The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on charges that he violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 234479 issued by the Florida Department of Education and covering the area of Physical Education. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985.) At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent 1 was employed as a teacher and basketball coach at Vero Beach Senior High School in Vero Beach, Florida. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985.) During the 1984-85 school year, Respondent was assigned an early morning duty station on the grounds of Vero Beach Senior High School. P.K., a senior at the school, became acquainted with him by passing him each morning as she rode her bicycle to school. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. ll) P.K. attended Vero Beach High School for the eleventh and twelfth grades. She participated in various extra curricular school activities such as the Spanish Club, French Club, Latin Club, Junior Classical League and Future Business Leaders of America. She was a member of the Track and Soccer Teams, and captained the Cross-Country Team. She also worked at various part-time jobs after school. In June 1985, she graduated with a "B" average. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.7) During her attendance at Vero Beach High School, P.K. did not attend any courses taught by the Respondent or participate in any sports which he coached. She became acquainted with him in December 1984. During lunch time she helped him keep statistics for the high school basketball team, which he coached. In January 1985, she would routinely spend her lunch hour in his office, visiting with him and keeping basketball statistics. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. l3) By the first week of February 1985, her relationship with the Respondent had changed and become more intimate. In lieu of her attending track practice after school, the Respondent picked her up at school and drove her to his apartment, where they had sexual intercourse. Respondent then drove her back to school where she retrieved her bicycle. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 15 ) During February and March 1985, Respondent and P.K. engaged in sexual intercourse at his apartment on 10 to 15 different occasions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. l6) On most of these occasions, Respondent drove P.K. from the high school to his apartment, had sexual intercourse with her, then returned her to school to retrieve her bicycle. When this occurred, she would skip track or cross country practice. On one or two occasions he picked her up at her place of part- time after-school employment, took her to his apartment and had sexual intercourse. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.l6) On Valentines Day in 1985, Respondent sent her an arrangement of roses which were delivered to the office at Vero Beach High School. (Request for Admissions, dated December 10, 1985: Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 19) Toward the end of March 1985, P.K. told her mother about her relationship with Respondent. During the two months in which Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with P.K., he told her that he loved her. During the Summer of 1985, he asked her if she would marry him, and she agreed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 22) During the period of time in which they were sexually intimate, Respondent told her that she should find a method of birth control and use it. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 22) On one occasion in February 1985, Respondent and P.K. visited the local beach after school. There were other students from the high school present on the beach at the time. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p.24: Tr. p.ll) After P.K. told her mother about her sexual relations with Respondent, school officials were contacted and advised of the situation. The Superintendent of Schools for the Indian River County School District immediately initiated an investigation into the matter. During the course of the investigation, school officials interviewed P.K. and questioned her extensively concerning the contents, furnishings and physical layout of Respondent's apartment in an attempt to either confirm or disprove her allegations. After obtaining from her a detailed description of Respondent's apartment and furnishings, Assistant Principal Gregory Smith and Personnel Director Douglas King visited Respondent's apartment. They found that her description was accurate, including her description of quilts located on the floor in Respondent's bedroom closet and a bag of frozen clams in his freezer. (Tr. pp. 36-39) When school officials interviewed Respondent, he told them that during the evening of March 22, 1985--when P.K. had indicated that she and the Respondent were together--he was with John Wyatt, a friend, until approximately 11 or 12 o'clock. Although he and Mr. Wyatt were together on the evening of March 22, 1985, watching an NCAA basketball game, Respondent drove Mr. Wyatt home at approximately 9 p.m., at which time he told Mr. Wyatt that he was going to pick up P.K. at Gringo's Restaurant, where she worked after school. (Tr. p. 14,40) During the course of the School Board's investigation, the local news media learned of the matter and began providing extensive coverage of the allegations and investigation. The three newspapers serving the Vero Beach area, as well as local radio and television stations, provided extensive coverage of the incident. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 Tr. pp. l9,28) As a result of the extensive coverage by the news media, allegations against Respondent became well known among students, faculty and staff at Vero Beach High School. As a result of the notoriety, P.K. suffered embarrassment and disparagement. Her friends avoided her for several weeks. A member of the school basketball team confronted her on more than one occasion because he was upset over Respondent's resignation. (The basketball player felt that this ruined his chance of going to college Respondent had been helping him in that effort.) On another occasion, a student pointed out P.K. to a reporter who was on campus gathering information about the incident. P.K. was so upset and embarrassed that the Principal recommended that she leave school for a day or so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp. 40, 41 Tr. pp.l7, 28, 30) In addition to the embarrassment and disparagement which P.K. suffered as a result of the notoriety surrounding the incident, her grades suffered. (Tr. pp.23,24) P.K. had a good reputation for truth and veracity at Vero Beach Senior High School. (Tr. pp.24,28) P.K. received mental health counseling to help her deal with mental and emotional problems resulting from her relationship with Respondent and the notoriety surrounding the incident. (Tr. pp.43,44) Prior to her involvement with Respondent, P.K. planned to attend college. Her relationship with Respondent and its after effects contributed, at least in part, to her subsequent decision to forego college. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp. 45,46) Respondent's sexual involvement with a female high school student, recognized by administrators, teachers and students as improper conduct, has seriously diminished his effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be permanently revoked for violating Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and rules of the State Board of Education. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, 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 9th day of April, 1986.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 25, 2004, 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 Education Practices Commission ("EPC") of the Department of Education is the state agency with the authority to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any person holding such a certificate in the State of Florida. § 1012.795(1), Fla. Stat. The Commissioner of Education is the state official responsible for making a determination of probable cause that a teacher has committed statutory or rule violations based on the investigation conducted by the Department of Education. § 1012.796, Fla. Stat. Mr. Mitchell holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 715339. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Mitchell was employed as a teacher by the Palm Beach County School Board.3 T.P. was born on March 19, 1984, and she was a student at Palm Beach Lakes High School in January 2000. T.P. met Mr. Mitchell in January 2000. At the time, Mr. Mitchell was 29 years old and was a teacher at J.F.K. Middle School. T.P. withdrew from school in June 2000. Mr. Mitchell and T.P. applied for a marriage license on July 28, 2000, and were married on September 25, 2000. On May 29, 2001, T.P. gave birth to a son, who was Mr. Mitchell's child.
