Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jean-Baptiste Guerrier (Guerrier), holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 59692 covering the area of English which is valid through June 30, 1995. Guerrier was employed as a teacher at Miami Edison Middle School during the 1992-93 school year. On September 20, 1993, the following disciplinary action was taken by the Dade County School System against Guerrier for conduct unbecoming a school employee: Directives were issued to Respondent to refrain from making inappropriate remarks. Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand. Respondent was placed on prescription. Respondent received an unacceptable rating for Category VII and an overall summary rating of unacceptable on his 1992-93 TADS Annual Evaluation. On November 29, 1994, the Commissioner of Education issued an Administrative Complaint against Guerrier alleging that he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to three eighth grade female students during the 1992-1993 school year. Based on the evidence presented Guerrier did not make such comments. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Guerrier engaged in inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature with two eighth female students during the 1992-1993 school year. Based on the evidence presented Guerrier did not engage in such behavior. A teacher at Miami Edison Middle School observed Guerrier putting his arm around female students during the changing of classes. He did not identify the students. During these occasions, Guerrier's back was turned towards the teacher. The teacher characterized Guerrier as a gregarious teacher. During the 1992-1993 school year, Guerrier had three female cousins who were attending Miami Edison Middle School. Guerrier would put his arm around his cousins' shoulders when he would see them at school. Guerrier did not put his arm around any other female students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Jean-Baptiste Guerrier be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 24th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-649 Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Ivory Scott, held Teaching Certificate Number 460227, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent was employed with the School Board of Lee County Florida, and was assigned to Mariner High School. In addition to his duties as a health teacher and drivers' education instructor during the 1987-1988 school year, the Respondent coached the boy's varsity basketball team. M. C., a fifteen-year old female minor student at Mariner High School, participated in after school sports activities as the head statistician for the boy's varsity basketball team and as a player for the girl's basketball team. The Respondent first became acquainted with M.C. when she attended his health class during the first semester of the school year. Before the basketball season began, the student approached the Respondent and told him that she kept statistics for the boy's basketball team at her former high school the year before. The student volunteered to be one of the statisticians for the Respondent's team. She was interviewed by Respondent regarding her recordkeeping abilities and knowledge of the game. Based upon the interview and the student's display of knowledge, she was made the team's head statistician. Prior to granting permission to allow M.C. to participate in the boy's basketball program as a student athletic assistant, her mother voiced concern to the Respondent about transportation problems which could occur when a family member was occasionally unable to meet the student at the school after a game. The Respondent solved this problem with an offer to provide the student with a ride home whenever the family was unable to pick up the student. This potential solution to the problem was accepted by the mother, and the Respondent did give the student a ride home after a few games during the basketball season. On February 9, 1988, the student M.C. wanted to go home before she played in a basketball game at school at 4:00 p.m. The student asked the Respondent for a ride, and he agreed to give her a ride after school ended at 2:20 p.m. When the Respondent left the school grounds with the student, no one else was in the vehicle. The Respondent drove in a direction away from the student's home. Once an isolated area was located, the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with M.C. The Respondent then drove M.C. home, and told her not to tell anyone about the incident. During the following week, but before February 19, 1988, the Respondent again left the school grounds alone with the student M.C. They traveled to another isolated area and the Respondent again had sexual intercourse with the student. When the student was driven home, she was instructed not to tell anyone about the incident. On February 19, 1988, the student M.C. was crying in an hysterical manner in the courtyard area of the school grounds. The child's schoolfriend, A.F., tried to comfort the child, but was unable to calm her. The assistant principal who observed the scene, took the girls to the guidance area so that they could deal with M.C.'s loss of control in a more private area. A female guidance counselor was asked to keep an eye on the students because of M.C.'s unusual behavior. In an attempt to assist the student, the guidance counselor asked M.C. if she would like to go to the counselor's private office. The student accepted the offer, but did not discuss why she was upset. On Monday, February 22, 1988, M.C. returned to the guidance counselor's office. She implied that her problem was of a sexual nature, but was unwilling to discuss the matter further. A few days later, the counselor gave the student the Abuse Counseling Center telephone number. On Friday, February 26, 1988, the child M.C. contacted the guidance counselor and revealed that she had seen the man involved in her problems the evening before. The police officer on campus was contacted. The student revealed to the counselor and the officer that she was in a relationship with a man who was twenty-five years old, married, and the father of a child. Although the Respondent was married and had a child, he was older than twenty-five years of age. The evening before the limited revelations to the counselor and officer occurred, M.C. had attended the school district's boy's basketball tournament. The Respondent was present at the tournament. The following week, the counselor and the police officer urged M.C. to tell her parents about her relationship with the man. When the student did not tell her parents, the police officer called the student's mother and told her what the student had told him. The student was taken for a medical examination by her mother on March 3, 1988, and it was determined that her hymen was no longer intact. The student would not tell her mother the name of the man involved, but she agreed to tell the guidance counselor