, admitted on cross-examination that the allegations were untrue. Indeed, she acknowledged that in fact that another student, Jennifer Schiedel, was responsible for writing the "swear words" on the board. The Respondent acknowledged that the words had been written on the board, but that he had no knowledge who wrote them, and upon seeing the words he erased them without comment. More importantly, many other students from almost all of the Respondent's classes testified that the Respondent did not use derogatory language in addressing the students and testified that this type of behavior would be inconsistent with the conduct and decorum he normally presented to them in class. Concerning the other allegations, the Respondent has no knowledge of them and his testimony is credited in light of the discrepancies in testimony and the questions of creditability raised as to some of the Petitioner's witnesses. The Respondent received better than satisfactory evaluations since his employment with the School Board of Bay County. His former principal and colleagues testified that he was an effective and dedicated teacher. Further, his students referred to him as a caring and conscientious teacher. There is no testimony presented by the Petitioner regarding any lack of effectiveness in the classroom.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Bay County finding that the Petitioner failed to establish any ground for the dismissal of the Respondent from his continuing contract status and from his position as teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes; that the charges filed by the Superintendent should be denied and dismissed; that the Respondent should be reinstated to his position of employment on continuing contract status; that the Respondent should be made whole for economic and other measurable losses caused by the action of the Superintendent and the Board, including but not limited to payment to him of the amount of his full back pay and attendant benefits withheld from the date of his suspension without pay to the date of his effective reinstatement, plus interest thereon and reimbursement of all other economic losses directly resulting from his suspension without pay; that the Respondent has duly requested and is entitled to a hearing to determine entitlement and amount of the costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defense of this action by the Board; and that by its Final Order, the Board should award attorney's fees and costs or, should agreement not be reached, should reserve jurisdiction on the issue of attorney's fees and costs and should remand the matter for the above-referenced determination on those issues by a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of May 1991. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 14th day of May 1991 APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not being a finding of fact, but rather resuscitation of the factual allegations of the charging complaint. Rejected as immaterial to a resolution of the disputed issues from this de novo proceeding. It is not material to a decision concerning whether or not the conduct occurred and whether it constituted misconduct in office that the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson, recommended that the Board uphold the Respondent's suspension and dismiss him as an employee. His recommendation has no weight in this de novo proceeding. Rejected as not supported by the preponderance of evidence of record, much less clear and convincing evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Copies furnished to: William G. Harrison, Jr., Esq. 304 Magnolia Avenue P. O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 Pamela F. Cooper, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building L, Suite 101 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent Bay County School Board P. O. Drawer 820 Panama City, Florida 32402 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Pinellas County (School Board) should accept the Petitioner's recision of her resignation from her position as a high school teacher and reinstate her to her former position on the ground that her resignation was given under legal duress.
Findings Of Fact During the 1992/1993 school year, the Petitioner, Deborah Green, taught high school in the GOALS (drop-out prevention) program at Dixie Hollins High School. In January, 1993, she applied for a year of medical leave of absence due to stress and stress-related symptoms. The School Board approved leave starting January 27, through June 11, 1993. Shortly after going on medical leave, the Petitioner was notified that a student had made serious accusations against her. One of the accusations was that the Petitioner freely told the student details about her romantic relationship with a Michael Miller, who was married and the principal of another Pinellas County high school. She contacted the student to find out what the accusations were and met with her principal and the student and his mother to discuss the accusation. At the meeting, the student recanted. The Petitioner left for Dallas, Texas, shortly after her leave began, but she continued to receive telephone messages locally through her friend and former housemate. Not long after the Petitioner left for Dallas, the student who had accused her, and then recanted, again accused the Respondent, alleging that he had recanted because the Petitioner