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 all charges against Michael Mitchell. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 1st day of June, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Francis J. Sortino has been employed by the School Board of Broward County at Deerfield Beach High School in Deerfield Beach, Florida, since 1970 when the school opened. For ten years, he served as the school's planetarium director. In 1979 or 1980, he returned to teaching science in the classroom. In the fall of 1981, he taught a third-hour science class in which Thomas Bates, Debbie Landoskey, Lonnie McKever, Ricky Huntley, Steve Santiago, and Joe Sawyer, among others, were enrolled. On October 28, 1981, Joe Sawyer took the seat near the back of the class to which he had been assigned at the beginning of the school year, even though he had been subsequently reassigned to a seat in the front of the class. When Joe Sawyer and Steven Santiago began talking to each other, Mr. Sortino directed Joe Sawyer to take the seat at the front of the class. Joe Sawyer, who stood five feet one inch, weighed 97 or 98 pounds, and was 15 years old at the time of the hearing, complied with this request, but soon struck up a conversation with Thomas Bates. Thereupon Mr. Sortino told Joe Sawyer to move again, over near Debbie Peck. Joe Sawyer stood up, began moving in the direction Mr. Sortino had indicated (T. 293), and asked, "Where do you want me to move?" at least once. Mr. Sortino then picked up an empty desk, threw it so that it slid some ten feet across the floor and stopped against the wall, grabbed Joe Sawyer by the nape of the neck, forcibly set him down in the desk, and struck him with his open hand, using first his palm and then the back of his hand. These cuffs, no more than four in all, were not administered with Mr. Sortino's full strength; they fell on Joe Sawyer's shoulder or on the back of his neck. All this occurred in the presence of some 30 classmates, a few of whom called out urging Joe Sawyer to go to the school office to report the incident. Joe Sawyer did not cry, call out or resist. His face reddened and he laid his head down on his desk, but he was not seriously hurt. He did not require medical assistance or sustain any permanent injury. Aside from Mr. Sortino, no adult was present when respondent struck Sawyer. Mr. Sortino made no effort during third-hour science class on October 28, 1981, to secure the presence of another adult. The school principal, Rosa J. Lawson, had not delegated to respondent or any other teacher the authority to administer corporal punishment. On October 28, 1981, the School Board of Broward County had in force the following policy, No. 5301: Discipline - Corporal Punishment The principal, or in his/her absence, the person in charge of the school, shall have the responsibility for maintaining overall disci- pline within the school setting. The principal shall share with the teacher the responsibility for maintaining proper school conduct and morale. Further, he/she may delegate to the teachers such responsibility for control and direction of the students as he/she considers desirable. When and where such responsibility has been delegated the teachers shall be sup- ported in any reasonable action they may take. Each pupil enrolled in a school shall, during the time he/she is being transported to or from school at public expense, during the time he/ she is attending school, and during the time he/she is on the school premises, be under the authority of the principal or teacher in charge of the school, and under the immediate control and direction of the teacher or other member of the instructional staff or of the bus driver to whom such responsibility may be assigned by the principal. The board shall do everything within its legal power to protect and support the principal and teachers in their disciplinary role. This shall include legal support in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 230.234. In addition, the board shall assist the principal, teacher, bus driver and/or other school staff members in bringing about penalties for the disruption of school functions or assault upon the instruc- tional staff as set forth under Florida Statutes, Section[s] 231.06 and 231.07. Corporal punishment may be administered at the discretion of the principal or his/her designated representative. Normally this should be done only after other corrective measures have been tried without success. A teacher shall not inflict corporal punish- ment except upon approval of the principal and only then in the presence of another adult who is informed beforehand, and in the student's presence, of the reason for the punishment. Such punishment may not be degrading or unduly severe in its nature. (For clarification, see Florida Statutes, Section 232.27) All suspensions or expulsions shall be made in accordance with Florida Statutes and board policy 5006. Rules When corporal punishment is administered, the following rules shall be observed: The punishment shall be administered by the principal or by some other member of the professional staff designated by him/ her. Under no circumstances shall a stu- dent be struck about the head or shoulders. The punishment shall be administered poste- riorly by striking the student below the waist and above the knees. The administration of corporal pun- ishment shall be witnessed by at least one (1) other member of the staff. Corporal punishment shall not be administered in the presence of other students. When disciplinary action is taken by the principal and/or his/her designee the teacher referring the disciplinary case will be advised in writing of the action taken. A teacher may not suspend a child from school or class. However, in cases where an emergency situation develops, the teacher shall take such steps as are rea- sonably necessary to protect the students. The use of reasonable force necessary to isolate the disruptive student from the classroom shall not constitute corporal punishment as defined in accordance with Section 232.27, Florida Statute[s] , and shall not be used as a basis for the sus- pension of any member of the school staff nor for holding anyone liable for such an act unless the force used is degrading or unduly severe as to its nature. The designated member of the pro- fessional staff or principal who has admin- istered punishment shall provide the pupil's parent or guardian with a written explana- tion of the reason for the punishment and the name of the other adult who was present. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. The substance of this policy was fully explicated in the Deerfield Beach High School Teachers' Handbook at pp. 16, et seq., Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. The policy of the School Board of Broward County with respect to corporal punishment has not changed, in substance, for a decade or more. Respondent was furnished a copy of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9 at the beginning of the 1981-1982 school year. The Deerfield Beach High School Teachers' Guidebook also contained the following: Referrals to the Administrative Assistants The control of students is not something that can be achieved by so many rules or by the work of a few individuals, but rather by sincere and cooperative effort on the part of the entire faculty and staff to understand pupils and their problems. Teachers are encouraged to handle their own disciplinary problems whenever possible. Adequate lesson planning and consistancy [sic] of discipline are probably the best means of avoiding disciplinary difficulties. However, when a student becomes persistently unmanageable in the classroom to the detriment of the learn- ing situation or when his offense is of such a nature that he should be referred to some- one else, the teacher should write to the Administrative Assistant. This should be done only after the teacher has exhausted every means at his disposal to corre[c]t that student's conduct. In cases of EMERGENCY nature, the teacher should use the BUZZER to summon an Administrative Assistant to accompany the student to the office. When a referral becomes necessary, please use the three-part referral provided by the Administrative Assistant's office. Give as much information as possible about the reason for the referral in order to help the Administrative Assistant determine the measures to be taken. If the referral form is not adequate, please feel free to use an attachment. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. Respondent Sortino's own personal approach to discipline problems in the classroom is, he testified, fully consistent with the foregoing: If I have a child that's, you know, a minor infraction, the first thing I do is ask him to write a composition, have him take it home and get it signed by his parents. Then they bring the composition back to me. This way I ask the child to do something on why--let's say, for instance, he's just talking in class, or chewing gum, whatever it is. Whatever the infraction, I ask the student to write me a one page composition as to why they shouldn't do that in school, to take it home and have it signed by the parents, and bring it back to me. If they do it again, they write another composition. Generally, I ask them to write three compo- sitions. Generally, after three compositions, what I do is call home. That is not always successful, but I have made phone calls to parents at home. In many cases they tell me, I can't control him at home, can't you. At that point, then I would give detentions, which is school policy to give a student detentions. If he fails to serve detentions, I would write a referral on that student and send him to an adminis- trative assistant, and then they're supposed to take care of it from there. And that's the policy I've been follow- ing, as far as administering discipline in the classroom. (T. 302-303.) Even though he could not remember ever asking Joe Sawyer to write a composition, and never telephoned his parents, Mr. Sortino thought, at the time of the hearing, that his striking Joe Sawyer on October 28, 1981, "was proper." (T. 282.) This episode "was a second occurrence of this type incident." (T. 221.) Mr. Sortino did not refer Joe Sawyer to the school administration for discipline on October 28, 1981, or at any other time, although he did make several other such referrals of students in the fall of 1981. On October 28, 1981, he referred a student named Donald Evans to Rubin C. Ransaw, Jr., an administrative assistant at Deerfield Beach High School, for disciplinary action after Evans, in the presence of Mr. Sortino and other students, said, "Sortino sucks," twice. Petitioner's closing argument was made in written form and filed on May 11, 1982, Respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order were filed on May 13, 1982. These submissions were considered in preparation of the recommended order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have not been adopted they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence or immaterial to this cause.
The Issue Whether Petitioners are "affected persons" entitled to pursue the instant challenge to the City of Miami Beach's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 163.31B4(9), Florida Statutes? If so, whether the City of Miami Beach's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan is not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence and the stipulations of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: City of Miami Beach: An Overview The City of Miami Beach is an incorporated municipality located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County, Florida. It is governed by a seven member City Commission. The City consists of a main island and a number of smaller natural and man-made islands that lie to the east of the Dade County mainland. They are separated from the mainland by Biscayne Bay. To their east is the Atlantic Ocean. The City is now, and has been for some time, virtually fully developed. Less than 2% of the land in the City is vacant. Those parcels that are vacant are generally small in size and they are scattered throughout the City. The City is situated in the most intensely developed area in Dade County. Approximately 100,000 permanent residents live on the City's seven square miles of land area. In addition, the City has a sizable seasonal population Tourism is the backbone of the City's economy. Golf is among the activities visitors to the City are able to enjoy. There are two public 18-hole golf courses and one private 18-hole golf course in the City. The City also has a public 9-hole golf course, hereinafter referred to as the Par 3 Golf Course. Par 3 Golf Course and Surrounding Area The Par 3 Golf Course is owned by the City and leased to the American Golf Corporation, which operates the course. The course consists of nine relatively short holes. The longest of these holes is 180 yards. The shortest is 100 yards. The remaining holes average 150 yards in The course has been completely renovated and is currently in excellent condition. Since the renovation work, the number of players has increased significantly. Nonetheless, the course is still under-utilized. The land upon which the golf course is built is not environmentally sensitive. There are, however, a number of large, mature trees on the property. The Par 3 Golf Course is located on a 25 acre tract of land in the south central part of the City. It is bounded by 28th Street on the north, Dade Boulevard and Collins Canal on the south, Pine Tree Drive on the east, and Prairie Avenue on the west. All of these roadways are classified as "urban" by the Florida Department of Transportation Pine Tree Drive is one of the major north-south thoroughfares in the City. It is part of the Dade County Road System and has been assigned a Level of Service of "D" by the County. That portion of the roadway which borders the golf course has four lanes of through traffic, plus two parking lanes, and is divided by a median strip. The area surrounding the golf course is entirely developed. The development is primarily, but not exclusively, residential in nature. Residential structures are particularly predominant to the north and to the west of the golf course. Among the nonresidential structures found in the immediate vicinity of the golf course are: the Youth Center to the north; the Hebrew Academy's elementary school building, Miami Beach High School, and a City fire station, maintenance yard and fuel facility to the south; and the Fana Holtz Building, a five story building, with a basement parking garage, which currently houses the Hebrew Academy's junior and senior high school program, to the east on the other side of Pine Tree Drive. Parking is inadequate in the area of the golf course. The City is currently investigating ways to alleviate the parking problems in the area. Option to Exchange Property On June 7, 1989, at a regularly scheduled meeting, 1/ the City Commission voted to give the Hebrew Academy, a private educational institution, an option to purchase from the City a 3.87 acre portion of the Par 3 Golf Course located immediately adjacent to and north of the Hebrew Academy's elementary school building, in exchange for the Fana Holtz Building and the land on which it is situated. The Hebrew Academy has plans to construct a new junior and senior high school building, which will be able accommodate more students than the existing facility, on the land it will acquire if it exercises its option. The Hebrew Academy's acquisition of the land and its construction of a building on the site will disrupt the operations of the golf course. In addition, at least some of the large, mature trees that presently stand on the site will have to be removed. The course's third and fourth holes now occupy the land that the Hebrew Academy has been given the option to purchase. The course therefore will have to be redesigned to eliminate or relocate these holes if the Hebrew Academy purchases the land and constructs a building on it. Golfers playing the Par 3 Golf Course generally have the benefit of cool breezes that blow from the southeast. A multistory building situated on the land now occupied by the third and fourth holes will block some of these breezes that golfers playing other holes now enjoy. If the City acquires the Fana Holtz Building, it may move the offices of several City departments into the building. Such a move, coupled with an increase in the size of the Hebrew Academy's enrollment, would create a need for additional parking spaces in an area where parking is already a problem. Petitioners Falk and Miami Beach Homeowners Association Mildred Falk is now, and has been for the past 53 years, a resident of the City of Miami Beach. The Miami Beach Homeowners Association (Association) is a nonprofit organization of Miami Beach homeowners. Its primary purpose is to educate the public concerning matters of local interest in the City. For the past 15 years, Falk has been the President of the Association. Falk does not require formal permission from the Association's Board of Directors to address the City Commission on behalf of the Association. Falk has an understanding with the members of the Board that, if they take a position on an issue that will come before the City Commission, she will represent their collective views at the City Commission meeting in question without being formally requested to do so. Falk regularly appears before the City Commission