on Friday, March 4, 1988. On the appointed date, the student told the counselor the man involved was the Respondent, Ivory Scott. The guidance counselor informed the assistant principal who brought the student into the guidance office on February 19, 1988, about the allegations. The assistant principal advised the principal. When the principal was informed of the student's accusations, he sent for the Respondent immediately to prevent him from hearing the news from less reliable sources. After the principal notified the Respondent of the student's accusations, the Respondent admitted to having the student M.C. alone with him in his vehicle on several occasions. The Respondent denied that any sexual activity took place during these times, and he was unable to speculate why the child might be motivated to make the accusations against him. During the hearing, the Respondent denied that the student M.C. had ever been alone in his vehicle with him, or that the events testified to by the student regarding sexual intercourse had ever occurred. It was his testimony that M.C. had once confided to him that her stepbrother had intercourse with her. The Respondent did not report this purported confidence to the authorities, and there was no evidence in the record to substantiate that the student had a stepbrother. A number of students from the high school testified at hearing. Members of the basketball team and a student athletic assistant testified that on Thursday, February 25, 1988, M.C. was behaving in a flirtatious, sexually aggressive manner with a member of the boy's basketball team in the back of the bus. The basketball player and his mother testified as to M.C.'s persistent need to seek attention from the player. A former boyfriend of M.C.'s testified that, contrary to her statements that she had not kissed with boys prior to the sexual incidents with Respondent, he had engaged in kissing activity with her. The former boyfriend also testified that M.C. told him that nothing has happened between her and the Respondent. She told him this after a newspaper article related her accusations and the Respondent's arrest. The former boyfriend had telephoned her to discuss the matter after his grandparents mentioned that they read about the accusations in the newspaper. Diane Goldberg, a licensed clinical social worker who was accepted as an expert in the area of child sexual abuse counseling, opined that M.C.'s behavior after the alleged incidents of sexual intercourse with the Respondent was congruent, and consistent with behavioral indicators which reflect that sexual molestation has occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be revoked for violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (h), Florida Statutes and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, of the State Board of Education. That the allegation that Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4544 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected as to the finding that the student relied on Respondent for rides home after her basketball practices prior to the alleged incidents. Accept that she occasionally relied on Respondent for rides home after games. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Reject as to two week time period. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Witness incompetent to render legal conclusion. Rejected. Improper summary, Accepted. See HO #21. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #8-#10, #11, #13 and #15. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to fact. M.C. referred only to rides home, not rides home after games. See HO #6 and #7. Reject the second sentence as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The rest of paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. Accept first sentence. See HO #6. All but the last sentence in the first paragraph are accepted as facts presented. Although probative, these facts were not determinative. See Conclusions of Law. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The first two sentences in the second paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 4 is accepted. See HO #6 and #7. The third sentence is accepted as testimony. The finding of fact based on the evidence is found in HO #7. The last paragraph in proposed finding of fact number 4 is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed factual finding. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #19 and Conclusions of Law. Accept the first paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 6. See HO #14 and #15. The second paragraph is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact. See Conclusions of Law. Accept the first sentence. See HO #13 and #15. The rest of proposed finding of fact number 7 is rejected as irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Dr. Seitz's testimony was not filed in Case NO. 88-4544. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur C. Smith, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0008 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 315 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Pinellas County School Board policies related to sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual conduct with students, and inappropriate relationships with students, and if so, whether the violations constitute just cause for her dismissal as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dorothy Simon (Respondent), has been employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School Board (School Board) since 1980. Her entire teaching career in the Pinellas County School District has been spent at the Pinellas Technical Education Center (PTEC). Pursuant to her employment, Respondent was issued a professional services contract. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent taught an electronics technology course at PTEC in which approximately twenty-six (26) to thirty (30) students were enrolled. The course lasted one year, and upon completion of the course work, the students received a certificate. Except for one seventeen year old who was enrolled in the course, all of the students in Respondent's class were between the ages of twenty (20) and forty-eight (48) years old. On or about March 1996, a male student named Thomas Mitchell, who was approximately forty (40) years of age, enrolled in the electronics technology course taught by Respondent. Mitchell, who was not married, held himself out as an ordained minister and told Respondent that he wanted to be called "Reverend Mitchell". Consequently, Respondent as well as students in the class referred to and addressed Thomas Mitchell as Reverend Mitchell. On or about July 15, 1996, Mr. Mitchell gave the Respondent a letter in which Mr. Mitchell expressed a physical and emotional attraction to her and discussed starting a relationship with the Respondent. Prior to July 19, 1996, while on school premises, Respondent approached Mr. Mitchell and asked him if he would accompany her