The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be granted or denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued by Respondent on December 13, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Ms. Cappi Cay Arroyo1/ was born in Boulder, Colorado, on September 16, 1964. On or about August 22, 1986, Ms. Arroyo knowingly and intentionally distributed cocaine to another person, knowing that what was distributed was cocaine or some other prohibited drug. From 1984 until in or about December 1986, she willfully and knowingly entered into an agreement to accomplish the illegal objective of the distribution of cocaine, with the intent to commit the offense of distribution of cocaine. Ms. Arroyo pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and was convicted of the offenses of distributing cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and of conspiracy to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Ms. Arroyo committed acts involving moral turpitude. On January 28, 1988, Ms. Arroyo was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a Special Parole Term of three years, with the execution of the sentence suspended and Ms. Arroyo placed on probation for a period of five years, on the condition that she pay a fine of $500.00 and serve 100 hours of community service. On April 3, 1991, Ms. Arroyo was discharged from probation. Ms. Arroyo later returned to Colorado. She attended Colorado Christian University and received her Bachelor's Degree in Computer Information Systems in 2002. She began working at Grand Junction High School in 2005 as a Library Media Specialist, where she worked until 2010. She received her Master's Degree in Educational Media in 2006 from the University of Northern Colorado. She received an Outstanding Educator for 2007 award given by the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce, and was selected as the Outstanding Teacher by the students of the Class of 2009. The Ethics in Education Act, creating section 1012.315, Florida Statutes, and adding the phrase "as defined by rule of the State Board of Education" to section 1012.795(1)(d), became effective on July 1, 2008. On June 3, 2010, Ms. Arroyo submitted an on-line application for a Florida Educator's Certificate as an Educational Media Specialist. On the application, she provided her social security number and answered "Yes" to a question asking if she had ever been convicted of a criminal offense. She filled in the "Charges" block with the words "Drug Charges" and the "Disposition" block with the word "Probation." By June 9, 2010, the Bureau of Educator's Certification had received the application, the evidence of her bachelor's degree, the grades transcript, and the fee. Ms. Arroyo meets the basic requirements for licensure. She was at least 18 years of age at the time of her application; she submitted an electronically authenticated affidavit that stated she would uphold the principles incorporated in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida and that the information provided in her application was true, accurate, and complete; she documented her receipt of a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution and a master's degree; she submitted to background screening; she is of good moral character; she is competent and capable of performing the duties, functions, and responsibilities of an educator; she holds a valid professional standard teaching certificate issued by the State of Colorado, demonstrating her mastery of general knowledge, mastery of subject area knowledge, and mastery of professional preparation and education competence. The Department of Education is the state agency responsible for licensure of instructional personnel for the public schools. On or about July 7, 2010, the Bureau of Educator Certification of the Department of Education issued Ms. Arroyo an Official Statement of Status of Eligibility. This statement advised Ms. Arroyo that she was eligible for a three-year nonrenewable Temporary Certificate upon receipt by the Bureau of: 1) documentation showing verification of employment; 2) a request for issuance of certificate on the appropriate certification form from a Florida public school; and 3) results of her fingerprint processing, noting that if there was a criminal offense, her file would be referred to Professional Practices Services for further review and that issuance of her Temporary Certificate would be contingent on the results of that review. The Statement included some additional requirements for the issuance of a Florida Educator's Certificate valid for five years covering Educational Media Specialist (Prekindergarten- Grade 12). Mr. Troy Sanford, the principal at Horizon Academy at Marion Oaks, a school in the Marion County School District, interviewed Ms. Arroyo for a media specialist position at the school in August of 2010. At the end of that interview, she began to tell Mr. Sanford of her conviction, but he stopped her and told her that it was the Human Resources Department that checked into applicant's backgrounds. When Mr. Sanford later talked to the Human Resources Department, he advised them that he was recommending someone for the position who had indicated she had something in her background, and asked to be told if it would hinder her appointment. The Human Resources Department had further conversations with Mr. Sanford, telling him about a criminal conviction, but stating that because it had occurred over ten years ago, it should not be a limiting factor. Ms. Arroyo was hired at Horizon Academy and worked there during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years as a library media specialist. Ms. Arroyo has excellent knowledge of her subject area and exhibits great enthusiasm in encouraging students to become life-long readers. Ms. Arroyo has effectively become a "co-teacher" with many of the classroom teachers and has helped them craft research projects that are meaningful to students. Horizon Academy has a high percentage of minority students, some of whom are underprivileged. Ms. Arroyo has made special efforts to get books into the hands of students who have never read a book before. She has created a culture of reading at Horizon Academy. Her efforts at her school have caused the library circulation to dramatically increase, which has had an effect on the district-wide data. Ms. Arroyo re-arranged the library to accommodate more students. Ms. Arroyo was selected as the Horizon Academy teacher of the year. Ms. Arroyo became a member of the Library of Congress Teaching with Primary Sources Mentor Program, one of only 19 educators from across the United States with such membership. Ms. Arroyo has helped children with lost or overdue books who are not permitted to withdraw books from the library by loaning them her personal books. She has purchased books from the Book Fair and given them to underprivileged students. She has given Christmas gifts to needy children who might otherwise not receive any gifts. When Ms. Arroyo came to Horizon Academy, it was a "C" school, but it is now an "A" school. The principal believes that there was a direct link between Ms. Arroyo's efforts and the improvement of the school. On October 13, 2010, the Department of Education received background check information on Ms. Arroyo from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. On October 19, 2010, Ms. Arroyo's file was referred to the Bureau of Professional Practice Services for consideration of the background information regarding her conviction. On October 22, 2010, Ms. Arroyo was sent a letter from Ms. Ellie Evans, Applicant Investigator of the Bureau, advising Ms. Arroyo that her application had been referred to the Bureau of Professional Practices Services because of her criminal history, and requesting further information regarding Ms. Arroyo's conviction. On November 16, 2010, the Department received from Ms. Arroyo copies of a judgment in her criminal case, United States v. Cappi C. Eminger, Case No. CR87-01061-03, from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, dated January 28, 1988, consisting of three pages, and including an Order Terminating Probation Prior to Original Expiration Date in the same case filed April 8, 1991, consisting of one page. On December 13, 2010, Commissioner of Education Eric Smith sent Ms. Arroyo a letter advising her that her application for a Florida Educator's Certificate was denied, attaching a Notice of Reasons, and advising her of her right to a hearing on the intended action. Ms. Arroyo requested a formal hearing. Ms. Arroyo will be unable to pursue a career teaching students in Florida without educator certification. Ms. Arroyo is substantially affected by the intended decision to deny her certification. On or about March 23, 2011, the Bureau issued Ms. Arroyo a second Official Statement of Status of Eligibility. This statement advised Ms. Arroyo that her Colorado Teaching Certificate had been received and that she was eligible for a Florida Educator's Certificate valid for five years upon receipt of clearance to issue the certificate from the Bureau of Professional Practices Services. On or about June 8, 2011, Ms. Arroyo applied to the Florida Office of Executive Clemency for a pardon of her convictions. Ms. Arroyo also applied to the President of the United States for a pardon. On October 28, 2011, the Department received from Petitioner a notice of intent to rely on the default license provision in section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes. Although the charges of statutory violations drafted by Respondent as grounds for the denial of her application could have been crafted with more care, Petitioner was not prejudiced in preparing her defense. Hearing was held on December 6, 2011. At hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not distribute cocaine and that she did not conspire to distribute cocaine, maintaining that her guilty plea was the result of coercion and intimidation by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents. Her testimony on these points was not credible. She testified that the DEA agents took her vehicle and showed up at her house with guns. She testified that there were 33 charges in the indictment. She testified that she told the DEA agents that it was her ex-boyfriend who had distributed cocaine. She said that the DEA agents told her that she was guilty simply because she was aware of what he did, even if she did not distribute cocaine