in her capacity as a representative of the Association. As a general rule, though, she does not expressly state during her presentations that she is representing the Association. She considers it unnecessary to provide such an advisement because the persons she is addressing already know of her role as a spokesperson for the Association. On April 5, 1989, Falk Submitted a completed Lobbyist Registration Form to the City Clerk. On the completed form, Falk indicated that she had been employed by the Association to engage in lobbying activities with respect to a particular item, unrelated to the instant controversy, that was then before the City Commission. On February 5, 1990, Falk submitted another completed Lobbyist Registration Form to the City Clerk. On this completed form, she indicated that she had been employed to lobby with respect to "[a]ll issues that affect Miami Beach before the City Commission, Authorities or Boards." There was no indication on the form, however, as to what person or entity had employed her to engage in such lobbying activity. These are the only completed Lobbyist Registration Forms that Falk has filed with the City Clerk. Adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan The City Commission considered the matter of the adoption of the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan at public hearings held on September 7, 1989, and September 21, 1989. Notice of these adoption proceedings was published in the "Neighbors" section of the Miami Herald. 2/ The Miami Herald is a newspaper of general paid circulation in Dade County. The "Neighbors" section of the Miami Herald is circulated twice weekly along with other portions of the Herald in the following towns and municipalities: Miami Beach; Bal Harbour; Surfside; Bay Harbor Islands; Golden Beach; North Bay Village; Sunny Isles; and Indian Creek Village. The "Neighbors" section of the Miami Herald is: (a) published at least on a weekly basis; (b) printed in the language most commonly spoken in the area within which it circulates; (c) not a newspaper intended primarily for members of a particular professional or occupational group; (d) not a newspaper whose primary function is to carry legal notices; and (e) not given away primarily to distribute advertising. At the close of the public hearing held on September 21, 1989, the City Commission unanimously passed Ordinance No. 89-2664 adopting the City's Year 2000 Plan. On the future land use map (FLUM), adopted by the City Commission as part of the plan, that portion of the Par 3 Golf Course which the Hebrew Academy has the option to purchase is designated PFE (Public Facility- Educational). The property that the City will receive if the Hebrew Academy exercises its option has a land use designation of PF (Public Facility- Fire, Police, Other) on the FLUM. Policy l.2q. of the plan's future land use element contains the following discussion concerning the land use designation of these parcels of property: On June 7, 1989, the City Commission approved an option with the Hebrew Academy to exchanged [sic] private land for a portion of the Par 3 Golf Course. At the exercise of the option, the affected portion of the Par 3 Golf Course shall automatically be designated as Public Facilities [sic]- Educational. The property that the City will obtain will be designated as Public Facility- Other. 3/ During the public hearings that culminated in the City Commission's adoption of the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Falk made oral presentations to the City Commission. She criticized the decision that had been made to allow the Hebrew Academy to purchase, at its option, the "affected portion of the Par 3 Golf Course" referenced in Policy 1.2q. of the plan's future land use element. It was her contention that, in accordance with a restrictive covenant entered into between the City, the Alton Beach Realty Company and the Miami Beach Improvement Company on June 17, 1930, the City was prohibited from allowing any portion of the land on which the golf course was built "to be used for any purpose whatsoever, other than for a golf course and/or golf links." At no time during her remarks did she contend that the plan ultimately adopted by the City Commission was contrary to any requirements dealing with the subject of urban sprawl. Nor did she argue that the notice of the adoption hearings that the City had provided was in any way deficient or inadequate. Falk did not identify herself at the adoption hearings as a representative of the Association. 4/ Nonetheless, in presenting her remarks to the City Commission, she was expressing not only her own views, but those of the Association as well. Prior to these hearings, she had informally polled the members of the Association's Board of Directors and they had each indicated to her that they opposed the "land swap" between the City and the Hebrew Academy. While they did not formally request that she appear before the City Commission to voice their concerns, it is not their standard practice to issue such requests. Neither Falk nor the Association submitted any written comments concerning the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan during the City's review and adoption proceedings Urban Sprawl In November, 1989, the Department of Community Affairs published a Technical Memorandum (Volume IV, Number 4) which was designed "to help local governments and interested parties understand the requirements for discouraging urban sprawl that must be met to comply with Florida's planning requirements." The memorandum defines "urban sprawl" a- "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection." According to the memorandum, "urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following inefficient land use patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low- density, single-dimensional development." These land use patterns are described in the memorandum as follows: Leap frog development occurs when new development is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appropriate for urban development * * * Strip or ribbon development involves the location of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential development in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. * * * Low-density, Single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low-density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas should be protected from urban development. The memorandum's description of "urban sprawl" is consistent with the definition most commonly employed by professional planners. In order to ascertain whether development meets the definition of "urban sprawl" used by the Department, it is necessary to determine whether the area involved is "rural" or on the "urban fringe." The memorandum suggests that such a determination may be based upon the area's population density. According to the memorandum, areas should be classified as follows based upon their population densities per square mile: Density Classification 0-200 Rural 201-500 Exurban 501-1000 Suburban 1001-2000 Medium [Urban] Density 2001-5000 High [Urban] Density 5000+ Highest Urban Density Among the techniques recommended in the memorandum to curb "urban sprawl" is "[p]romoting urban infill development and redevelopment." The construction of a multistory building on the Par 3 Golf Course and the conversion of the Fana Holtz Building to government use would not constitute any of the three types of development that the Department has indicated in its memorandum are characteristic of "urban sprawl." Rather, these activities would be in the nature of "infill development and redevelopment" inasmuch as they would occur, not in a "rural area" or on the "urban fringe," as those terms are used in the memorandum, 5/ but rather in the heart of an area of the "highest urban density."