and her thirteen year old daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, and act as their bodyguard during their stay. On or about July 19, 20 and 21, 1996, Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent's car to Atlanta. While in Atlanta, Mr. Mitchell stayed with Respondent and her daughter in a hotel room which Respondent had reserved and paid for a year in advance. Respondent paid for Mr. Mitchell's meals and gave him $50.00 spending money. Mitchell later return the $50.00 to Respondent. After class, on or about July 22, 1996, Respondent drove several students to a nearby bus stop and Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, a center near PTEC where he tutored children. While Respondent was driving Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, she asked him if he would house-sit for her while she and her daughter were on vacation for two weeks. The Respondent offered to pay Mr. Mitchell $100.00 each week, and in return he was to feed her pets, clean her pool and live in her house while she was vacationing. Mr. Mitchell accepted the Respondent's offer. After class, on July 25, 1996, the last day of school before the summer break, Respondent drove several students to the bus stop and gave Mr. Mitchell a ride to his mother's apartment where he lived. Both the bus stop and Mr. Mitchell's mother's apartment were in the vicinity of PTEC. Respondent had given Mitchell a ride home on one other occasion and often gave other students rides to various places when they so requested. Shortly after Respondent dropped Mr. Mitchell off at his mother's apartment, while driving home, Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in which Respondent's vehicle struck a teen-age girl. After police and paramedics arrived at the scene of the accident, Respondent remained on the scene. However, about one hour after their arrival, the police who were investigating the accident advised Respondent to go home. Respondent was quite shaken, and did not feel that she was in any condition to drive herself home. Rather than driving herself home, Respondent went to Mr. Mitchell's residence, which was nearby, and asked him to drive her home. Mr. Mitchell complied with Respondent's request. On the way to Respondent's house, Mitchell and Respondent made two stops. The first stop was at a bank where the Respondent made a cash withdrawal for the $200.00 that she was going to give Mr. Mitchell for house-sitting. The second stop was at a liquor store where Mr. Mitchell, at the Respondent's request, went inside and purchased a bottle of vodka. Mr. Mitchell then drove Respondent home and when they arrived, Respondent had one drink of orange juice and vodka. Respondent then went into her swimming pool to calm herself and was shortly thereafter joined by Mr. Mitchell. While both were in the pool, Respondent asked Mr. Mitchell to hug her because she wanted to be comforted. Mr. Mitchell then hugged Respondent and the two engaged in sexual intercourse. On or about July 27, 1996, Respondent and her daughter drove to Mr. Mitchell's residence and picked him up. Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to a swim meet in which the daughter was participating. After the swim meet, Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent and her daughter to the airport for their departure on a two-week vacation. Mr. Mitchell returned to Respondent's home and house- sat for Respondent for two weeks while she was away on vacation, pursuant to their previously made agreement. As promised, Respondent paid Mr. Mitchell $100.00 per week for house-sitting. While on vacation, Respondent received one phone call from Mr. Mitchell in which he requested an additional $100.00. Respondent wired Mr. Mitchell the $100.00. When Respondent returned from vacation, she found that Mr. Mitchell had trashed and vandalized her house. She later determined that Mitchell had run up an exorbitant phone bill and had stolen approximately $2,300 from her by making unauthorized cash withdrawals on a credit card that had been mailed to her home while she was away. When school began at PTEC in August 1996, Mr. Mitchell was still enrolled as a student in Respondent's electronics technology course. At that time Mr. Mitchell had approximately two weeks of course work remaining to be completed in order to receive a certificate of completion. Upon returning to PTEC after the summer break, Respondent went to see Dr. Warren Laux, Director at PTEC, concerning Mr. Mitchell. Respondent was afraid of Mr. Mitchell, and requested that he be removed from her class because she did not want to come in contact with him. Respondent explained that Mr. Mitchell house-sat for her during a two-week vacation and left the house a mess, stole money from her and ran up an exorbitant phone bill during his stay. Because she had notified police of these incidents involving Mr. Mitchell, the Respondent told Dr. Laux that the situation created a conflict for her if Mr. Mitchell remained in her class. During their discussion, Dr. Laux asked Respondent if there had been any sexual relationship between herself and Mr. Mitchell. The Respondent stated that she had sex with Mr. Mitchell on one occasion. However, Respondent did not give details of the time, place, or circumstances surrounding that encounter. Dr. Laux explained to Respondent that for the moment it appeared that Mr. Mitchell had done nothing which violated the Student Code of Conduct and, accordingly, there was no valid reason to remove him from her class. During August 1996, Respondent told some students in her class that the person who had house-sat for her when she was away on vacation had trashed her house. However, Respondent did not identify Mr. Mitchell as that person. During August 1996, while in her classroom, Respondent told Mr. Mitchell that she would rather scratch his eyes out than have him in her class. At the time this comment was made by Respondent, there were students in the classroom, but on the other side of the room. Respondent's comments to Mr. Mitchell were not made loudly enough for other students to hear. The School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted an investigation regarding the allegations that the Respondent had been involved with a student. As a part of this investigation, Respondent was interviewed on three occasions: August 28, 1996; September 3, 1996; and mid-September 1996. During each interview, Respondent admitted that on one occasion she had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of her students, Thomas Mitchell. Respondent's conduct impaired her effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent failed to maintain a professional relationship with her student Thomas Mitchell and used her position to enter into a personal relationship with him. Once that relationship deteriorated, as admitted by Respondent, it was impossible for her to work with that student, and her effectiveness was significantly impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be