herself. Petitioner testified that she could not remember whether her attorney advised her about entering into the plea agreement. At another point in her testimony she testified that her attorney did not advise her as to the guilty plea. She was somewhat evasive during cross-examination as to her appearance before the judge when pleading guilty. She later said that she did not remember that appearance at all. She testified she did not remember the judge asking her if she knowingly and intentionally distributed 55.2 grams of cocaine. Petitioner did testify that she believed what the DEA agents had told her and signed a plea agreement that she was guilty of 2 of the 33 charges, based only upon this mistaken belief. Ms. Arroyo's testimony and selective memories about these long-ago events seemed to be shaped more by convenience than candor. Ms. Arroyo failed to prove her guilty plea resulted from threats, coercion, or fraudulent means. Despite the fact that Ms. Arroyo distributed cocaine and conspired to distribute cocaine and her selective memories and lack of credibility concerning those events, she is of good moral character. A few isolated events are not determinative of her character today. Ms. Arroyo's actions since her youthful criminal activity show a consistent pattern of personal accomplishment and public service over a very long period of time, with no evidence of any other criminal activity. Ms. Arroyo has substantially rehabilitated herself. Her receipt of several education awards demonstrates that she is a dedicated and accomplished professional. Testimony at hearing established that Ms. Arroyo exhibits a compassionate and generous attitude toward students, especially the underprivileged. On January 3, 2012, Respondent filed certified copies of records of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, including sentencing minutes, the indictment, a superseding indictment, sentencing memorandum, and other documents, requesting their official recognition and admission as a late-filed exhibit. The State Board of Education has not defined the term "gross immorality" by rule, and there was no evidence presented that Ms. Arroyo's behavior met any rule definition of that term.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate, without prejudice to her reapplication should she later become eligible. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner school board has good cause to reject the Walton County School superintendent's recommendation of Ann Farrior (Respondent) for renewal of an annual contract to serve in the position of school psychologist.
Findings Of Fact Ann Farrior was employed as a school psychologist by the Walton County School District for the 1998-1999 school year. She was employed on the recommendation of the superintendent and under an annual contract for that school year. Title 20, United States Code, Chapter 33, is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The intelligence testing and questions regarding assessment and placement of exceptional education students is governed by that federal statute and rules pendent thereto. The federal regulations implementing the IDEA provide certain federal funds to assist in their implementation by local school districts. The Walton County School District receives federal funding to implement the IDEA. The failure to comply with appropriate federal regulations governing testing, assessment and placement of exceptional education students can result in a loss of such federal funding for the District. The Superintendent, Mr. Bludworth, nominated Ms. Farrior for the school psychologist position at issue for the 1998-1999 school year with the understanding that although she was not certified as a school psychologist, she was eligible to be certified as such. During the course of her employment as a school psychologist that school year, state audit personnel determined that she was not properly credentialed to administer intelligence testing as part of the assessment process for exceptional education students, which is necessary to the formulation of Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) which is in turn a necessary element of the ultimate decision of proper placement of such students in the educational system in a school district. In view of this situation, Mr. Sam Goff of the Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services of the Department of Education wrote the superintendent on January 20, 1999, outlining specific requirements that the District would have to meet in order to bring itself into compliance with the IDEA as a result of Ms. Farrior's ineligibility to administer intelligence testing as part of the assessment and evaluation process for exceptional students. The superintendent also received notice by memorandum of January 28, 1999, and by letter of January 29, 1999, from the Auditor General's staff and the Auditor General (in evidence as Petitioner Exhibits 4 and 5), that audit findings had determined that the District employed a person as a school psychologist (the Respondent) concerning whom school district records did not indicate a basis for that person being qualified for the school psychologist's position. The Auditor General's findings noted that the position description for school psychologist employed by the school district included responsibilities for administering testing and assessing placement for all exceptional education students. The preliminary findings noted that the employee, the Respondent, then serving as a school psychologist possessed only a temporary Florida teaching certificate in "psychology" which had expired on June 30, 1998, and which did not constitute certification as a "school psychologist." District records did not show that the Respondent had renewed her teaching certificate or had otherwise met the minimum job requirements for the school psychologist position. The Auditor General recommended that the school district document its records with a basis upon which the individual, the Respondent, was determined to be qualified for the school psychologist position or to take appropriate action to provide for a licensed or certified school psychologist for administering testing and for assessing placement for exceptional students. As a result of receiving these communications and preliminary findings, the superintendent met with the Respondent and felt compelled to request her resignation. Nancy Holder had been the school psychologist in the position that Ann Farrior assumed. Early in the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Holder, who is a certified school psychologist, had been transferred to the position of "Staffing Specialist" upon which occurrence Ann Farrior then occupied the position of school psychologist. Ms. Holder, in her testimony, described the duties of school psychologist as including, in addition to performing intelligence testing of students, testing for academic achievement, and personality testing as well as counseling duties involving students, their parent, and teachers. The school psychologist must also participate in staffing meetings and in the IEP formulation process and resulting decisions regarding placement of exceptional students; she must assist classroom teachers and parents with the particular problems involving both exceptional students as well as students who do not have exceptionalities or diagnoses. Because of the above-referenced preliminary audit findings by the Department of Education, Ms. Holder was required to assume the additional responsibility of supervising Ms. Farrior's activities for the remainder of her annual contract year as well as undertaking to re-test those students whom Ms. Farrior had previously tested. The school district alternatively obtained a consultant to perform the educational testing that otherwise would have been done by Ms. Farrior as school psychologist had she been qualified under the pertinent regulations to do so. The school district received a statement from the Department of Education's Bureau of Teacher Certification, dated March 22, 1999, concerning the Respondent's eligibility to apply for or to receive certification as a school psychologist. That statement of eligibility noted that the Respondent lacked 27- semester hours of graduate school credit in school psychology which would necessarily have to include six-semester hours of graduate credit in a supervised school psychology internship. Additionally, Ms. Farrior would have to submit a passing score on the state-required teacher certification examination. Ms. Farrior enrolled in an appropriate school psychology internship program for the 1999-2000 school year, but as of the date of the hearing in this case, she still lacked 24 of the required semester hours of graduate credit in school psychology and had not yet submitted a passing score on the Florida State Teacher Certification examination. The Walton County School Board has a written policy adopted August 13, 1996, and in force at times pertinent hereto which authorizes the superintendent "to select and recommended non-certificated instructional personnel for appointment pursuant to Section 321.1725, Florida Statutes, and State Board of Education Rule 6A-1.0502, when special services are needed to deliver instruction." Section 228.041(9), Florida Statutes defines the term "instructional personnel" as including "school psychologists." There is no showing in the evidence of record, however, that "special services" are needed to deliver instruction. That is, although the school psychologist position is statutorily deemed to be in the category of "instructional personnel" it does not involve the teaching of students. Rather the school psychologist position, which is the subject of this case, involves testing, evaluation, assessment, and assistance in the placement of exceptional students in appropriate courses of instruction. There was no showing that special services were needed to actually deliver instruction, as envisioned by the above-referenced written policy of the School Board concerning the appointment of non-certificated instructional personnel, such as Ms. Farrior. Given the above-referenced audit findings in relation to the controlling federal regulations referenced above and the Board's policy allowing employment of certificated personnel "out-of-field" only in cases where special services are needed to deliver instruction, it has not been demonstrated that the School Board realistically had an option, in the