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs issue a final order in the instant case declining to find the City of Miami Beach's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance" on the grounds urged by Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of August, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 13 day of August, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), while in a classroom at Neptune Beach Elementary School on September 19, 2013, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the documentary evidence presented, and the record as a whole, the following facts are found: The Florida Education Practices Commission (“the Commission”) is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to the instant case, Ms. Kennedy held Florida Educator Certificate 889874, covering the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages. Ms. Kennedy’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2017. Ms. Kennedy began her teaching career in 2001 after graduating with a bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education from the University of North Florida. The school district assigned Ms. Kennedy to Neptune Beach Elementary on September 9, 2013, approximately two weeks into the 2013-2014 school year. The principal of Neptune Beach Elementary, Elizabeth Kavanagh, then assigned Ms. Kennedy to a third-grade class being taught by Ms. Amber Rodenkirch. It is unclear whether the two teachers were equals in the classroom or if Ms. Rodenkirch gave direction to Ms. Kennedy. The students in Ms. Rodenkirch and Ms. Kennedy’s class (“the class”) sat at tables rather than in chairs with a writing surface attached thereto. As illustrated by Petitioner’s Exhibit 13, the chairs utilized by the students were of two types. One type consisted of a plastic seat resting on metal tubes. The metal tubes had four flat ends making contact with the floor. The second type of chair also consisted of a plastic seat resting on metal tubes. However, the second type of chair made contact with the floor by having two metal tubes lying flat on the floor. As a result, it would be much easier to slide the second type of chair along a carpeted floor than the first. When seated in the second type of chair, the children in the class would often lean forward. By doing so, they would cause the back portion of the metal tubes on which the seat rested to rise up off the floor. When working with a student, Ms. Rodenkirch and Ms. Kennedy would be standing behind or next to a seated student. If that student was seated in the second type of chair and leaning forward, there was a tendency for the metal tubes on which the seat rested to come down on a teacher’s foot once the student leaned or sat back in his or her chair. Because it was painful for a chair to come down on her feet, Ms. Kennedy greatly preferred the first type of chair to the second. On September 19, 2013, Ms. Kennedy had recently been in a surfing accident which left one of her feet black and blue. In all likelihood, Ms. Kennedy was particularly concerned that day with the children leaning forward in their chairs. On September 19, 2013, Ms. Rodenkirch was working with a student and was 10 to 14 feet away from Ms. Kennedy. A student, C.J., was leaning forward in his chair, and Ms. Rodenkirch witnessed Ms. Kennedy tip C.J. out of his chair. After getting up from the floor, C.J. sat back down in his chair and appeared to be startled. Ms. Rodenkirch asked Ms. Kennedy if C.J. fell out of his chair, and Ms. Kennedy responded by stating, “With a little help.” Ms. Rodenkirch interpreted that statement as confirmation that Ms. Kennedy intentionally tipped C.J. out of his chair. At a different time on September 19, 2013, Ms. Rodenkirch was again about 10 to 14 feet from Ms. Kennedy when she witnessed Ms. Kennedy tip another student, N.B., out of his chair. As was the case with C.J., N.B. fell to the floor and was startled. Ms. Rodenkirch did not say anything to Ms. Kennedy after witnessing the incident with N.B. However, she was very upset about what she witnessed that day and reported what she saw to Ms. Kavanaugh after the children left school. After hearing Ms. Rodenkirch’s description of what happened in the class earlier that day, Ms. Kavanaugh called her supervisor, the regional superintendant, and requested direction. The regional superintendant, Kelly Coker-Daniels, instructed Ms. Kavanaugh to contact the Department of Children and Families and the local school district’s investigative branch. Both of the aforementioned entities conducted investigations. The local school district concluded that there was “substantial evidence to sustain the charges of exercise of poor judgment and inappropriate physical contact with students against Robin Kennedy for her role in these incidents.” (emphasis in original). Based on the investigation conducted by the Department of Children and Families, the Duval County Public School System: (a) issued a letter of reprimand to Ms. Kennedy; and (b) notified her that, pending approval by the school board, she would be suspended for 15 consecutive working days without pay. Because of the events described above, the parents of C.J. and N.B. requested that their children be transferred to another third-grade class. At least one other student transferred to a different class because she was worried that Ms. Kennedy would pull a chair out from under her. During the final hearing in this matter, Ms. Kennedy denied ever intentionally doing anything that could injure a student. During cross-examination, she responded affirmatively when asked if Ms. Rodenkirch was lying when she testified that she saw Ms. Kennedy tip C.J. and N.B. out of their chairs. However, the undersigned finds that Ms. Rodenkirch was a much more credible and persuasive witness than Ms. Kennedy. Therefore, the undersigned credits Ms. Rodenkirch’s testimony and finds that Ms. Kennedy did tip over the chairs of C.J. and N.B. on September 19, 2013, at Neptune Beach Elementary. Without a doubt, tipping students out of their chairs reduced Ms. Kennedy’s effectiveness as a teacher. That is underscored by the fact that students were transferred to other third-grade classes due to Ms. Kennedy’s actions. Ms. Kennedy’s conduct demonstrates that she failed to make reasonable efforts to protect her students from mental and/or physical harm. While it is very fortunate that none of the students in the class suffered any serious physical injuries, that might not have been the case if a student had hit his or her head on a hard object after being tipped out of his or her chair. Also, it is obvious that tipping a student out of his or her chair could expose that student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Accordingly, Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Kennedy violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending Robin Welch-Kennedy’s educator’s certificate for 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 5th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the Respondent's Petition dated June 11, 2008, 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 duties of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2008).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Scott has been employed as a teacher with the School Board since 1986. She is a member of the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association and is subject to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association ("Collective Bargaining Agreement"). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Scott taught business classes at Palm Beach Central High School ("Palm Beach Central"). In 2006, Ms. Scott was charged with shutting a student into a windowless, unventilated closet and leaving him there "for a time estimated to be between ten (10) minutes by you and fifty (50) minutes by the student and other witnesses."2 The superintendent of schools recommended to the School Board that Ms. Scott be suspended without pay and her employment terminated. The termination was subsequently rescinded, and Ms. Scott's discipline for this incident was reduced to a 38-day suspension without pay. During fourth period on February 1, 2008, Ms. Scott was teaching a course in computing for colleges and careers. While she was taking attendance, several students were causing their computers to "beep." As a result, Ms. Scott sent a few students outside the classroom, into the hallway. She sent another student to the storage room that connected her classroom to the classroom next to hers and told the student to step inside and shut the door. The student was a male who was 17 years of age at the time of the final hearing. The storage room was approximately 10 feet wide and 15 feel long. The student remained in the storage room for approximately 10 minutes, during which time the lights in the storage room were off. The storage room had two doors, neither of which had windows, and Ms. Scott could not see the student while he was in the storage room. After approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Scott opened the storage room door and told the student he could leave the storage room.3 The student did not consider his being sent into the dark storage room a "big deal," and he did not report the incident to his parents, to another teacher, or to the school administration.4 On February 15, 2008, a student reported the incident to a teacher, who reported it to an assistant principal, who reported it to another assistant principal, who reported it to the principal, Burley Mondy. Mr. Mondy reported the matter to the School Board police and requested that a formal investigation be initiated. Mr. Mondy also removed Ms. Scott from the Palm Beach Central campus on February 15, 2008, and she was given an alternate assignment in the Palm Beach County School District's office. After the investigation was completed, the matter was subject to an administrative review; a pre-disciplinary meeting was held with Ms. Scott in attendance; and the matter was reviewed by the School Board's Employee Investigation Committee. Based upon the recommendation of the Employee Investigation Committee, the superintendent of schools recommended to the School Board that Ms. Scott be suspended without pay and that proceedings be initiated to terminate her employment. The School Board approved this recommendation at its June 4, 2008, meeting. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that, by sending a student into a dark storage room for approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Scott exercised extremely poor professional judgment and that her actions posed a potential risk to the student's physical and mental health and safety. The School Board failed to present any evidence to establish that Ms. Scott's sending several students into the hall during class constituted poor professional judgment or posed a potential risk to the students' physical and mental health and safety. The School Board also failed to present any evidence to establish that Ms. Scott's effectiveness in the school system was impaired by the incident at issue, and it is not reasonable to infer from Ms. Scott's conduct that her effectiveness was impaired.
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 Rutha Scott, immediately reinstating her, and awarding her back pay for the period of her suspension, as provided in Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2009, 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 16th day of February, 2009.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 878226, based upon the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Case No. 034-0140-Q, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 878226, covering the areas of chemistry, which is valid through June 30, 2004.2/ At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Gulf Coast High School Charter, in the Escambia County School District. STIPULATED FACTS Gulf Coast High School (GCHS) conducted a field trip to Pensacola Beach on May 10, 2002. No certified lifeguards were employed by GCHS for the May 10, 2002 beach field trip. GCHS conducted a similar field trip to Pensacola Beach in April 2001. For the April 2001 (trip), GCHS claims it employed two certified lifeguards. Fifty-eight students attended the May 10, 2002 beach field trip. The following eight GCHS employees accompanied the students to the beach: Russell D. Bourne, Transportation Supervisor --"Mr. Bo" Deanna Jones, Science Teacher Felicia Churchwell, English Teacher Anthony Bassett, Social Studies Teacher Alphonso Lewis, Behavioral Tech Minnie Robertson, Secretary/Attendance Clerk Ray Steven White, Student Services Specialist Melvin Burnett, Behavioral Tech Mr. Burnett left the field trip around lunch time, before the drowning took place. For each student attending the beach field trip, parents signed a field trip authorization form and attached a $5.00 payment for expenses. The beach field trip form specifically stated the student would be going to the beach and that a "certified lifeguard would be on duty." Although the field trip was planned by Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, the person in charge at the beach was Felicia Churchwell, a second-year English teacher. Ms. Deanna Jones took no part in planning the field trip. Both Assistant Principal Kevin Jones and Trip Supervisor Churchwell attended last year's beach trip (the 2001 trip) and knew lifeguards were on duty at that time. Neither Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, nor any other employee of GCHS polled students to ascertain whether students could or could not swim. Neither Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, nor any other employee of GCHS polled employees to ascertain whether the employees attending the field trip could or could not swim. Prior to leaving the school on May 10, 2002, the fifty-eight students were shown the safety video: A Safe Visit to the Beach. The video described the meaning of the beach flag system and provided information on how to manage dangerous surf conditions such as rip tides. Aside from a viewing of the video, Assistant Principal Kevin Jones' only other precautionary instruction to the students was that they were not to go into the water deeper than their navels. The students boarded two GCHS buses and were taken to the gulf side of the beach near the entrance to Fort Pickens. They arrived at the beach at approximately 10:30 a.m. Ms. Deanna Jones immediately advised Ms. Churchwell and other staff that no lifeguards were on duty and yellow flags were flying. Ms. Churchwell stated that she was not concerned that a lifeguard was not present. Students remained in the water for nearly an hour and a half before being called out of the water for a lunch break. All students left the water for lunch. The students were permitted to return to the water following the lunch break at approximately 12:45 p.m. Two staff members, Ms. Deanna Jones and Mr. Alphonso Lewis, stayed at the pavilion. Mr. Lewis was cleaning up from lunch and Ms. Jones was watching the students who were still eating. The remaining staff members returned to the beach to monitor the students who were either sitting or standing near the water's edge observing the students. Some students began to go out into deeper water, venturing beyond the sandbar approximately ten to fifteen yards from shore. At that time Social Science teacher Anthony Bassett began to yell to the students to get out of the water. Students Isaiah Baker, Colan White, Johnny Smith, Ryan Dumas and the decedent, Earl Beasley, were together in the water. No staff person observed the decedent in any danger. No staff person observed the decedent drown. Staff at the beach determined the decedent was missing only after students leaving the water indicated the decedent was missing. Initially GCHS staff believed the decedent could have been in the rest room. When the decedent could not be located, Anthony Bassett called 911. No GCHS personnel, except Alphonso Lewis, entered the water to search for the decedent. Mr. Lewis traveled to the sand bar, but was discouraged from going further by another GCHS employee due to the dangerous surf. Mr. White searched the water visually through the zoom feature on his camera. Rescue personnel arrived with jet skis about ten minutes after the 911 call was made. The decedent's body was found submerged ten to fifteen minutes later approximately fifty yards off shore. Rescue personnel performed CPR at the scene and Life Flight took the decedent to Gulf Breeze Hospital. Earl Beasley was pronounced dead thirty minutes later. ADDITIONAL FACTS On February 26, 2002, Respondent commenced her employment at GCHS. During employment at GCHS Respondent had not been told about school policies in relation to serving as a chaperone on a field trip for the student body. The persons responsible for planning the May 10, 2002 outing for the school were Kevin Jones, the assistant principal, and Felicia Churchwell, an English teacher. Mr. Jones and Ms. Churchwell did not delegate to Respondent any planning or organizational responsibilities associated with the field trip. In that connection, Respondent was not called upon to determine whether the students could swim. Respondent was not called upon to arrange for a lifeguard to be in attendance at the outing. Assistant Principal Jones did not attend the field trip. Ms. Churchwell was placed in charge of the field trip and served as supervisor at the beach. Respondent had no supervisory authority or control over other persons who served as chaperones on the field trip. Respondent was required by Assistant Principal Jones to attend the field trip as a chaperone. Assistant Principal Jones had informed Respondent of the duty to act as chaperone a couple of days before the field trip. It was the intent of Assistant Principal Jones that all students who would participate in the field trip watch the video on safety. After the students watched the video Mr. Jones told the students that they should not go deeper in the water than their belly buttons. Earl Beasley did not view the safety video. But he was allowed to go on the field trip. There is no indication in the record that Respondent participated in the decision to allow Mr. Beasley to participate in the outing without a knowledge of the instruction presented in the safety video. When the party arrived at the beach, there was a lifeguard stand but no lifeguard. The lifeguard stand had a sign displayed indicating that the lifeguard was not on duty. A yellow flag was displayed reminding swimmers to proceed with caution. When Respondent told other chaperones, to include Ms. Churchwell