dismissed from her position as a teacher with the Pinellas County School Board.DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin Assistant School Board Attorney Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Ms. Dorothy Simon 6315 Eight Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jack E. Ferrell, was a teacher at Parkway Junior High School (PJHS) in Miami, Florida. He holds Florida Teacher's certificate Number 107694 issued by petitioner, Department of Education, Education Practices Commission (Commission). The certificate was reissued in 1987 and covers the areas of health education, physical education and mathematics. With the exception of a short break in the 1960s, respondent has been a teacher in Dade County, Florida since 1959. He taught at PJHS from school year 1967-68 until January 10, 1986 when he was reassigned to administrative duties at a Dade County School Board area office. The school has a racial composition of at least ninety percent black students. On February 18, 1986, Ferrell retired rather than face disciplinary action by the Dade County School Board which might have culminated in his dismissal and loss of retirement benefits. As a condition of accepting his resignation, the School Board stipulated that Ferrell would not be rehired by that school district. At the same time, the charges which prompted his retirement were referred to the Commission. On November 10, 1987, or some twenty-one months later, an administrative complaint was issued against Ferrell charging him with various violations of general law and agency rules. As amended on March 8, 1988, the complaint alleges that Ferrell, who is white, (a) used excessive corporal punishment on a black student and called that student a "nigger" on December 20, 1985, (b) called a black student a "dummy, gorilla and nigger" on December 18, 1985, (c) showed unprofessional conduct at a parent-teacher conference on December 19, 1985, (d) failed to follow school policies and procedures, used unprofessional conduct and defied school personnel, all of which resulted in a letter of reprimand on April 15, 1985, (e) argued with a fellow teacher on June 5, 1984, (f) was guilty of direct insubordination by refusing to accept a student into his classroom on December 14, 1984, and (g) committed battery upon another teacher on April 23, 1982. 1/ These charges will be discussed separately hereinafter. The December 20 Incident On December 20, 1985 Ferrell was teaching a mathematics class when J.W., then a fourteen year old black student, was brought to his classroom by Mr. Robertson, a school security guard. The student had been caught skipping class earlier and was sent to Roy Scott, an administrative assistant, who gave a "shot" (paddling) to J.W. and several other students. When J.W. entered Ferrell's class, Ferrell asked him "What happened to you?" J.W., who was upset and teary eyed from his paddling, responded "I just got a shot." Ferrell replied "You should have been suspended." J.W. then said words to the effect "Don't worry about me," and went to his desk which was in the back corner of the classroom. Ferrell, who did not hear J.W.'s last remark, asked "What did you say?" When J.W. did not respond Ferrell went to the student's desk and lifted it slightly once or twice and again asked him to repeat his comment. J.W. would not respond and told Ferrell to leave him alone. Using both hands, Ferrell picked up J.W. by his shirt and asked him to repeat his comment. During the process of picking up J.W., Ferrell's hands ended up around the upper chest area or lower part of J.W.'s neck. J.W., who by now was angry and even more upset, tried to break loose but Ferrell pushed him against the wall resulting in J.W. accidentally bumping his head. After Ferrell asked J.W. what he intended to do, J.W. threatened to tell his mother but Ferrell replied that he didn't care. When J.W. again attempted to break away, Ferrell pushed him against the wall a second time. At that point, Ferrell thought he heard J.W.'s shirt tear and released the student. He told a security guard to take J.W. to the principal's office. He later gave J.W. a detention for coming to class without a book. Although at hearing J.W. claimed that Ferrell had called him a "nigger" and "boy," this contention is rejected since J.W. did not allege this in his initial statements and interviews, and nearby students who witnessed the event did not hear Ferrell use those words. 2/ After J.W. related the event to the school administrators, the administrators concluded that J.W. was "okay," and he was sent to his next class, a physical education class. During the interview, one of the school officials noted a small bump on the back of J.W.'s head where it had struck the wall and accordingly reported Ferrell to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for child abuse (excessive corporal punishment) However there is no evidence that formal charges were ever filed against Ferrell by the agency or state attorney. According to J.W., the bump "hurt" and stayed on his head for "about a week." However, he did not ask for nor was he given medical assistance for his injury. In a meeting later that day, Ferrell admitted to the assistant principal in charge of administration, Kenneth Jaworski, that he had pushed J.W. against the wall, that the child may have bumped his head, and that his hands may have slid up around J.W.'s throat area. At that time, Ferrell blamed the incident on a "wise" statement made by the student. In early January, 1986, or some two to three weeks later, school officials contacted J.W.'s mother and told her of the incident. According to school policy, a teacher should never place his hands on a student unless he is in fear of bodily harm from a student or unless a student is about to inflict bodily harm on another student. Since neither situation was present, Ferrell violated school policy. Had Ferrell considered J.W.'s conduct to be disruptive or defiant, Ferrell should have either referred him to the principal's office or contacted a security guard who would escort J.W. to the principal's office. These procedures are outlined in the faculty handbook, and Ferrell was aware of such policies. Finally, under School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D- 1.08 appropriate corporal punishment was considered to be paddling. If corporal punishment was justified, only two persons designated by the principal at PJHS were authorized to administer such punishment and then only under certain conditions prescribed within the rule. Ferrell was not one of the two designated hitters. At hearing, Ferrell contended that he was simply "restraining" J.W. when the student attempted to leave the room and that he did not physically pull the student up with his hands or deliberately shove his head against the wall. He did concede it was possible that J.W.'s head could have accidentally hit the wall during the confrontation. Ferrell strongly disagreed with the contention that his actions