had asked him to lie for her. When this happened, the principal of Dixie Hollins referred the matter to Stephen Crosby, Director of Personnel Services for the Pinellas County Schools. Crosby called the Petitioner at her local telephone number and left a message. When the Petitioner returned the call from Dallas, Crosby explained that he was investigating serious charges that had been made against her and that, as always in such circumstances, it was important for him to meet with her about them as soon as possible. The Petitioner declined, stating that she was not emotionally, mentally, or physically prepared at the time to handle the situation or the stress of the situation. She insisted that her meeting with Crosby be postponed. As an accommodation to the Petitioner, Crosby agreed to postpone the meeting, and the two agreed to meet on March 1, 1993. On or about February 28, 1993, on a return trip to Pinellas County, the Petitioner visited her school and left a written message for Crosby to tell him that she still was unable to meet with him and would not attend the scheduled March 1, 1993, meeting. Crosby did not get the message until the morning of the scheduled meeting. On receipt of the message, Crosby turned to the School Board's legal office for advice on how to proceed. Based on the advice of counsel, Crosby sent the Petitioner a letter stating that he viewed the delay in the interview until March 1 to be an unusual accommodation, since teacher interviews normally are conducted as soon as he becomes aware of the charges. He wrote that, since the Petitioner would not meet on March 1, as they had agreed, he would have to proceed exclusively on the basis of his interviews of students and others. In accordance with normal procedures, he also advised her that, unless she chose to resign by March 12, 1993, he would be recommending to the School Superintendent that he recommend to the School Board that the Petitioner be dismissed. On March 3, 1993, the Petitioner received Crosby's March 1 letter and wrote back in response to offer her resignation, effective June 11, 1993. In the Petitioner's own written words, she resigned "for my personal sanity and for the credibility of Michael Miller." Crosby processed the Petitioner's resignation to be considered at the March 24, 1993, School Board meeting. It is standard operating procedure to process resignations before their effective dates, if possible, so that replacement personnel can be hired. The School Board accepted the Petitioner's resignation (among others) at its March 24, 1993, meeting. The Petitioner tried unsuccessfully several times after March 24, 1993, to contact Crosby by telephone to rescind her resignation. She was unable to speak to him but was told that the School Board already had accepted her resignation and that it was too late to rescind it. In April, 1993, the Petitioner learned that the Florida Education Practices Commission of the Florida Department of Education also was investigating the allegations against her, notwithstanding her resignation. On or about June 3, 1993, the Petitioner returned to Pinellas County and met with a lawyer about getting her teaching position back and about defending her teacher certificate. On June 8, 1993, the lawyer wrote a letter to the School Board Attorney (which was received on or before June 11, 1993) purporting to rescind the Petitioner's resignation. It was not proven that the Petitioner had no choice but to resign from her position as a teacher between March 1 and March 12, 1993, due to her emotional, mental and physical condition at the time. As a result of her long-standing membership in the local teachers' union, the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA), the Petitioner knew that dues-paying members of the PCTA may be entitled to the services of an attorney, free of charge, in a teacher dismissal proceeding. She claimed that she did not know she still was entitled to free legal counsel after going on medical leave of absence as of January 27, 1993, and ceasing to pay union dues while on leave. However, there was no evidence that she inquired as to the availability of paid counsel until after the effective date of her resignation. Had she done so in a timely fashion, she would have learned before her resignation was accepted that she was entitled to the services of an attorney, free of charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 16th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6074 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Third sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that she spoke to Crosby more than once. Explaining the discrepancies between her testimony and his is problematic. But some of the telephone conversations she supposedly had with Crosby would have been on weekends (e.g., January 16 and 23, 1993), giving rise to a question as to the accuracy of her testimony. In addition, the Petitioner's own evidence suggested that her condition during this time period impaired her thought process and memory. Perhaps the Petitioner is counting unsuccessful attempts to contact Crosby as actual conversations with him. Rejected as not proven that the Petitioner acted on the advice of her physician in cancelling the March 1, 1993, meeting with Crosby. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, rejected as not proven that she resigned "under protest because of her inability to participate in the investigation due to her medical condition"; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. See 7., above. (Some of the telephone conversations she supposedly had with Crosby during this time period would have been during the spring school holidays when all school offices were closed.) Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected in part as not proven as to "rational decisions with respect to her employment"; otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 8.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 23.-26. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (As to 25., the referee appeared to be referring to Green's medical leave of absence.) COPIES FURNISHED: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. P. O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Pinellas County Schools Administration Building 301 Fourth Street SW Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street SW Largo, Florida 34640-3536 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Background Information The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Dillard High School, Thurgood Marshall Elementary School, and Deerfield Park Elementary School) and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent is employed by the School Board as a professional service contract teacher. He has worked as a teacher for the School Board since 1982 (except for a year's leave of absence following the 1994- 1995 school year). He has an unblemished disciplinary record as a School Board employee. Respondent taught music at Dillard High School (Dillard) from 1982 until the end of the 1994-1995 school year, at Thurgood Marshall Elementary School for the 1995-1996 school year, and at Parkview Elementary School from the beginning of the 1996-1997 school year until early 2005, when he was placed on administrative reassignment pending the outcome of an investigation of an allegation of sexual misconduct made against him by a former student, T. H. At Dillard, Respondent was the director of the school band and a popular teacher. Allegations of Sexual Misconduct T. H. graduated from Dillard in 1989. In her ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade years at Dillard, she was in the school band and a student of Respondent's. T. H., who lived in a fatherless household, looked up to Respondent and considered him to be a "father figure" and "role model." A personal relationship developed between the two. They began conversing with one another on a daily basis, talking "about people and about the world and different things like that." Respondent did most of the talking, with T. H. "listen[ing] to [the] the things he had to say." During "summer band," before the beginning of T. H.'s tenth grade year, the conversations between T. H. and Respondent became more intimate in nature and their relationship evolved into a physical one. The first physical contact they had that summer was in the music library adjacent to Respondent's office, when Respondent walked up to T. H., "embraced" her, and gave her an "[i]ntimate, on-the-mouth kiss." Later that summer, Respondent started driving T. H. home (but not always straight home) in his Toyota Camry after band practice. In the car, there was intimate touching between the two, including Respondent's penetrating T' H.'s vagina with his hand. Thus began the sexual relationship between T. H. and Respondent, which lasted until after she had graduated from Dillard. "[N]umerous times," after school and on weekends, Respondent drove T. H. in his car to various hotels, where they had sexual relations. They also had "dozens" of sexual encounters on school grounds, usually after school hours, in a "little back room," near the school auditorium, that was used as a dressing area. As a result of her having been intimate with Respondent, T. H. was able to observe that Respondent's penis was uncircumcised and that he had a "branded tattoo on his chest." Respondent sometimes set up a video camera to tape his sexual liaisons with T. H. He would also "send [T. H.] home with the camera" on weekends, requesting that she tape herself fondling herself and "and then bring the camera back to him on Monday" (which T. H. did). One day while T. H. was in Respondent's office, Respondent handed her a piece of "notebook paper" on which he had written the following poem: How then, can I tell you of my love? Strong as the eagle, soft as the dove, Patient as the pine tree that stands in the sun and whispers to the wind you are the one!!!![2] On another occasion when T. H. was in Respondent's office, she had a tape recorder with her and asked Respondent to "say something" that she could record. What Respondent said in response to this request was: "I love you baby, suck my dick," and "I love you baby, sit on my face."3 T. H. ended her relationship with Respondent during her first year as a student at the International Fine Arts College in Miami. It was not until 2003, approximately 14 years after she had graduated from Dillard, that T. H. decided to come forward and tell authorities about the sexual relationship she had had with Respondent when she was a student at the school. She had not come forward sooner because she did not have the courage to do so. Only after receiving "church counseling" was she able overcome her fear and become sufficiently emboldened to report what had occurred years earlier between her and Respondent. T. H. first went to