proper exercise of its discretionary authority, to hire Ms. Farrior "out-of-field" as a "school psychologist" based merely on her only certification, which was a temporary certificate authorizing the teaching of psychology (not certification as a school psychologist which is really a pupil support position). Moreover, the School Board's policy authorizes the employment of teachers for instruction in areas other than that for which they are certificated only in the absence of available qualified, certified instructors. Although the school psychologist position at issue remains unfilled, there is no evidence to demonstrate why it is unfilled and no evidence of record to demonstrate that there are not qualified, certified personnel available to be hired as a school psychologist to fill that position. When the superintendent recommended the Respondent for a second annual contract in April of 1999, he was already aware that she was not qualified to perform the duties of a school psychologist and that the District would have to contract with outside consultants or other qualified persons to at least secure the administration of intelligence and other psychological testing, which testing is a part of the job description and duties of a school psychologist. The then exceptional education director for the District, Ms. Rushing, had suggested to the superintendent that he recommend the Respondent in April of 1999 for the position of "evaluation specialist." This would more represent the actual duties Ms. Farrior had been performing after the Department of Education audit finding that she was not qualified to serve as a school psychologist. Unfortunately, however, there was no authorized position of "evaluation specialist" and the superintendent has no authority to set the qualifications for a particular position or a recommend a person for a position that had not otherwise been approved nor its qualifications approved of by the School Board. In summary, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent was not yet eligible to receive either a regular or temporary certificate from the Department of Education as a school psychologist and still lacked 24 semester hours of graduate credit necessary for such certification; she had not yet passed the Florida State Teacher Certification Examination for school psychologist although she had secured and enrolled in an appropriate internship to satisfy the above-referenced six-hour internship requirement.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Walton County rejecting the nomination of Ann Farrior to serve in the position of school psychologist for the school year 1999-2000, because good cause for such action has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence in the manner found and concluded above. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 16th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 George R. Mead, II, Esquire Clark, Pennington, Hart, Larry, Bond, Stackhouse & Stone 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 John F. Bludworth Superintendent of Schools Walton County School District 145 Park Street, Suite 3 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433
The Issue The substantive issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondents Florida teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked based upon the allegations of Petitioner's complaint dated June 4, 1987. Respondent has raised various procedural issues in his written documents and in a telephone motion hearing held on November 10, 1987. Those issues include whether he has already surrendered his teaching certificate, whether the investigation was proper and whether the formal hearing was properly scheduled.
Findings Of Fact Based upon a consideration of all evidence properly made part of the record in this proceeding, the following findings are made: David Cunningham is now, and was at all times relevant, certified as an elementary school teacher under State of Florida Certificate No. 468382. The certified copy received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 reveals a date of issue of April 14, 1986 and an expiration date of June 30, 1990. No competent evidence was presented to support Respondent's allegation that the certificate was invalid or otherwise lawfully relinquished or revoked. David Cunningham was employed as an elementary teacher at Caley Elementary School in Orlando, Florida during school year 1983-84, until March 1984, when he was placed on leave without pay for the remainder of the school year. Dynell Harrell was a fifth grade student in Cunningham's reading class during the first semester of 1983-84 at Caley. Dynell was twelve years old at the time. During the second semester of 1983-84, Dynell transferred to another school, but began having contacts with Cunningham outside of the school setting. The two went to amusement parks and to restaurants. On only one occasion they were accompanied by Dynell's siblings. Dynell began spending weekends at Cunningham's house. Cunningham gave him presents of clothes, shoes, and money - - $20 or $30 at a time, for an eventual total of at least $500. On the occasion of the second weekend visit, Cunningham got in bed with Dynell. Later, during the night, he began touching and rubbing the youth and took his clothes off. In response to Dynell's question of what was going on, Cunningham responded with a reminder of their friendship and all the things he had done to benefit him. They engaged in oral sex at that time. After that, the sexual contact was routine on the weekend visits, once or twice a month. Cunningham engaged Dynell in oral and anal sex and gave him vodka and cigarettes. Dynell was afraid to tell anyone as he thought he would lose his friend. He also felt he owed Cunningham a favor. During this time, Dynell's mother noticed a withdrawal of her son from his close relationship with her. She was somewhat suspicious of Cunningham's interest but Dynell denied that Cunningham had ever asked him to do anything that he didn't want to do. She believed him because she felt he would be candid with her. At the beginning of the seventh grade, Dynell went to Illinois to live with his grandmother in Illinois. Cunningham called him on the phone, but his grandmother was suspicious and didn't let Dynell talk. On one occasion, Cunningham stopped at the grandmother's house on his way to North Dakota. The grandmother let Cunningham take Dynell out to eat, but only in the company of Dynell's cousin. Dynell also wanted his cousin to come along as he figured nothing could happen if they were not alone. Cunningham told Dynell he wanted to continue seeing him, but Dynell did not want that and responded that he would be in Chicago and would not be able to see Cunningham. Dynell has had no further contact with Cunningham, even after the youth's return to Florida in eighth grade. Dynell has received mental health counseling to help him deal with the relationship with Cunningham. Dynell has been reluctant to associate along with male students and adult males, and refused to participate in his church's Big Brother program unless one of his friends is able to accompany him. John Hawco, administrator of Employee Relations for the Orange County School Board, would not recommend that Cunningham ever be employed in any position in which he would be exposed to children. His effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously impaired by his conduct toward his former student. He exploited his professional relationship with that student in return for personal gain and advantage. By certified letters and through contacts with Cunningham's prior attorney Jerry Whitmore, consultant for the State Department of Education, provided notices to Cunningham regarding the complaint and investigation. Cunningham sent his original teaching certificate to the investigator, stating that he should not be investigated as his certificate was no longer valid. The investigation continued, again with notice to Cunningham. He declined to participate in an informal conference and refused to indicate on the Election of Rights form provided to him which option he chose in response to the complaint: voluntary surrender for permanent revocation, admission of allegations and request for informal hearing, or dispute of allegations and request for a formal hearing by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Instead, he appended a separate statement to the form disputing the allegations and arguing that he was not a valid certificate holder as his certificate was based on a correspondence course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that David Martin Cunningham's Florida teaching certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire RIGS BY & HOLDER 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. David Cunningham 8775 20th Street, #921 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(f),(g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2015), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. If it is found that Respondent has committed any of the statute or rule violations alleged, the penalty that should be imposed must also be determined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the documentary evidence admitted and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 823554, covering the area of physical education. His certificate is valid through June 30, 2016. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a physical education (P.E.) teacher at Oakleaf Junior High School (Oakleaf) in the Clay County School District (the District). Mr. Ford also served as a track and field coach in the District and was heavily involved in volunteer activities to encourage youth fitness. In 2008, the Education Practices Commission issued a final order which adopted a settlement stipulation with respect to a prior complaint against Respondent. The settlement stipulation “neither admitted nor denied” the factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint giving rise to the disciplinary proceeding in that case. The Scene Oakleaf is a junior high with sixth through eighth-grade students. During the 2012-2013 school year, there were six P.E. teachers who typically had classes of at least 40 students each class period. These classes made use of the baseball and softball fields, tennis and basketball courts, and the gymnasium for class time. All of the students shared what were described as small girls’ and boys’ locker rooms adjacent to the gymnasium. Students and teachers have approximately ten minutes at the end of each class period to get to their respective locker rooms, change clothes, and get ready to move to the next class period. Usually one male and one female P.E. teacher were assigned to open the gender-specific locker rooms. Until the locker rooms were opened and after students finished dressing, the students congregated in the P.E. building hallway. The space where students waited was cramped at best, and not adequate to accommodate the large numbers of students. During the 2012-2013 school year, students were expected to wait in the hallway near the double doors closest to the P.E. fields for the ringing of the class bell. Students typically stayed as close to the doorway as possible in order to ensure a quick exit. While students were supposed to sit against the wall, they often either stood near the double doors or sat with their legs stretched out into the aisle-way. Traversing the area could be a challenge under the best of circumstances. A typical day could be described as loosely-organized chaos. As described by Bonnie Lawrence, Oakleaf’s physical education department head, “it’s not that the kids are so bad; it’s just that you’ve got a large amount of students that are hot . . . they’re worked up. . . . [A] lot of them are very competitive, so they’re still bringing it into the hallway, and it just . . . is a problem and it still is a problem.” In the first week of April 2013, one of the students attending Oakleaf was a seventh grader named D.O.2/ D.O. was a relatively tall student, described as a big boy between 5’8” to 5’10”. D.O. received exceptional education services for emotional behavioral disorder (EBD). EBD students are placed in EBD special education classrooms because of emotional and/or medical issues that render them unusually disruptive and volatile in a traditional classroom setting. D.O. participated in regular P.E. classes and was assigned to Coach Rountree’s class. D.O. was a difficult student and had been removed from P.E. class the week before spring break because of behavioral issues. D.O. was easily agitated and unpredictable. When angry, he used a lot of profanity and walked very quickly. D.O. had at least three disciplinary referrals processed during the school year for his misbehavior. One P.E. teacher admitted that she had been verbally attacked by him and found him intimidating. Ms. Lawrence stated that while she had never seen D.O. attack another student, she had witnessed him hitting the walls with his fists. Because EBD students can be prone to frequent outbursts and sometimes violent behavior, they are often escorted around campus and directly monitored by a behavioral aide when the students go to lunch, travel to and from bus areas, or participate in any regular education classes. Jessica Strunz was the aide assigned to escort D.O. during the timeframe relevant to this proceeding. Petitioner relies on her testimony almost exclusively concerning what happened with respect to the incident alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. April 2, 2013, was the first school day after spring break. D.O. had been removed from P.E. for misbehavior the week before spring break, but on April 3, he was back in the gym. D.O. was assigned to Coach Rountree’s class. Coaches Ford and Rountree observed paint on D.O.’s shoes, consistent with some paint used in recent vandalism of cars in the area. They asked D.O. about the paint, and talked to him about making better decisions, and the consequences that flow from making poor choices. Coach Ford used his own vehicle as an example, and told D.O. if someone were to spraypaint his wife’s truck, there would be damages that would have to be paid, as an illustration of the consequences of bad decisions. He indicated that a perpetrator’s parents would be responsible for those damages as one of those consequences. Ms. Strunz was present during this discussion. The Incident On April 3, 2013, D.O. was again present for P.E. Ms. Strunz escorted D.O. to P.E. but soon after left the area to assist another aide, believing that D.O. was fine with Coach Rountree. Coach Rountree’s class was going to be playing frisbee on the baseball field. However, Coach Rountree would not allow D.O. to be paired with his partner of choice, because they had previously caused disruptions in the class. When Coach Rountree told him he would have to partner with someone else, D.O. became angry and started using profanity and questioning Coach Rountree’s authority. As a result, Coach Rountree told D.O. to take a seat in a chair that was on the baseball infield as a time-out. Instead, D.O. flung the back of the chair over, and Coach Rountree spoke to him in an attempt to calm him down. Eventually, D.O. sat in the chair and Coach Rountree went back to supervising the rest of his class. Sitting in the chair, however, did nothing to calm D.O. Instead, he became angrier, kicked the chair, and started yelling insults and profanity at the other students in the class. He was apparently trying to provoke a reaction from another student by making statements such as, “you’re gay, and your father’s gay,” in addition to the profanity. At some point, he got up and threw the chair down rather than sit on it. Coach Ford was in the area supervising his students, who were split between the basketball and tennis courts. He approached D.O. and told him that he thought D.O. was supposed be sitting in the chair. Eventually, D.O. sat back down, but continued to spew profanities directed at another student in his class. Ms. Strunz returned to the field at this point and found D.O. sitting in the time-out chair. As she put it, D.O. was angry at the world, upset, yelling, and cursing. Rather than approach him directly, Ms. Strunz stayed on the other side of the fence and tried to calm him down by talking to him, but D.O. ignored her. At hearing, Ms. Strunz did not seem overly concerned about the propriety of D.O.’s behavior, saying, “he just does that.” D.O.’s tirade continued, and he stood and threw the chair down the baseline from first base toward home plate. At that point, he left the infield to sit in the bleachers behind home plate. As he passed the gate near the dugout, he reached up and pulled Coach Rountree’s grade book from where it was wedged between the fence sections and threw it up into the air. D.O. then sat down but continued to curse and yell. Coach Ford came back over to speak to D.O., attempting to calm him down and talking to him about making better choices. He also called Coach Rountree on his radio about D.O. moving from the seat where Coach Rountree had directed him to sit. Coach Rountree came over to the area and spoke with both Coach Ford and Ms. Strunz, who told him that D.O. had stood up out of his seat, kicked the chair, and thrown Coach Rountree’s grade book. At this point, D.O. was sitting in the bleachers and for the moment was calmer, so Coach Rountree went back to the rest of the class, believing Ms. Strunz had the situation under control. Ford, likewise, went to direct his class to line up and go in the building. D.O.’s mood fluctuated between calm and anger. It was, at best, unpredictable. After Coach Rountree went back to the rest of his class, D.O. got up from his seat in the bleachers and started walking quickly to the doors of the P.E. building, with Ms. Strunz following behind.3/ D.O. was yelling, cursing, and saying how much he hated the school. Coach Ford followed him in in an attempt to calm him down, continuing to talk to him about the need to make better choices. D.O. was not interested. Instead, as he approached the building, D.O. told Coach Ford to “shut the f**k up,”4/ slammed his hand against the left side of the double doors, and started to swing open the door to the hallway. At this point, Coach Ford reached out and restrained D.O. from behind to prevent him from going into the hallway. Coach Ford put his right arm around D.O.’s chest and used his own left arm to secure D.O.’s left forearm to keep D.O. from swinging it, and pulled D.O. away from the door. D.O. attempted to pull away from Coach Ford, and Coach Ford had to jerk him up slightly so as to keep him from falling off balance and into the eroded area next to the sidewalk. The momentum of keeping both of them out of the eroded area propelled them over to a railing near the walkway, beside an adjacent portable. The entire maneuver by all accounts lasted a matter of seconds. Coach Ford then told D.O. he was going to release him and that D.O. needed to stay calm and stand next to the building. Coach Ford’s purpose in having D.O. stand next to the building was to minimize the interaction between D.O. and the other students in Coach Rountree’s class, who were approaching from the baseball field in order to enter the hallway. D.O. stood next to the building as instructed. D.O. was not injuring himself and was not attacking any other student before attempting to enter the building. He was, however, about to enter a crowded area full of students in an angry and agitated state soon after kicking and throwing a chair and throwing a teacher’s grade book, and while shouting profanities and what could be interpreted as derogatory comments toward other students. Shortly thereafter, Coach Rountree and his students caught up to Coach Ford, and Coach Rountree, Coach Ford, and D.O. stood at the side of the building while Ms. Strunz was standing at the railing by the walkway. Once Coach Rountree caught up to them, Ms. Strunz went inside to coordinate with another aide, and Coach Rountree directed his other students to go inside. When Coach Rountree approached, both Coach Ford and D.O. appeared to be fairly calm. However, as was the case earlier, D.O.’s mood fluctuated between extremely agitated to calm to agitated again, and he started saying he was going to sue the school. Coach Ford continued to try and calm him, but dismissed D.O.’s threat of litigation by saying something to the effect that D.O. did not know what teachers are allowed to do. Ms. Strunz returned and Coach Ford left the area to attend to his students. D.O.’s mood continued to fluctuate, and he made a statement to the effect of, “you’re all screwed, and this place is going down,” and that the school was in big trouble because he was going to sue the school. When Coach Rountree asked him what he meant, D.O. was not listening to him, but kept repeating that they were all screwed. At some