equated to excessive corporal punishment and characterized it instead as an effort on his part to restrain the student from leaving class. It was his contention that the definition of corporal punishment was vague but was generally interpreted only to be paddling. He also said his actions were necessary in order to maintain control and discipline in his classroom. The December 18 Incident During the first semester of school year 1985-86, N.W. was a twelve year old black student at PJHS enrolled in Ferrell's sixth period mathematics class. Around 7:00 a.m. on the morning of December 18, N.W. was standing with two other black female students outside the school building when Ferrell walked by on the way into his classroom. There may have been as many as ten or twenty other black students who were within hearing distance of Ferrell but the exact number, if any, is unknown. One of the students, S.W., called out to Ferrell "Do you have a brother named Fred?" Ferrell replied "No, do you have a brother named Dummy?" He also asked S.W. if she was in his class. The student then retorted "No, but you remind me of Fred Flintstone." Ferrell replied "You remind me of a nigger." The evidence is conflicting as to whether Ferrell used the word "gorilla" during the incident, but it is found he did not. N.W. told her mother of the incident that day. Even though she was extremely upset with Ferrell, the mother chose not to bring the matter up until after the Christmas holidays. On January 9, 1986 N.W.'s mother met with Ferrell and a counselor, who was also black, to discuss her daughter's poor grades and the name-calling incident that occurred on December 18, and to request that her daughter be transferred out of Ferrell's classroom. At the conference, Ferrell acknowledged to both N.W. and the counselor that he had used the word "nigger." However, he explained that he was from North Carolina, that the word was always used to describe blacks and that the term was not used in a derogatory sense. In a conference with the principal, Fred Damianos, Ferrell freely admitted he had used the word "nigger" in his exchange with the three black students but, as he had told the mother, stated the word was a common one in North Carolina and was not meant to be derogatory. The principal did not consider this to be justification for his conduct and had a letter of reprimand placed in Ferrell's file. At hearing, Ferrell agreed his use of the word showed a lack of good judgment and could have offended the students in question. Direct Insubordination On December 14, 1984 Ferrell sent N.C., a female student, to Jaworski's office for using profanity in class. She had already been sent out of class on several prior occasions for disciplinary reasons. Ferrell did not want her back in class until after a parent-teacher conference had been held. However, Jaworski was "extremely busy" at the time and sent her back to the classroom with a note requesting that Ferrell take her, and they would talk about the student's situation later on. When N.C. returned to his class, Ferrell refused to accept her and sent her back to Jaworski's office with a note saying he would not admit her. Jaworski considered Ferrell's refusal to accept N.C. to be in defiance of his authority and therefore direct insubordination. Jaworski explained that, under then-existing school procedures, if the student continued to be a disciplinary problem, Ferrell should have prepared another referral slip rather than simply refusing to accept her. Jaworski discussed the incident with Ferrell that afternoon and later placed a memorandum describing the matter in Ferrell's file. However, the memorandum did not constitute disciplinary action since Jaworski had no authority to discipline Ferrell. Ferrell considered N.C. to be a persistently disruptive student who had to be removed from the classroom. He also felt his conduct in the matter was consistent with the school's Code of Student Conduct which authorized a teacher to temporarily remove that type of student from the classroom, request a parent-teacher conference, and to send the student to a predesignated area determined by the school principal. In Ferrell's view, Jaworski overreacted to the situation and had failed to give consideration to all the facts before the memorandum was written. Angry Parent-Teacher Conference On December 19, 1985, Ferrell held a parent-teacher conference with a Mr. and Mrs. Sterling and a school counselor. The conference concerned the Sterlings' son, R.S., who had been a disciplinary problem in one of Ferrell's classes. The mother carried a small baby with her to the conference. The four (plus baby) met in the counselor's 8'x 10' office which was approximately twenty feet from Jaworski's office. After the meeting had been underway for some time, another administrator asked Jaworski to check out the loud voices emanating from the counselor's office. When Jaworski went over to see what was happening, he found what he considered to be a "heated" meeting taking place. He described Ferrell's tone of voice as being loud and aggressive. After a few minutes had passed, Ferrell stood up and, in an irritated manner, said words to the effect "I can't add anything else, I don't know what else to say" and departed the meeting. As Ferrell left, Mr. Sterling said he had heard that Ferrell was "prejudiced." Upon hearing this comment, Ferrell returned to the doorway and said "If you believe that, you're as immature as that baby." At that point Jaworski, who was still standing near the office, felt that there was going to be a physical confrontation between Ferrell and Mr. Sterling and placed his arm across the doorway to prevent Ferrell from entering the room. Ferrell then left the area. However, Ferrell did not "physically push" Jaworski as alleged in the complaint. At hearing Ferrell admitted the conference "did not go well" and that, at one point, he and Mr. Sterling may have been "trying to out talk the other." Ferrell's contention that he did not use "threatening" words at any time was corroborated by Jaworski. Ferrell also pointed out that between September 5, 1985 and January 10, 1986, he had twenty-six parent-teacher conferences and only this conference drew a complaint from administrators. Even so, Ferrell was cited for unprofessional conduct in a memorandum prepared by Damianos on January 9, 1986. Battery on a Teacher On April 23, 1982 Ferrell was involved in an altercation with another teacher named Bellis. The incident occurred around 9:00 a.m. that day when some students left Bellis' classroom and congregated in the hallway outside of Ferrell's classroom. Because this disturbed his class, Ferrell first complained to Bellis, who did nothing about the matter. Ferrell then complained to the principal (Mr. Hanna) A short time later, the three men met in the hallway in front of Ferrell's classroom and, when Bellis turned and began walking away, Ferrell grabbed his upper bicep and told Bellis to turn around and tell Hanna the truth about