the Fort Lauderdale Police Department, but was told that Respondent could not be criminally prosecuted because the limitations period had expired. In January 2005, the School Board's police unit was advised of the allegation that T. H. had made against Respondent and commenced an investigation into the matter, which included interviews with both T. H. and Respondent. On January 28, 2005, Respondent was placed on administrative reassignment with pay pending the outcome of the investigation. T. H. has "hired an attorney to pursue a civil claim against the School Board" for damages she allegedly suffered as a result of her relationship with Respondent when she was a student at Dillard. Allegations of Residing with Students From 1985 to 1987, Respondent resided in Dade County, Florida, with his wife4 and two minor daughters. For at least a portion of that time, two Dillard students stayed with Respondent and his family. One of these students was P. R., who was in the school band. When Respondent learned that P. R. was living in a residence with "no running water [and] no mom or dad," he invited P. R. to move in with him, an invitation that P. R. accepted. "Eventually," Respondent was able to make contact with P. R.'s mother and obtain her approval to "keep" P. R. P. R. lived with Respondent and his family for a year and a half. He moved out after he graduated and joined the military. The other student that stayed with Respondent and his family was C. M. Respondent's oldest daughter and C. M. both played flute in the school band and were close friends. C. M. stayed at Respondent's house on weekends and when school was not in session. C. M.'s mother never had any problem with these living arrangements. Respondent did not notify the School Board that P. R. and C. M. were staying with him inasmuch as he did not know that he was required to do so. Allegations of Corporal Punishment From 1982 to 1985, Respondent administered corporal punishment to students contrary to School Board policy (hitting female students on the hand with a ruler and male students on the buttocks with a paddle). He did not "seek permission from anyone in the [school] administration before administering [this] corporal punishment," nor did he administer this corporal punishment in the presence of another School Board employee, as required by School Board policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for having had a sexual relationship with T. H. when she was a student of his at Dillard. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 23rd day of August, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Milton Aaron Wetherington, holds Florida teacher's certificate number 035136 issued by the State Department of Education covering the areas of physical education, history and administration/supervision. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1991. This proceeding involves an administrative complaint filed against Wetherington by petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education. The complaint stems from various complaints lodged with the Volusia County School Board by several students and parents who alleged that Wetherington engaged or attempted to engage in improper relationships of a romantic nature with female high school students assigned to his classes. The filing of the administrative complaint precipitated the instant action. Wetherington, who is 57 years old, has been a teacher for some twenty seven years, the last seventeen in the Volusia County school system. From 1975 until 1984 Wetherington was a teacher at Spruce Creek School in Port Orange, Florida. Because of the pending disciplinary proceeding, he was reassigned to a non-instructional position as an assistant manager of purchasing and property for school year 1984-85. However, after the charges came to light in early 1984, Wetherington was allowed to continue as a teacher for the remainder of the school year, and was a chaperone on the senior class trip to Walt Disney World. In his twenty seven years of teaching, he has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him. In school year 1983-84 Wetherington taught a political systems course to first semester seniors. Two of his students were Lisa and Tammy, both seventeen years of age at the time, and the best of friends. Seven of the specific charges in the complaint involve respondent's relationship with Lisa, and to a lesser extent, Tammy. Lisa lived at home with her mother and step father for a part of her senior year. Because of problems with her stepfather, who beat her, she moved out at the end of January, 1984, to live with a girlfriend. She was involved with drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, and was experiencing financial problems. Lisa needed a social studies course to graduate, and transferred into Wetherington's class about two weeks after the semester started. She had not met or known Wetherington prior to that time. Wetherington immediately took a special interest in Lisa, and selected her to assist him during office hours with grading papers and the like. Lisa spotted an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and began cultivating the relationship in an assiduous manner. Her testimony reveals she had two goals in mind: to obtain money from Wetherington and to get a good grade without studying. She also saw the opportunity to get her friend Tammy a good grade since she had access to Wetherington's