about the absence of the lifeguard, those other persons responded that they knew that the lifeguard was not on duty. Before lunch Respondent spent time down by the water watching students in her role as chaperone. Some students were in the water, others were not. Some students were observed violating the assistant principal's instruction not to go deeper than their belly buttons. Respondent called out to those students who exceeded the depth allowed. The students came closer to the shore where they could understand what was being said. Respondent then told them that Mr. Jones had said that they could not go above their belly buttons. Beyond the time at which she had offered this reminder to stay within the bounds for depth, Ms. Churchwell allowed the students to return to the deeper water. Later in the morning Respondent reminded the students another time to not go so deep in the water. By that point the water was becoming more choppy. A short time later the students were called for lunch. The students went to a location behind the sand dunes away from the beach, where a picnic area was located to have their lunch. The students were required to remain out of the water for a period of time beyond the point in time when they ate their lunch. From the picnic area, one could not see the immediate shoreline because of the dune height. Respondent remained in the picnic area after lunch to watch some students who had remained in that area. Respondent became aware that Earl Beasley was missing when people began to approach the picnic area by coming across the boardwalk that topped the dune. These persons were trying to find the missing student in the restroom areas adjacent to the picnic area. Respondent was told words to the effect that Earl Beasley was in the water and in distress. Having been told about Mr. Beasley's circumstances, Respondent returned to the beach. She observed that the water was even rougher than it had been before. Respondent was prepared to assist in the attempt to rescue Mr. Beasley. She decided against this course given the water conditions. The efforts of others to save Mr. Beasley were not successful.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Counts 1 through 3 of the Administrative Complaint, upon a finding that Respondent has not violated Section 1012.795(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2002), nor has she violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a).3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school psychologist. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a member of the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) Bargaining Unit. At all times material to this case, Respondent was receiving benefits under a valid claim for Workers' Compensation benefits arising from an accident on January 7, 2000. In conjunction with investigations as to Respondent's eligibility for Workers' Compensation benefits, video surveillance of Respondent's activities was conducted on several occasions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, Dr. Laakso worked for Petitioner as a school psychologist in Area 3, and was assigned to Palm Beach Lakes High School, Forest Hill High School, and Conniston Middle School. His immediate supervisor was Mary Kate Boyle, the Area 3 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Team Leader. On January 7, 2000, Dr. Laakso was working in his car while parked in the Palm Beach Lakes High School parking lot, and when exiting the car, hit his head on the door jamb causing a compression of his spine. He then received a second injury to his back while pulling psychological testing kits out of his car. Dr. Laakso submitted this injury to Petitioner as a workers' compensation injury, and it was covered as such. Christopher Brown, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and one of Dr. Laakso's workers' compensation physicians, treated Dr. Laakso. On February 8, 2000, Dr. Brown placed Dr. Laakso on a "no-work" status. Dr. Laakso suffers from cervical spinal stenosis, which is a narrowing of the spinal canal. Because Dr. Laakso had underlying spinal stenosis secondary to arthritis, combined with disc herniations, his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Brown, diagnosed Dr. Laakso's stenosis as severe. Also on February 8, 2000, Ms. Boyle held an investigative meeting with Respondent and his then-attorney, Stephen Fried, to discuss Respondent's continued absences since January 7, 2000 (the date of Respondent's workers' compensation injury) and his work status. In a letter to Dr. Laakso dated February 9, 2000, Ms. Boyle explained what her expectations were with regard to Respondent's absence and work status. On February 9, 2000, Dr. Laakso requested unpaid sick leave for January 11, 2000 to May 31, 2000, which the School Board granted. In March of 2000, Dr. Laakso was released back to light duty work, with restrictions. Some of the physical restrictions placed on Dr. Laakso's activities included no overhead use of the right upper extremity and no heavy use of the right upper extremity greater than 5 pounds. In addition, Dr. Laakso was told to be careful and to try not to hurt himself. Dr. Brown also imposed a 10 mile driving restriction on Dr. Laakso because Dr. Brown believed Dr. Laakso's spinal stenosis placed him at increased risk if he hit his head or was in a car accident. Dr. Laakso argued against the driving restriction because he was capable of driving and believed that the restriction would "mess things up" if he was unable to use his car. Dr. Laakso neither asked for the driving restriction nor represented that he needed the restriction.4 Dr. Laakso conveyed the driving restrictions to both Ms. Boyle and Linda Meyers in Risk Management. On March 21, 2000, Dr. Laakso was given a light duty placement in which he was assigned to Atlantic High School watching the school's security cameras. This assignment was for Dr. Laakso's regularly scheduled 7.5 hours a day, and was within the physical and driving restrictions imposed by Dr. Brown. While on light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, Dr. Laakso reported to Assistant Principal, Marshall Bellin. Dr. Laakso also submitted his time sheets to Mr. Bellin for Mr. Bellin's verification and signature. After Mr. Bellin signed the light duty time sheets, Dr. Laakso faxed them to Ms. Boyle for payroll purposes. Around this time period, in approximately April of 2000, the third party administrator, FARA, who handles the School Board's Workers' Compensation claims, hired private investigator Richard Mains to conduct surveillance of Dr. Laakso. Mains observed Dr. Laakso at various times from April 3, 2000 through October 2, 2000. Mains documented Respondent's driving to and from his Matlacha home and the activities in which he engaged while there. Mains did not know whether Dr. Laakso was taking pain or anti-inflammatory medication, or whether Dr. Laakso was under the influence of these types of medications at the times Mains observed him. On May 17, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another investigative meeting regarding Respondent's absences while on light duty. The minutes from that meeting indicate that Ms. Boyle expressed her concern to Dr. Laakso regarding his absences, discussed his light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, and directed him to call her beeper if he was going to be absent. He was also directed to provide a doctor's note if he was absent. Dr. Laakso remained in the light duty assignment at Atlantic High School for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. On Wednesday, August 9, 2000, the first day of the 2000-2001 school year, Dr. Laakso again reported to Atlantic High School to resume his light duty placement. On August 15, 2000, Marshall Bellin signed Respondent's light duty sign-in sheet, which covered Dr. Laakso's work attendance for August 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2000. Around August 14 or 15, 2000, Dr. Laakso received verbal notification that because his driving restriction had been lifted, he was being taken off light duty assignment and was to report to Area 3. Prior to this verbal notification, Dr. Laakso had not been advised by his physicians that his driving restriction had been lifted. However, he subsequently learned through someone at the Risk Management Department that, in fact, the driving restriction had been lifted. Upon hearing the news, Dr. Laakso contacted Dr. Brown. When he went to see Dr. Brown, Dr. Brown explained to Respondent that the Board had sent him a questionnaire asking whether he believed that Dr. Laakso could drive a car as opposed to whether he should drive a car. Dr. Brown further explained that he responded that Dr. Laakso could drive a car, but felt he had made a mistake as he felt it was still dangerous for