the situation. Because Ferrell had touched him, Bellis filed criminal battery charges against Ferrell. However, there is no evidence that Ferrell was ever prosecuted for this crime. Even so, Ferrell was administratively charged with battery by school administrators and was suspended from school without pay for ten days. Ferrell contends he accepted the punishment only because he was promised a reassignment to another school. The promised reassignment did not materialize. Failure to Follow School Policy, Etc. The complaint alleges that Ferrell was guilty of "tearing up three discipline referrals in front of (Damianos) during a fit of anger." In the spring of 1985, a new countywide school policy was implemented requiring teachers to contact the student's parents before referring the student to the principal's office for "minor infractions." This policy was explained to all PJHS teachers, including Ferrell, at a faculty meeting on March 26, 1983. However, Ferrell had referred three students to the principal's office during the week preceding the meeting without first making such parent contact. By March 27, Ferrell had contacted the three sets of parents, albeit after the referrals had already been sent to the principal's office. On March 27, Ferrell and Damianos met in the school cafeteria to discuss the three referrals and the need to follow the new procedure. When the meeting ended, Ferrell was "upset," but not in "a fit of anger," and as he walked out of the cafeteria, he tore up the referrals and threw them in the wastebasket. Damianos considered this to be "unprofessional conduct" and "immature" and Ferrell's way of showing the administration that he was "upset." Ferrell justified his tearing up the forms on the ground the forms were no longer necessary since they failed to comply with the new school directive. He added that he meant no disrespect towards Damianos. Ferrell admitted being late to his classroom a few times in the spring of 1985 due to heavy traffic and parent- teacher conferences that lasted beyond the school starting hour. He also acknowledged that he had told another teacher (Scott) that Jaworski was "fat and lazy." In hindsight, Ferrell realizes he may have been "a little off base" for doing so. Unfortunately for Ferrell, his comments were relayed to Jaworski. Ferrell was charged with having received a letter of reprimand dated April 15, 1985 for various matters, including those discussed in findings of fact 17-19. He was also placed on two weeks' prescription in May, 1985 and satisfactorily completed all conditions by the prescribed time. Other than Ferrell's admission of being late, calling Jaworski certain names, and tearing up the three referral forms, there was insufficient evidence to support findings concerning any other incidents which form the basis for the reprimand and prescription. Incident on May 4, 1984 The complaint charges that Ferrell and Bellis supposedly had another altercation on June 4, 1984 albeit one of a purely verbal nature. No specifics are of record, and Ferrell's contention that he was completely exonerated was not contradicted. Indeed, the assistant principal did not dispute this contention and admitted that Bellis was an "unusual" person who had a tendency to lie. Loss of Teacher Effectiveness According to the testimony of various administrators, Ferrell's conduct in its totality, if shown to be true, has resulted in the loss of his effectiveness as a teacher in the public school system. Ferrell's Case Ferrell contended that all allegations were either untrue or exaggerated. He suggested the School Board of Dade County began compiling a paper trail in 1984 in an effort to dismiss him. According to Ferrell, this began when Ferrell met with the area superintendent in July, 1984 after the second Bellis incident. The superintendent told him that if one more incident occurred, Ferrell was "through as a teacher in Dade County." Ferrell also attributed many of his problems to a personality conflict with Jaworski and Damianos. Ferrell admits that he is a strict disciplinarian in class and assigns a great deal of homework. As a result, he is unpopular with many students. Ferrell's reputation as a strict disciplinarian was corroborated by one administrator who described Ferrell's class discipline as "extremely good." Ferrell also describes himself as "blunt," "frank," "to the point," and "very firm" in dealing with students, parents and teachers. However, these characteristics have tended to cause strained relations with his counterparts. Except for the December 18, 1985 incident, Ferrell denies ever using derogatory terms during his lengthy school tenure. This was corroborated by Jaworski and Damianos to the extent that they had contact with Ferrell while they were at PJHS. Indeed, they stated that Ferrell never gave any prior hint of racial bias. Ferrell was also described as an adequate teacher in terms of teaching skills as evidenced by his continuous receipt of satisfactory annual evaluations during his tenure with the school system. Further attributes included his never being absent and a willingness to stay after regular school hours to tutor students. Finally, Ferrell was offered the opportunity by Damianos in both 1984 and 1985 to teach extra classes because of the principal's confidence in his capabilities. Ferrell has not taught since his retirement in February, 1986 but wishes to retain his teacher's certificate. He thinks revocation of his certificate is too harsh a penalty given his otherwise satisfactory twenty-five year tenure as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Jack E. Ferrell be found guilty of violating Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f) and (h), Florida Statutes (1987), as more specifically discussed in the conclusions of law, and that his teaching certificate be suspended for three years retroactive to his date of retirement in February 1, 1986. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of May, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Holly Bamonte was employed as a classroom teacher by the Escambia County School District. As such, Respondent was subject to the rules and certification requirements of the Florida Department of Education, including the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080 and 6A-10.081. Additionally, Respondent was subject to the Escambia County School District Employee Code of Ethics. The employee code provided that all school district employees were expected to acknowledge and accept responsibilities stated in the state code of ethics and must conduct themselves in a manner that promotes and supports ethical principles and values. All of these rules and codes were included in Petitioner's Federal/State Compliance Packet for school year 2013-2014. The compliance packet was provided and accessible to all certified instructional personnel of the Escambia County School District, including Ms. Bamonte. During the holiday break in 2013, J.T., C.G., and about 10 to 15 other