grade book. The relationship was non-sexual, and all parties agree that Wetherington made no sexual advances or demands upon Lisa. One evening during the fall of 1983, Wetherington asked Lisa if she and Tammy wanted to get a pizza after a football game. Lisa agreed and Wetherington gave her $20 to purchase the food. The three met briefly in separate cars at a local Pizza Hut, but after the girls saw other students there, they all drove in Wetherington's car to the Breakers Restaurant and Lounge, an establishment in New Smyrna Beach. They arrived around 12:45 a.m. or so, and after being seated in a booth next to the stage on which a band was playing, they placed an order for pizza. Because of the lateness of the hour, the waitress informed there the kitchen had closed. They then departed the premises and returned to Daytona Beach where all went their separate ways. The two girls claimed Wetherington purchased them an alcoholic drink at the Breakers, but a member of the band, who happened to be a teaching colleague of Wetherington disputed this and observed the three had no drinks during their five to seven minute stay at the restaurant. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and it is found respondent did not "purchase alcoholic beverages for both students" as alleged in the administrative complaint. At some point in the first semester, Wetherington gave Lisa a key to his house in Holly Hill where he lives alone. According to respondent, he did so since he wanted Lisa to have a place to go in the event she suffered a beating from her stepfather. Lisa visited his house approximately five times in the company of a girlfriend when Wetherington was home, and an undisclosed number of times when he was not at home. One of Wetherington's sons lives at Bunnell, and visited his father regularly. The son kept a stash of marijuana at the house which the son used when he visited. Wetherington acknowledged that this was true, but maintained he did not know where it was hidden at the time. Indeed, he claimed he never used drugs himself, and objected to their use by other persons. Wetherington gave Lisa instructions to use the key only when she had problems with her stepfather, but Lisa ignored these instructions. While at Wetherington's home, she used both alcohol and marijuana on at least one occasion in his presence. The alcohol (wine) was taken from Wetherington's refrigerator while the marijuana was either brought onto the premises by Lisa, or came from the son's hidden stash. 1/ There is no credible evidence that Wetherington himself used "marijuana and alcohol at his residence with female students" as charged in the complaint. During the school year, Wetherington gave Lisa a friendship ring valued at $12, some $500 in cash, between $400 and $500 worth of clothes, and lent her an Amoco gasoline credit card for gasoline purchases to get her to and from the part-time job she held. Lisa charged some $120 worth of gasoline on the card as well as $247 in auto repairs. With her mother's consent, and after clearing it with the school principal, he also paid Lisa's mother $500 for the equity in Lisa's car, transferred the title to his own name, and financed it with a Miami bank. Lisa got to use the car with the understanding that she would pay him $125 a month, which was Wetherington's obligation on the bank note. Wetherington considered all this to be a "loan," and kept a book detailing the total amount advanced to Lisa. As a part of the social studies course, Wetherington required each student to prepare a term paper. Wetherington gave fourteen students, including Lisa and Tammy, copies of term papers written in the prior year with instructions to use them as a "format" or "guideline" in preparing their own. Lisa and Tammy simply changed the title page, and turned the papers back in as if they were their own. They each received a grade of 25, which was the highest grade in the class. Lisa claimed she simply did what Wetherington told her to do, and Tammy corroborated this claim. Although Wetherington was negligent in failing to detect that the papers turned in by Lisa and Tammy were identical to those previously given them to be used as a "formats" the evidence does not support a finding that Wetherington gave them the papers for the purpose of evading any academic requirements. The final charge concerning Lisa and Tammy is that Wetherington "[o]n at least one occasion kissed and hugged a female student." This charge apparently stems from Wetherington kissing Lisa on the cheek one day and giving her a paternal hug. Wetherington does not deny this, but contends it was not romantic in nature but done in a fatherly way. Wendy was a seventeen year old senior at Spruce Creek High School in school year 1983-94. She is the source of some four separate charges against respondent in the administrative complaint. Wetherington approached her at the beginning of the year and asked if she wanted to be his teacher's aide. She said yes, and he accordingly rearranged her schedule so that she worked in his office or classroom during first period as an aide, and was a student in his social studies class the following period. During the first nine weeks, Wetherington gave Wendy two rings, one for her birthday and the other to simply keep till the end of the school year. He also gave her $230 in cash over this period of time. He kept a log detailing each amount of money given to her, and