point during this tirade, which lasted about five minutes, D.O. noticed that he had a small scrape on his elbow about the size of a nickel, with a small amount of blood. This observation upset him all over again, and he started walking quickly to the administrative offices, with Coach Rountree and Ms. Strunz following behind. D.O. made his way to Assistant Principal Bridget Payne’s office, with Coach Rountree and Ms. Strunz following behind. D.O. told her, “look at what one of your teachers did to me.” He proceeded to show her his arm and to tell her that Coach Ford had put him in a chokehold and threatened to put him in the hospital. Ms. Payne asked him to pull down his shirt, and he did so, showing that there was some redness below the Adam’s apple. Ms. Payne testified that the red area was about half an inch to three quarters of an inch wide, and that she could not see it until he pulled down his shirt. After D.O. finished telling his story to Ms. Payne, Ms. Strunz was asked to confirm it or say anything about it, and she confirmed D.O.’s story. The Aftermath Both Coach Rountree and Ms. Strunz were asked to write statements, and both did so. Only Ms. Strunz’s statement refers to a chokehold. Ms. Payne called D.O.’s mother and informed her of the incident, and D.O.’s mother, in turn, called the police. Ms. Payne then notified Coach Ford that the police were coming but did not talk to him about the incident. Ms. Payne also sent D.O. to Mary Blazek, the school nurse, who examined his arm and neck. She treated the arm with Bactine and a Band-Aid, which she described as “not major first- aid treatment.” Ms. Blazek also observed some redness on D.O.’s neck. She had been told that he was restrained around his neck so she was looking for redness. She did not inquire as to any other reasons that might have caused his neck to be red, and there was no evidence indicating that Ms. Blazek or anyone else observed scratches, welts, or bruising on his neck, or that the redness extended around to either side of his neck. Ms. Blazek filled out an incident report, but not until eight days after the incident when she was asked to do so. Oakleaf’s principal contacted Toni McCabe, the assistant superintendent for the District, and Ms. McCabe began an investigation into the incident. Coach Ford was suspended with pay on April 4, 2013, pending completion of the investigation. Ms. McCabe did not interview D.O. as part of her investigation and did not review his disciplinary referrals other than the one issued to him regarding his behavior the day of the incident. She only spoke to those staff members who were directly involved in the incident and could provide eyewitness testimony. Based upon her investigation, she recommended to the superintendent that Coach Ford be terminated, and although it is not clear when, Coach Ford eventually resigned. Ms. McCabe testified that when she spoke to Coach Ford, he stated that he had used a Safe Crisis Management (SCM) hold, and that a chokehold is not a SCM hold. SCM training is generally provided to administrators and those teachers working in special education. Coach Ford had taken SCM training but was not currently certified. P.E. teachers at Oakleaf had requested SCM training repeatedly, but it was not provided to them. Coach Ford denied stating that he used SCM in dealing with D.O., and denied using a chokehold. Tracey Butler is the Florida Education Association representative who attended both meetings Respondent had with Ms. McCabe regarding the incident with D.O. Ms. Ware, a District employee, took notes of the meetings, as did Ms. Butler. Ms. Butler did not recall Coach Ford ever telling Ms. McCabe that he used a SCM hold. The only mention of the term in her notes was one indicating Ms. McCabe asked if Coach Ford had SCM training. Her review of Ms. Ware’s notes indicated the same question and response, but no indication that Respondent stated he used a SCM hold. The undersigned finds that Coach Ford did not state to Ms. McCabe that he was using a SCM hold. The Criminal Proceedings As noted previously, the Clay County Sheriff’s Office also investigated the incident. The statements taken by Coach Rountree and Ms. Strunz were also provided to the Sheriff’s Office. On April 8, 2013, Coach Ford was arrested for child abuse/simple battery as a result of the incident. On May 6, 2013, he was officially charged with violating section 827.03(1)(b), Florida Statutes.5/ His case was docketed as Case No. 2013-CF-000686. On June 4, 2013, Respondent entered an agreement to go into a pretrial intervention program (PTI). Consistent with the requirements for entry into the program in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, he signed a document entitled “Plea of Guilty and Negotiated Sentence.” The State Attorney in the circuit required that in order to enter into a pretrial diversion program, defendants were required to sign a guilty plea agreement which would not be entered on the docket of the court. Upon successful completion of the requirements of the PTI, the State Attorney’s Office would dismiss the charges. However, if a defendant failed to complete the PTI requirements, the guilty plea would be filed and the defendant would be sentenced based on the guilty plea. The form that Respondent signed states in part: Specific Terms of Negotiated Sentence: My sentence has been negotiated in this case in that I will be: Adjudicated guilty Adjudication of guilt withheld And I will be sentenced to: (Please print) In the blank space provided, the following agreement is hand-written: Post-plea PTI: upon completion of anger management and no contact with the victim, D.O., the state attorney will dismiss charges. If unsuccessful, plea will be an open plea to the court. The entry into the PTI program was discussed in open court, but the evidence did not establish that the trial judge engaged in a traditional colloquy regarding the voluntary nature of the plea, and the document that Respondent signed was not docketed in the court record. On June 6, 2013, a Diversion Referral Notice was sent to the Clerk of Court by the Assistant State Attorney advising that the case was being referred to the Felony Pre-Trial Intervention Program, and that the State would file a final disposition at the time of successful completion. On July 19, 2015, the Director of the PTI program notified the Clerk of Courts that the case had been accepted into the PTI program. On October 10, 2013, the State Attorney’s Office filed a Diversionary Nolle Prosequi dismissing the charges. The Case Summary for Case No. 2013-CF-000686 indicates that the following documents were filed on the criminal docket: a notice to appear; a notice of cash bond; the affidavit for arrest warrant; warrant returned served; arrest and booking report; notice of appearance, waiver of arraignment, not guilty plea and demand for trial; information; state’s discovery exhibit and demand for reciprocal discovery; victim information form; diversionary program referral notice; diversionary program referral (accepted); cash bond release; and diversionary nolle prosequi. The document entitled Plea of Guilty and Negotiated Sentence was not filed on the docket in the criminal proceedings. The Nature of the Restraint Throughout these proceedings, Petitioner has referred to the restraint of D.O. as a chokehold. The unfortunate use of the term originated with D.O.’s comments to Ms. Payne. D.O. did not testify in this case. The only witnesses to the actual incident that testified in these proceedings are Coach Rountree, Coach Ford, and Ms. Strunz. Coach Rountree candidly stated that he did not see the entire incident. He demonstrated what he observed of the interaction between Coach Ford and D.O. His demonstration indicates that Coach Ford had his arm across D.O.’s upper chest. Jessica Strunz was described as being somewhere between three feet and 30 feet away from Coach Ford and D.O. Given the testimony regarding D.O.’s size and pace as he walked toward the gym, the most plausible conclusion is that she was somewhere between 10 and 15 feet behind him.6/ It is Ms. Strunz’s testimony that places Ford’s arm around D.O.’s neck. That testimony is not credited. First, Ms. Strunz is shorter than D.O. and possibly shorter than Coach Ford. If she was behind Coach Ford, who was behind D.O. when he started to go through the door of the gym, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to see where Coach Ford’s arm was located in front of D.O. Second, the height difference between Coach Ford and D.O. also weighs in favor of a restraint across the chest, as both Coach Ford and Coach Rountree demonstrated. Third, the redness on D.O.’s neck was reported to be just above his collarbone at the front of his neck. He had to pull down his shirt in order for the red mark to be seen. Had Coach Ford had D.O.’s neck in the crook of his arm, as Ms. Strunz testified, it seems that any redness would have extended to at least one side of his neck, and no one testified that was the case. Moreover, D.O. had been outside on a baseball field on a warm day. He was angry, had been yelling, had kicked a chair, and had thrown a chair in the 30 minutes leading up to this event. There is not clear and convincing evidence that the redness on his neck was caused by the restraint at all. The same can be said for the small scrape on his elbow. The more persuasive testimony indicated, and it is found, that Coach Ford restrained D.O. by placing his arm across the upper chest area. He did so not because D.O. had hurt himself or anyone else at that point, but based upon his concern that should this demonstrably angry young man enter the crowded hallway, the normally chaotic atmosphere with close to 100 waiting students would turn into a dangerous one with a real possibility of injury to D.O., to other students in the hallway, or both. Reasonable Use of Force The District has adopted a definition of the reasonable use of force for teachers, as required by section 1006.11, Florida Statutes. The District’s policy states the following: CLAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD POLICY 6GX-10-2.32 2.32 USE OF REASONABLE FORCE As provided by Florida Statute 1006.11, this policy establishes the standards for the use of reasonable force by Clay County school personnel. Such use shall be for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a safe and orderly environment and shall provide guidance to school personnel in dealing with disruptions to