Dr. Laakso to drive. Accordingly, on August 17, 2000, Dr. Brown reinstated Dr. Laakso's driving restriction of no more than 10 minutes. On August 17, 2000, Dr. Laakso sent a memo to Ms. Boyle indicating that his driving restriction had been reinstated. A copy of the note from Dr. Brown was attached to this memo. Because of her continuing concern regarding Respondent's absences, on October 2, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another "investigative meeting" regarding Dr. Laakso's absences. This meeting resulted in Boyle's issuing Dr. Laakso a written reprimand for unacceptable and unexcused absences, failure to call in intended absences as required, and insubordination. The written reprimand specifically addressed Dr. Laakso's absences on August 9, 10, 11, 22, and September 20, 27, 28, and 29. Ms. Boyle believed her issuance of the written reprimand dated October 2, 2000, was consistent with the progressive discipline policy. At the time that Ms. Boyle wrote the reprimand, she also notified the District's Professional Standards Department and requested a formal investigation of Respondent's absences. Ms. Boyle then contacted Ray Miller in Professional Standards to be sure that she was following appropriate procedure. In October of 2000, Ray Miller received Respondent's case for investigation, and the investigation was assigned case number 101. Specifically, Miller investigated allegations involving Respondent's misuse of leave, unauthorized absence, failure to call in and report absences as required, and insubordination for the time period of January 2000 through December 2000. At the time of his interview with Respondent, Miller had a surveillance video and a report of Respondent's activities for April of 2000. Respondent neither denied that he was the subject of the video nor that he failed to report and call in his absences. Shortly before December 4, 2000, Miller signed off on the investigative report for case number 101, and on December 4, 2000, Paul Lachance issued a letter to Dr. Laakso indicating that the investigation was complete, and that a determination of probable cause had been made. The investigative report was then reviewed by the Case Management Review Committee to determine whether there was just cause to recommend discipline and, if so, provide a discipline recommendation. The Committee found just cause and recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. A number of meetings were held in December 2000 with representatives of Petitioner, Dr. Laakso, and his then- attorney, Mr. Fried. As a result of these meetings, an informal settlement was reached; Dr. Laakso's employment was not terminated, but rather he was transferred to the Area 1 ESE office. By a letter to the file dated January 8, 2001, Paul Lachance, Director of Professional Standards, administratively closed case number 01-101 against Dr. Laakso with "no action." While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso was under the supervision of Area 1 ESE Team Leader, Paul Sayrs. As supervisor, Mr. Sayrs was responsible for keeping track of Respondent's attendance. Accordingly, Sayrs directed Respondent to call and notify secretary Judy Fabris if he was going to be absent, who in turn would notify Mr. Sayrs. While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso missed work for several days in January and February 2001, and was also out for most of March and April 2001. On April 4, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent Dr. Laakso a letter listing the dates of his absences and directing him to submit a doctor's note for the dates listed, as well as for any future absences. The next day, April 5, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent another letter to Dr. Laakso advising him he was currently absent without approved leave. Mr. Sayrs advised Respondent further that due to an absence of correspondence from Respondent, Mr. Sayrs would assume Respondent had decided to discontinue working for Petitioner and Respondent's name would be submitted to the School Board for acceptance of Respondent's resignation. Dr. Laakso immediately contacted Dr. Sachs regarding Mr. Sayrs' request for medical documentation, but was unable to get an appointment with Dr. Sachs until April 20th. However, prior to his April 20th appointment, Dr. Laakso forwarded to Dr. Sachs a copy of the District's letter, which indicated he would be terminated if he did not provide the requested documentation prior to his appointment on April 20th. In response, Dr. Sachs accounted for Dr. Laakso's absences, noting they were due to his symptoms and cervical condition. Additionally, Dr. Laakso followed through by faxing his Request for Leave of Absence without Pay form with his signature, dated April 18, 2001, directly to Dr. Sachs for his signature. The leave was ultimately granted retroactive to March 8, 2001, prior to Dr. Laakso's being terminated by the District. On April 18, 2001, Dr. Laakso sent a handwritten note to Dan McGrath explaining his absences. Dr. Laakso attached to his note to Mr. McGrath two documents from Dr. Sachs, one dated April 15, 2001, and the other dated April 6, 2000. On May 18, 2001, Paul Sayrs evaluated Dr. Laakso's performance. The evaluation sheet indicated that Dr. Laakso was "presently on a medical leave of absence." Dr. Laakso has a second home in Matlacha, located on the other side of Cape Coral. Matlacha is located in the Fort Myers area and is approximately 150 miles from the West Palm Beach area, roughly a three-hour trip using country roads. Because he had not been feeling well, Dr. Laakso had not been taking care of his property in Matlacha. As a result, he received notices from the county telling him he needed to clear up the property or face a potential daily fine of $225. Specifically, the county informed Dr. Laakso that he needed to mow the grass, move a boat, register a pickup truck, and park the truck somewhere where it was not in open view. He asked for an extension in which to do these things, which was granted. However, the county advised Dr. Laakso that if he did not get the work done by the date established, the daily fine would be imposed. Although while at his Matlacha home Dr. Laakso did work outside of the restrictions imposed on him by his physician, he could work for 20 or 30 minutes and then go inside and rest, unlike when he was at work for the School Board, which required he work a full eight-hour day. While he was on his Matlacha property, he continued his daily swimming as part of his physical therapy, which he had discussed with, and received approval for, from Dr. Brown. At no time did Dr. Laakso attempt to hide the fact that he drove to the Matlacha property or that he worked in his yard while there. In fact, he disclosed this information when deposed in his workers' compensation case, and he discussed it with his doctor. While the doctor did not give Dr. Laakso permission for this type of conduct, Dr. Laakso did discuss it with him.5 Following the closing of the first investigation numbered 101, the office of Professional Standards received a memo from Diane Howard, Director of Risk Management, dated January 9, 2001. Ms. Howard was requesting a reinvestigation of Dr. Laakso's absences. In response to this memo, Miller did not interview Respondent, but instead viewed surveillance videotapes from August 11 through October 1 or 2, 2000. In addition to the videos, Miller reviewed memos from Nancy Patrick, Mary Kate Boyle, and Paul Sayrs. Miller testified that the difference between this investigation and the previous one was that it involved a different period of time, both for the videos and regarding issues of Respondent's attendance in January, February, and March of 2001. The allegations against Respondent for this investigation were that he was obtaining leave due to sickness or illness and that he was performing actions that were inconsistent with his alleged illness or sickness. This second investigation followed the same pattern as the first and was sent to the Committee for review. The Committee again recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. Dr. Laakso timely requested an administrative hearing, and these proceedings followed. The collective bargaining agreement describes procedures for discipline of employees, including this: 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. The collective bargaining agreement also requires progressive discipline (reprimand through dismissal) . . . [e]xcept in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this case dismissing all charges in the Administrative Compliant, reinstating Respondent to his position of employment with the School Board, and providing Respondent with such back pay and attendant benefits as are authorized by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 21st day of November, 2003.