considered the payments to be a loan. While working in Wetherington's classroom one day, Wendy walked by Wetherington who pulled her onto his lap and began rubbing her upper thigh. He also approached her one day in his office and put his arms around her waist and pulled her towards him. After she told him, "I don't want this," he released her. She then pulled away and claimed she immediately reported the incident to the principal. The principal could not recall such a conversation. The next day Wetherington apologized to her in his office, but he then turned off the lights in the room and began hugging her. She pushed him away and ran out of the room. Although Wendy again claimed that she immediately reported the incident to the school principal, the principal could not recall such a meeting. In any event, Wendy went to her parents, disclosed the various incidents and gave them the two rings given to her by Wetherington. The parents were understandably irate, and went to the principal demanding that Wendy be transferred out of Wetherington's class. A meeting was held by the principal, with Wetherington and the two parents in attendance. At the meeting Wetherington simply acknowledged that he admired Wendy very much, that she was a good student, and that the cash given to her ($230) was a loan for car payments and voice lessons because he trusted her. However, Wendy does not own a car, and her another paid for all voice lessons. Moreover, her father is a physician who has provided well for his family. The mother then wrote Wetherington a check for $230 to repay the "loan." Wendy was also transferred out of respondent's class. Wendy acknowledged that she "took advantage" of Wetherington, and characterized their relationship as simply a friendship. In a note written to him in a school yearbook at the end of the year, she apologized for "putting (him) through hell" and wished she "could erase it all." Wetherington denied any romantic involvement with Wendy, and acknowledged only that he had kissed her twice on the cheek, once at a football game and another time outside his house. He attributes Wendy's story to emotional problems she was experiencing that fall caused by her relationship with a married man. Wetherington portrayed himself as a teacher genuinely interested in his students. He estimated he has given financial aid in the form of loans and gifts to students over the years in excess of $10,000. Because he has raised seven children of his own, he vigorously denied having any illicit or sinister purpose in his dealings with Lisa and Wendy. Instead, he contended he was merely helping them overcome personal and financial problems so that they would be better persons after graduation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found GUILTY of violating Rules 6B- 1.06(3)(a) and (e), and Subsection 231.28(1)(c), as set out more specifically in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be placed on probation for three years and that he be retained by the school board during his probationary period only as a non- instructional employee. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003),2 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(h), and 6B-1.006(4)(e), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Hayes holds Florida Educator Certificate 769153 for teaching sociology, grades six through 12. His certificate was valid through June 30, 2004. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Hayes was employed as a science teacher and, later, as a substitute teacher with the Polk County School District. During 1998, R.H. was a sixth-grade student at Fort Meade Middle-Senior High School. Hayes was her science teacher. While a student in Hayes' class, Hayes made inappropriate remarks to R.H. on a daily basis such as: "You're so pretty. You're so special. You don't know how special you are." Hayes asked R.H. if she had a boyfriend, and, when she told him that she did, he became upset and told R.H. that he was going to call her parents and tell them. He also wrote her a letter telling that she was too young and too pretty for the boyfriend. Hayes told her that she did not need a boyfriend and that the boy was a troublemaker. On a daily basis, Hayes would ask R.H. to run errands for him. He did not ask other students in R.H.'s class to run errands. Hayes would also try to keep R.H. after class. At times he would tell her that she needed to stay after class so that she could see how she was doing. R.H. maintained an "A" in his class, so there was really no need for her to stay after class. Hayes' special attention to R.H. embarrassed her, especially when other students would tease her about Hayes being her boyfriend. Hayes made her feel uncomfortable and distracted her in class. One day when Hayes asked her to stay after class, she confronted Hayes about his unwanted attentions and told him that his actions made her feel uncomfortable. He became angry with her and asked her to leave the classroom. After their confrontation, Hayes' attitude toward R.H. changed. He asked R.H. to stay after school again and told her that if she did not stay that he would give her a detention. During 1998, J.R. was a student in Hayes' sixth-grade science class at Fort Meade Middle-Senior High School. During the first six weeks of class, J.R. and Hayes had a normal teacher-student relationship. However, by the second six weeks of class, Hayes had begun to lean close