that environment. Definition of Terms: The following definitions apply to terms used in this policy: Learning Environment: All events and activities authorized by the School Board requiring an employee to be on duty in/out of the classroom setting. Orderly: Devoid of disruption or violence; peaceful. An orderly environment is one in which learning can take place. Disruption: An interruption of or impediment to the usual course of harmony. Reasonable Force: Appropriate professional conduct including reasonable force as necessary to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment. Safe: Preventing injury or loss of life, a safe environment is one in which persons are protected from injury or threat of injury. School personnel: Employee/individual hired by the School Board. Conditions that may require use of reasonable force: While use of physical force may be needed at times to ensure a safe and orderly learning environment, alternatives to such force should be attempted, time permitting. The use of reasonable force is permitted to protect students from: conditions harmful to learning; conditions harmful to students’ mental health; conditions harmful to students’ physical health; conditions harmful to safety; other conditions which, in the judgment of on-site employee(s), threaten the safety and welfare of students or adults. Guidelines for the determination of “reasonableness” of force: When school personnel employ physical force in order to maintain or restore safety and/or order to a situation, determinants as to the reasonableness of force shall include, but not be limited to: severity of the offense(s); size and physical condition of participant(s); patterns of behavior; potential danger; physical and other; availability of assistance; other circumstances surrounding the offense; and actions taken prior to use of physical force. Other factors: Reasonable force cannot be excessive or cruel or unusual in nature. Physical force being used should cease upon the restoration of a safe and orderly environment. Nothing in this policy should be construed as addressing Clay County School Board polic(ies) on corporal punishment. Use of these guidelines shall provide guidance to school personnel in receiving the limitations on liability specified by Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). There was testimony that under Clay County’s policy on reasonable force, restraint should be used only in the most extreme cases, such as when a student is going to seriously injure himself or someone else. None of those espousing this view indicated that they had ever had 40 students on a P.E. field or had ever taught P.E. Ms. Payne and Ms. Zimmerman both acknowledged that they had never done so. While such an example is certainly covered by the policy, the plain language of the policy is not that restrictive. Coach Ford testified, and maintained consistently throughout the various inquiries related to this incident, that his concern was for the safety of both D.O. and the other students in the hallway, should D.O. enter this crowded area at the level of crisis he was exhibiting in the period immediately prior to his approach to the door. Every P.E. instructor who testified emphasized that student safety is their primary concern. Here, Coach Ford was concerned about anyone getting run over or injured given D.O.’s clearly agitated state. This concern fits squarely within the policy’s directive to “maintain a safe and orderly learning environment,” including an environment which is “devoid of disruption or violence” and where “persons are protected from injury or threat of injury.”7/ It is found that Coach Ford’s actions fell within the confines of, and was not prohibited by, the District’s policy on the use of reasonable force. The Alleged Threat Ms. Strunz testified that Coach Ford threatened D.O. almost immediately prior to the restraint, saying that if he found paint on his car, he would come look for D.O. and would put him in the hospital; and that D.O. did not know what he was capable of. Coach Ford adamantly denied this allegation. These alleged threats were supposedly made just moments after, according to Ms. Strunz, Coach Ford was telling D.O. he needed to make better choices and was trying to calm him down. That anyone, including Coach Ford, would make such a statement immediately after working repeatedly to calm D.O. and after talking to him about better choices, simply strains credulity. It was not clear where Ms. Strunz was when Coach Ford told D.O. that D.O. was not aware what teachers were allowed to do. It may be that she misinterpreted this statement as a threat. In any event, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Coach Ford made any threat to D.O. Diminished Effectiveness Petitioner presented evidence of news accounts of the incident, in support of the allegation that Respondent’s effectiveness had been reduced, along with the opinion of Ms. McCabe (who believed that Respondent had used a chokehold) to that effect. On the other hand, Bonny Lawrence, the department head for the P.E. department at Oakleaf, testified that she would “absolutely not” have a problem with Coach Ford coming back on her staff. Janet Rowe, the athletic director and a P.E. teacher at Oakleaf, considers Ford to be a highly-effective P.E. coach. Edward “Smitty” Huffman, who has taught physical education for most of his 20 years in education, considers Coach Ford to be one of the better teachers he has ever known. It is found that Petitioner did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practice Commission should grant Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed February 22, 1995, Petitioner requested an initial two-year nonrenewal temporary teaching certificate and a two-year part-time coaching certificate. The application discloses that Petitioner was born July 24, 1960. A question on the form asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic accident (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. The additional information requested on the form, if the "yes" box is checked, provides spaces for the following information: "city where arrested," "State," "Charge(s)," and "Disposition(s)." In response to this question, Petitioner checked the "yes" box and filled in the three spaces provided. Petitioner disclosed that, in East Williston, New York, in 1978, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." (This would mean driver's license because Petitioner answered in the negative the next question on the form, which asks whether he had ever had a teaching certificate revoked or otherwise disciplined in another state.) Petitioner also disclosed that, in Roslyn, New York, in 1979, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." Last, Petitioner disclosed that, in Mineola, New York, in 1986, he was charged with "Disorderly-Conduct" and the disposition was "Plead Guilty/Paid Fine [and] Placed on Probation." On a separate sheet of paper attached to the February 22 application and entitled "Arrest/Revocation Record," Petitioner disclosed: In addition to the records I have provided you, I was arrested several other times around the year 1980, and I don't recall the exact dates and dispositions--they were misdemeanors for disorderly conduct, and the charges were either dismissed or reduced and a fine paid. In signing the application, which is acknowledged by a notary, Petitioner attests that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed March 11, 1994, Petitioner requested only a two-year part-time coaching certificate. This application is identical to the first except in the disclosure of convictions. In the March 11 application, Petitioner disclosed the East Williston and Roslyn offenses, although the years changed to 1979 and 1980, respectively. Instead of a Mineola offense in 1986, Petitioner listed an Old Westbury offense in 1986. The Old Westbury offense was also for disorderly conduct and the disposition was a guilty plea and payment of fine, although the probation was omitted. Petitioner did not disclose on a separate sheet or otherwise the additional material disclosed on the separate sheet attached to the February 22 application. Petitioner has passed the relevant portions of the examination required of teachers and has met the conditions for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate except for issues in connection with his criminal history. By letter dated February 23, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application for a Florida teaching certificate had been denied. The letter refers to an accompanying Notice of Reasons. The Notice of Reasons recites that Petitioner filed an application for a Florida teaching certificate in March 1994. The Notice of Reasons notes that Petitioner disclosed only three of ten criminal convictions and concludes that the nondisclosures and convictions themselves constitute violations of the statutes and rules cited in the Preliminary Statement above. On February 19, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, driving under the influence, and operating a vehicle without a license. This and all other arrests took place in Nassau County, New York. On May 10, 1979, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charges of disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $500 fine, alcohol rehabilitation, and restriction of his driver's license to business and school. On September 27, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and two counts of criminal mischief. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, a reduced charge of two counts of disorderly conduct. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $75 restitution payment or 10 days in jail and conditionally discharged him. On November 25, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and driving under the influence. The former charge was dismissed. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, driving under the influence. The court sentenced him to a $200 fine and revocation of his driver's license. On January 12, 1982, Petitioner was arrested and charged with assault. On April 12, 1982, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of harassment. The court deferred disposition and conditionally discharged Petitioner pending payment of $32 restitution. On May 19, 1984, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. On April 1, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charge of attempted criminal mischief. The court unconditionally discharged him. On May 26, 1985, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief and resisting arrest. On June 12, 1986, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the charges. The court sentenced Petitioner to three years' probation. On November 5, 1986, Petitioner was arrested and charged with harassment and resisting arrest. On December 1, 1987, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, both charges. The court conditionally released Petitioner. Petitioner is recovering from dependencies on alcohol and drugs. In 1987, he entered a rehabilitation clinic on Pine Island where he underwent a month's treatment. He then entered a halfway house in Ft. Myers for three months. He regularly attends Alcoholic Anonymous meetings and obtains counseling. Prior to obtaining treatment, Petitioner attended St. Johns University and the Berklee College of Music, evidently without obtaining any degrees. Since treatment, Petitioner obtained in 1989 an Associate Arts degree from Edison Community College in Ft. Myers and in 1992 a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Emerson College in Boston with a major in acting and a minor in literature. While in Boston pursuing the BFA degree, Petitioner taught writing to gifted high school students and voluntarily performed for high school students plays that Petitioner had written and produced. He also tutored inner city students in reading. In April 1994, Petitioner obtained a statement of eligibility from Respondent. This allowed him to teach for up to two years, during which time he had to apply for a temporary nonrenewable teaching certificate. In August 1994, Petitioner was employed to teach seventh grade social studies and reading at Cypress Lake Middle School in Lee County. After a month, he was transferred to the special education department where he taught students in the middle-school drop-out prevention program. While at the school, Petitioner served as an assistant coach on the girls' basketball team and the boys' baseball team. The principal of the school terminated Petitioner's contract February 21, 1995, evidently when he learned that Respondent would be denying him a Florida teaching certificate. Petitioner has since been employed as a teacher by a private school in Lee County. Petitioner relied on advice from a well-meaning friend when he filed a second application a couple of weeks after filing the first application. The friend had told Petitioner that he could apply for a coaching certificate without applying on the same application for a two-year temporary teaching certificate. The innocent filing of two separate applications generated confusion for both Petitioner and Respondent. When denying Petitioner's request for a teaching certificate, Respondent inadvertently omitted mention of the first application. Similarly, when filing the second application, Petitioner inadvertently failed to include the separate sheet that he included with the first application. However, Respondent already had the separate sheet from the first application. It would be as disingenuous for Respondent to claim lack of knowledge, as to the second application, of the disclosures contained on the separate sheet attached to the first application as it would be for Petitioner to claim that the denial of the second application is not also intended to be a denial of the first application. The adequacy of the disclosures on the separate sheet is a separate matter. The two applications refer to two of the three 1979 arrests and report sentences of revocation of driver's license. The three 1979 arrests actually resulted in convictions for disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol (February 1979 arrest), disorderly conduct (September 1979 arrest), and driving under the influence (November 1979 arrest). The actual sentences were, respectively: $500 fine, driving restrictions, and alcohol rehabilitation; $75 restitution; and license revocation and $200 fine. The first two disclosures do a fair job of revealing Petitioner's first three convictions, especially given the fact that they took place 15 years ago when Petitioner was 18 and 19 years old. Obviously, one arrest/conviction is missing, but it appears that the court disposed of the second and third arrests at the same time and possibly in a consolidate proceeding. This may account for Petitioner's recollection that the second and third arrests were a single case. Also, the separate sheet addresses omissions. The dates are a little off, but the first arrest was early in 1979, and the consolidated disposition of the second and third arrests was in 1980. As reported by Petitioner, the charges are roughly correct, and the dispositions suggest the seriousness of the offenses. It is hard to tell which conviction the third reported arrest signifies. After the three 1979 arrests, there were four more convictions for which Petitioner had to account. To his credit, Petitioner identified 1986 as the year of the arrest, so as not to suggest that his criminal problems were further behind him than they really were. Although none of the actual arrests or convictions is for disorderly conduct, which is what Petitioner reported on the application forms, all four of the convictions could be fairly described as disorderly conduct. The reported and actual dispositions do not preclude the possibility that Petitioner was identifying any of the four arrests. Thus, Petitioner was probably disclosing the November 1986 arrest on the application forms, and he did a reasonably complete job of doing so. The disclosure question is therefore whether the separate sheet adequately accounts for the convictions arising out of the 1982, 1984, and 1985 arrests. These arrests took place "around the year 1980," as Petitioner reported on the separate sheet. "Disorderly conduct," as stated on the separate sheet, roughly describes the nature of the offenses, although less so the nature of the arrests, which is what Petitioner claims on the separate sheet to be describing. In fact, Petitioner paid restitution of $32 once, was unconditionally discharged once, and was placed on probation once. The reported fine in each case serves as reasonable disclosure, at least where no jail time is involved. On balance, Petitioner's disclosures did more than place Respondent on inquiry notice. The disclosures were reasonably accurate and detailed. They gave a fair picture of the kind of trouble that Petitioner got into at that point in his life. Respondent's case is based on Petitioner's unfitness to teach based on his alleged dishonesty in the application process and his past criminal behavior. Once the question of dishonesty in the application process is resolved in favor of Petitioner, the remaining focus is on his behavior 9-15 years ago when he was 18-26 years old. The number of arrests and convictions is troubling. But the dispositions do not suggest offenses of extreme gravity. Petitioner is now 35 years old. He has rehabilitated himself in terms of intoxicants, as well as educationally. For many years, he has demonstrated a clear commitment to teaching and evidently is skilled in the profession. He has served his communities well and seeks to continue to do so as a teacher in Florida. Given the nature of the offenses, their age, and the age of Petitioner at the time he committed the offenses, there is no basis in the record to find that Petitioner is morally unfit to teach.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Education Practice Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner's February 1994 application for a Florida teaching and coaching certificate. ENTERED on October 6, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 6, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-18: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19-22: adopted or adopted in substance. 23-27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Attorney Jerry L. Lovelace 909 SE 47th Terrace, Suite 201 Cape Coral, FL 33904 Ronald G. Stowers Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against the Respondent for sexual misconduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 686332, covering the area of emotionally handicapped education, which was valid through June 30, 2002. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Bayonet Point Middle School in Pacso County School District. A.Y. was an emotionally handicapped student who had been a student of the Respondent in the 1999-2000 school year. Between June and December 2000, when A.Y. was 13 years old, the Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with A.Y. This relationship included kissing, fondling, and on more than one occasion the Respondent's digital penetration of A.Y.'s vagina. On or about December 15, 2000, the Respondent was observed meeting A.Y. at a library when she got into his car and drove away. He later claimed he was counseling her. The Respondent was charged with two counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a minor as a result of his behavior with A.Y. On November 26, 2001, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both counts. The Respondent was adjudicated guilty on both counts, and sentenced to eight years in prison, followed by seven years of probation, concurrently on each charge. James Davis, the Director of Human Resources for the School Board of Pasco County where the Respondent taught, testified. Mr. Davis was a certified teacher with many years of experience and testified about professional standards and the impact of the Respondent's acts upon the school system. For a teacher to enter into a sexual relationship with a student, especially a young, emotionally handicapped student, is very harmful to the student emotionally and academically. A.Y. became defensive, and then felt guilty that she had caused the Respondent to get into trouble. Furthermore, such conduct destroys the faith the parents and other community members have in the educational system. There were articles in the newspaper about the situation which were adverse to the educational environment. The parents of A.Y. were very angry about the acts committed by the Respondent. The Respondent, when questioned by administrative staff for the Pasco School District, admitted he made an error in meeting A.Y., but denied any other inappropriate conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered permanently denying the Respondent a teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 James C. Howard Gulf Correctional Institution 500 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 34655 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for a Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 17, 2004, at the Kendall campus of Miami-Dade Community College (College), Petitioner sat for the general knowledge portion of the certification examination (Test), which included an essay question. In advance of the Test, Petitioner was informed in writing of, among other things, the following: In its continuing effort to assure fairness and equity in examination administration conditions, the Florida Department of Education is putting into written form those activities that have been, and continue to be, regarded as cheating by, or on behalf of, an examinee. The specific items represent cheating activities encountered throughout the history of the Department's assessment programs, but do not preclude the Department from appropriate action in cases of cheating that do not fall under a specific item. These guidelines are applicable to the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations program . . . . Section 1 defines those behaviors that constitute cheating. Section 2 lists materials, equipment and other aids that examinees are prohibited from using during the examination. . . . Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: * * * c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. * * * Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: . . . papers of any kind, including scratch paper; . . . * * * Annette Lorenzo, a College employee, was the "room supervisor" in the room in which Petitioner took the Test. Ms. Lorenzo was assisted by another College employee, Gladys Manrique, "who was "working as a proctor" in the room. When Petitioner arrived in the room the morning of the Test, she was checked in by Ms. Lorenzo, who assigned her a seat near the front of the room. Upon being told of her seat assignment, Petitioner "pointed to the last seat of the last row" and asked if she could sit there instead. Ms. Lorenzo "said, 'Okay, no problem,' and [Petitioner] went and sat down in that seat." After "checking everybody in," Ms. Lorenzo read "instructions for the exam" to the examinees (including "go[ing] through all the guidelines on what constitute[d] cheating, as well as what [was] and [was] not allowed in the room"), and, with Ms. Manrique's help, handed out the testing materials. Testing then began (at approximately 8:45 a.m.). Ms. Lorenzo and Ms. Manrique "walk[ed] around the room, up and down the aisles," to "mak[e] sure that nobody [was] cheating or using anything [prohibited]" while the test was being administered. As she was doing so, during the essay portion of the Test, Ms. Lorenzo noticed Petitioner periodically "looking into her [cupped] left hand [which was positioned on the desk in front of her, just above her answer booklet, and appeared to contain tissues] while she was writing" in the booklet with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo observed Petitioner's engaging in this suspicious conduct for "[a]t least ten minutes." During this time, Ms. Lorenzo was "staring at [Petitioner], watching her very closely." When she eventually made eye contact with Ms. Lorenzo, Petitioner moved her hands towards her face and "made a noise like she was blowing her noise." She then closed her left hand into a fist and continued writing with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo advised Ms. Manrique that she suspected that "something [was] going on" with Petitioner, and she asked Ms. Manrique to "take a look." Ms. Manrique observed Petitioner for approximately five minutes, after which she reported back to Ms. Lorenzo that she "believe[d] there [was] something going on as well." Ms. Lorenzo then "walked to the back of the room and stood to the right of Petitioner." From her vantage point, Ms. Lorenzo noticed "sticking out the bottom of [Petitioner's left] hand," which was "still in a fist," not only tissues, but "paper with some writing on it." Upon making this observation, Ms. Lorenzo asked Petitioner to show her "everything [Petitioner] had in her hand."3 Petitioner's immediate response was to "[u]s[e] her right hand [to] grab[] the tissues out of her left hand," which she then quickly closed into a fist again. She gave the tissues she had transferred from her left to right hand to Ms. Lorenzo, explaining that she had "just tissues" and nothing else. Ms. Lorenzo, however, knew otherwise and demanded that Petitioner open her left hand. Petitioner complied, revealing the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had seen "sticking out" of the hand when it was clenched. The paper was the size of a "small note [pad] sheet." It was crumpled from being held tightly by Petitioner. On the paper was a complete essay that that Petitioner had written before entering the examination room. The essay was entitled, "A Place to Visit: San Antonio Park."4 Ms. Lorenzo took the paper, as well as Petitioner's testing materials, including Petitioner's answer booklet, from Petitioner. In her answer booklet, Petitioner had written an essay about San Antonio Park, substantial portions of which were identical, word for word, to what was on the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had confiscated from Petitioner's left hand. Petitioner had knowingly brought this paper into the examination room with the intent to use it as an aid in answering the essay question on the general knowledge portion of the Test,5 and she carried out this intent once the Test began.6 As Petitioner started to "g[e]t a little bit loud," Ms. Lorenzo escorted her from the room and took her to see Juan Meza, the College's testing director.7 On the way to Mr. Meza's office, Petitioner insisted that she had not cheated and "begg[ed] [Ms. Lorenzo] to let her go finish the exam." Ms. Lorenzo responded that Petitioner's "test [was] over for today." After Ms. Lorenzo had told Mr. Meza that she had "found [Petitioner] cheating," Mr. Meza spoke to Petitioner and told her that she could not "continue taking the test" because she had been caught cheating. Petitioner denied to Mr. Meza that she had been cheating. Mr. Meza, in turn, informed Petitioner that he would send an "irregularity report" to the Department and that the Department would "make [a] decision" as to whether she had been cheating and then "contact her to let her know what [was] going on." As promised, on or about April 19, 2004, Mr. Meza sent an "irregularity report" to the Department (along with the materials that Ms. Lorenzo had taken from Petitioner in the examination room). On April 26, 2004, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioner: This letter is in response to information I have received from staff at Miami Dade College, Kendall campus confirming that you failed to follow testing procedures during the administration of the General Knowledge Test on April 17, 2004. Along with the admission ticket you received for the examination, you received a letter that outlines the State's policy on cheating. Section 1 (c) and (f) and Section 2 state the following: "Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: Timex Data Link™ wrist watch; electronic pager; cellular telephone; pocket organizer; electronic writing pen or pen-input device; any electronic device with an alphabetic keyboard; dictionary or other books; ruler; papers of any kind, including scratch paper; slide rule; protractor; compass; laptop computer; calculator watch, or calculator except those calculators provided at the test center for the following tests: Mathematics 6-12, the math portion of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (MGIC), Middle Grades Mathematics 5-9, Chemistry 6-12, Physics 6-12, and the math subtests of the General Knowledge Test." As a result of your failure to abide by this policy, the score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test under your name and Social Security number . . . for the April 17, 2004, test administration has been invalidated. By copy of this letter, I am also informing Professional Practices Services and the Bureau of Educator Certification of this decision. This decision means that you have yet to fulfill the State's requirements for a passing score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test. You are entitled to dispute this decision through legal administrative procedures. If you wish to do so, you must send a written request for an administrative hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The written request must be postmarked within twenty (20) calendar days of the date you receive this letter and submitted to the following address: . . . . If you fail to submit the written request within the specified time period, you will have waived the opportunity to contest the decision through administrative proceedings, and the score invalidation decision will be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Petitioner responded by sending a letter to the Department, which read (verbatim) as follows: I have received your letter about the problem I had the day of test. I'm so sorry about the day. In 20 years of being a teacher, I never had that kind of problem. That day I had a bad cold and when I finished my test, the only thing that I had to do was to check it, but I was coughing badly and I took a napkin that was inside my bag on the floor, but together with the napkin came out a paper. I took both in my hand. I put my hand up, because I knew that if the teacher saw me in this moment I got in trouble, but it was too late. The teacher came to me, asked for the paper and the napkin and without I could explain anything. She took to the supervisor and explained everything to him. He told he had to follow the rules, then he had to report the incident. So I think I should have an opportunity to do my tests again. The Commissioner subsequently notified Petitioner that her application for certification was being denied because she had "attempted to cheat" on the essay portion of Test "by referring to a complete essay she had in her possession when she entered the room." This denial of Petitioner's application for certification is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order sustaining the denial of Petitioner's application for certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, 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 30th day of August, 2005.