to J.R. while she was at her desk. During class, he would play with her hair, take her hair scrunchies, and purposefully step on her feet. Hayes began to ask J.R. to stay after class. The first time that he asked her to stay he gave her a hall pass on the back of which he had written that he "really, really liked" her. He held her after class so that he could talk to her about non- school activities. For example, he would tell her that she was beautiful and that she was an angel. Hayes would ask her if she had any boyfriends and tell her that she did not need to mess with boys because they only wanted one thing. Because Hayes required her to stay after class, J.R. would miss her school bus. She missed her bus so many times because of Hayes that her mother threatened to discipline her if she missed the bus again. Hayes began to write letters to J.R. when she was in the sixth grade and continued to write to her for the next couple of years. At first his letters were written in third person. For example, he wrote: I saw your friend yesterday, he misses you sooooooooooo much! He's been waiting and waiting and waiting for the letters you promised him. He is sooooo crazy about and was soooooo happy that you made all A's. You make him so proud, He LOVES YOU 4-LIFE. As their relationship progressed, Hayes began to write in first person, professing his love for J.R. Hayes wrote that she could trust him, that he missed her, and that they were going to have a great future together, including beautiful children. He wrote to her that he was the best thing that had ever happened to her. His letters to J.R. contained other inappropriate remarks such as: "I'm 'crazy' about you because you drive me 'crazy' at times. I wake up at 2:30, 3:30, 4:30 AM thinking about you."; "You looked good on Friday. I hope you let your hair grow back (PLEASE, PLEASE) Those shorts you had on was [sic] toooooooo short. I can't believe they didn't make you change."; and "I can't stop staring at you, there's nothing in this world more beautiful than you!" When J.R. was in the seventh grade, Hayes promised to marry J.R., and they began a sexual relationship. Hayes would pick J.R. up and take her to his house, and sometimes they would have intimate relations at her home when her mother was not present. Their sexual relationship continued until J.R. was in the tenth grade. Unbeknownst to J.R.'s mother and without her permission, Hayes picked up J.R. in his car on May 21, 2002, and drove her to Brandon, in Hillsborough County, Florida. They had lunch, and J.R. had her nails done. On the way back to Polk County, where J.R. lived, they were stopped by a deputy sheriff. Hayes told J.R. to tell the deputy that they were just friends or he could get in trouble and go to jail. At first, Hayes told the deputy that he was dating J.R.'s mother, which was untrue. After the May 21, 2002, incident occurred, J.R.'s mother wrote Hayes and told him to refrain from contacting her daughter. However, Hayes continued to contact J.R. and continued a sexual relationship with her until September 2002. During their relationship, Hayes gave J.R. gifts, including mugs with candy, jewelry, clothes, and bath and body products. Based on the types of gifts, it is clear that the purpose of the gifts was to facilitate their romance. J.R. is embarrassed by her relationship with Hayes and feels that he took advantage of her. She was distracted by his behavior, which affected her ability to concentrate in school. Their relationship has hindered her ability to develop relationships with people her own age. During the 2000-2001 school year, A.B. was a ninth-grade student at Frostproof Middle-Senior High School, and Hayes was a substitute teacher at the school. A.B. had attended approximately five classes in which Hayes was substituting. A.B. played softball and volleyball at school. Hayes sent her e-mails two or three times about her athletic endeavors. A.B. felt that the e-mails were social and not school-related and thought it was "weird" that a teacher she did not really know was sending her e-mails. On Valentine's Day in February 2001, Hayes told A.B. that he had left a bag in a classroom for her and that he wanted her to pick it up. A.B. got the bag and it contained a pink candle with a heart on the top and a book entitled Kisses. The book contained pictures of people kissing. A.B. was embarrassed by the gift and thought that it was unusual for a teacher to give a student such a gift. Based on his gifts, she felt that he wanted to have a physical relationship with her. On the day that she received the gifts, she told her physical education teacher, Coach Bolin, that she had gotten the gifts, but that she could not tell who gave them to her. The next day she told Coach Bolin that Hayes had given the gifts to her. Coach Bolin reported the incident to the principal. After she reported the incident, Hayes did not return to substitute at Frostproof Middle-Senior High School and was removed from the list of approved substitute teachers at the school. Coach Bolin did not want to continue working with Hayes after the incident. She felt that it was completely inappropriate for Hayes to give A.B. the gifts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Delton B. Hayes violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), (h), and 6B-1.006(4)(e) and permanently revoking his educator certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2004.