high school students under the age of 21 attended a party at the Respondent's home. The home is approximately 1,500 square feet with a small kitchen and living area. During the party these students consumed alcohol. The students who drove were asked to put their keys on the counter or in a bucket, if they were going to drink. Respondent was present during the party and was aware that the students were drinking alcohol. C.G. and J.T. saw and spoke to Respondent in the area where student drinking was openly occurring. She did not stop or prohibit such alcohol consumption and was not concerned that such overt alcohol consumption was taking place. Ms. Teresa Bowden was the mother of C.G., then a high school student. C.G. also attended the party at the Respondent's house where he consumed alcohol. Ms. Bowden went to Respondent's house because her son, who had been drinking beer at the party, called her to be picked up. On arriving, she went into the living room and saw five to ten students in a circle. She could not determine if any had been drinking alcohol. Another pair of parents was present who were angry because of a concern that the students, and in particular their son, had been drinking alcohol. These parents were told that Respondent was in the bathroom at the back of the house. Ms. Bowden asked her son, C.G., if he had been drinking and he said that he had. Like the other parents, Ms. Bowden was upset and concerned that her son was allowed to drink at Respondent's home. At some point during the evening, law enforcement officers arrived at the house. As the officers arrived outside, J.T. was leaving and spoke with them. They asked if there were kids inside drinking and he stated there were. The police entered the house, but did not find Respondent. Law enforcement contacted the parents of the students who were present at the party to come pick them up. At hearing, Respondent claimed that she and her husband had a fight the night of the party and that she left the residence earlier in the evening before the police arrived. She claimed that she did not see any of the teens at her home drinking. However, given the testimony of the teenage party attendees, Respondent's testimony is not credible. On the other hand, the evidence clearly demonstrated Respondent allowed underage high school students to gather in her home, and consume alcohol with her knowledge and in her presence. Whether she purchased the alcohol is not relevant. By permitting underage drinking in an environment she controlled, Respondent failed to protect students from harm and permitted them to engage in conduct that was illegal. Clearly, Respondent's lack of judgment regarding student alcohol consumption at her home was significant and impaired her ability to function as a teacher with responsibility for protecting and supervising students. Such conduct was of sufficient severity as to justify termination of her instructional contract. Further, the party at Respondent's house, where students were knowingly permitted by her to consume alcohol, became known in the school community and resulted in upsetting parents in that community. Petitioner's lack of judgment demonstrated that parents could not have faith in her ability to protect their children. Such parental lack of confidence impaired her ability to serve as a teacher in the school system. As such, termination of her instructional contract with the School Board was warranted and should be upheld.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Escambia County School Board enter a final order terminating the Respondent's employment effective September 17, 2014, as originally noticed and approved by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of March, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Holly A. Bamonte 1248 Plata Canada Drive Cantonment, Florida 32533 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire The Hammons Law Firm, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Mr. Malcolm Thomas, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 75 North Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32505 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission may revoke or suspend John T. Guzalak's Florida teaching certificate, or otherwise discipline Mr. Guzalak, for violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint entered September 21, 1992?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the EPC, is authorized to discipline individuals holding Florida teaching certificates. The Respondent is John T. Guzalak. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Guzalak held Florida teaching certificate number 615516. Mr. Guzalak is certified to teach English and Speech. Mr. Guzalak's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. From approximately August of 1987, until June of 1992, Mr. Guzalak served as a teacher for the Okaloosa County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Mr. Guzalak's Attendance at Choctawhatchee Senior High School. Mr. Guzalak attended, and graduated from, Choctawhatchee Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Choctaw"). Mr. Guzalak graduated from Choctaw in 1981. Choctaw is a high school located in Okaloosa County, Florida. Choctaw has approximately 2,000 students, 117 to 120 teachers and a total of approximately 160 employees. While a student at Choctaw, Mr. Guzalak was active in debate and drama. His drama teacher was Mary Jo Yeager. Ms. Yeager was so impressed with Mr. Guzalak's acting ability that she cast him in the male leading role of essentially every play produced at Choctaw while Mr. Guzalak was a student there. Ms. Yeager and Mr. Guzalak developed a friendship and still remain friends. Mr. Guzalak's Employment by the School Board. After Mr. Guzalak had graduated from Choctaw and was attending college, Mr. Guzalak informed Ms. Yeager that he was interested in becoming a teacher. Ms. Yeager, who was planning to retire in a few years, talked to Richard G. Bounds, the Principal at Choctaw, about the possibility of Mr. Guzalak replacing her when she retired. Prior to August, 1987, Mr. Guzalak applied for a teaching position with the School Board as a teacher at Meigs Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Meigs"). Ms. Yeager recommended that Mr. Guzalak be hired. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Meigs and began his employment with the School Board in August, 1987. Mr. Guzalak taught speech/drama and English during the 1987-1988 school year at Meigs. The Stage Crafters' Party. In January, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a local theatre group known as Stage Crafters. The group presented a play in which Mr. Guzalak participated during that month. Mr. Guzalak organized and gave a party for the cast of Stage Crafters after the presentation of the play. The party was held at the home of Mr. Guzalak's parents, where Mr. Guzalak lived until approximately August, 1991. Mr. Guzalak invited all students in his speech/drama classes at Meigs to attend the Stage Crafters' party. Mr. Guzalak invited his students because he thought it would be beneficial for his students to meet and talk to individuals who were involved in drama and who had more experience with acting. Mr. Guzalak had alcoholic beverages available for his guests during the Stage Crafters' party. A table was set up where guests were able to obtain alcoholic drinks. Adults drank alcoholic beverage in front of Mr. Guzalak's students during the party. Alcohol was consumed in the presence of students who were under the legal age required to consume alcoholic beverages. The evidence failed to prove that students who were not legally old enough to drink alcohol who were at the Stage Crafters' party were encouraged or allowed to drink alcoholic beverages. The evidence also failed to prove that underage students were in fact drinking in the presence of Mr. Guzalak or that Mr. Guzalak drank alcoholic beverages in front of any underage students. The testimony of Chris Hutcherson, a student at Meigs at the time of the party, concerning the party was contradicted by the testimony of Aaron Utley, another student at Meigs at the time, and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak testified that the underage students who attended the Stage Crafters' party were mainly relegated to half of the house and the adults and alcohol were located, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages took place, in the other half of the house. Mr. Guzalak testified that this separation of his underage students from the adults consuming alcohol was deliberate and intended to mitigate the extent to which alcohol would be consumed in front of his underage students. This testimony contradicts the purpose for which Mr. Guzalak indicated the students were invited to the Stage Crafters' party and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak simply failed to exercise good judgement when he allowed his underage students to attend a party without also inviting their parents when he knew that alcoholic beverages would be consumed. Mr. Guzalak was counseled by Bobby Smith, Principal at Meigs and Mr. Guzalak's supervisor, after Mr. Smith learned of the party. Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Smith that he had not consumed alcohol in the presence of his students at the party. Mr. Guzalak did admit that alcoholic beverages had been consumed in front of his students, although he minimized the extent to which alcohol had been consumed. Mr. Smith counseled Mr. Guzalak about his lack of judgement in allowing his underage students to attend a party where alcohol was being consumed. Meigs Student-Cast Dinner. In May, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a play presented at Meigs. The cast of the play consisted of Meigs students. After the play, Mr. Guzalak took the cast of the play to dinner at a restaurant. Some parents also attended the dinner. Mr. Guzalak failed to inform Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Meigs administration about the dinner. During the dinner Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of the students, who were too young to legally consume alcoholic beverages, and the parents who attended the dinner. After the dinner about five students stayed to talk to Mr. Guzalak after everyone else had departed. When Mr. Guzalak was ready to take the students home who had stayed, he let one of the students drive his automobile. The student driver was 15 years of age at the time. The student driver had a learners' driving permit which allowed her to drive with an adult in the automobile. The student driver took the other students home and then drove to her own home. Mr. Guzalak then drove himself home from the home of the student that had driven his automobile. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had allowed the student driver to drive his automobile because he was concerned about the fact that he had consumed a glass of wine. This testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not give the drinking of the glass of wine with dinner in the presence of the students any thought, one way or the other, and is not credible. Mr. Guzalak allowed the student to drive his automobile that evening because Mr. Guzalak wanted to be accepted by students as a friend and not just a teacher. Consuming alcoholic beverages in front of students is against the policies of the School Board. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guzalak had previously discussed the inappropriateness of a teacher consuming alcohol in front of students as a result of the Stage Crafters' party. Despite this prior warning, Mr. Guzalak again exercised poor judgement and failed to adhere to School Board policy. Mr. Smith was informed of the dinner and spoke to Mr. Guzalak about it. Mr. Smith admonished Mr. Guzalak for drinking alcohol in front of his students. A few days after their discussion, Mr. Guzalak was given a formal, written reprimand by Mr. Smith. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Guzalak was specifically reprimanded for drinking alcohol in front of his students. He was also informed that he was required "to discuss any and all school sponsored activities with [Mr. Smith] before they occur." See Petitioners' Exhibit 2. During Mr. Smith's conference with Mr. Guzalak, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Smith about why it was improper for him to consume alcohol in front of students under the circumstances of the cast dinner. Mr. Guzalak found it difficult to understand why the drinking of a glass of wine with dinner in the presence of students by a teacher was inappropriate. Mr. Guzalak's Employment at Choctaw. Ms. Yeager decided to retire from Choctaw after the 1988-1989 school year. She recommended that Mr. Bounds hire Mr. Guzalak to be her replacement. Mr. Bounds questioned Mr. Smith about Mr. Guzalak's performance at Meigs. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Bounds of the dinner incident when Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of students and provided Mr. Bounds with a copy of the written reprimand, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, that Mr. Smith had given to Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Bounds, Mr. Guzalak's supervisor at Choctaw, discussed Mr. Smith's written reprimand with Mr. Guzalak prior to, or soon after, Mr. Guzalak's employment at Choctaw. Mr. Bounds cautioned Mr. Guzalak about consuming alcohol in front of underage students. This was the third time that Mr. Guzalak had been cautioned about the inappropriateness of consuming alcohol in front of underage students. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak began his employment at Choctaw in August of 1989. Mr. Guzalak taught at Choctaw during the 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 school years. Part of his duties included coaching the forensic teams. The 1990-1991 School Year--Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak developed and maintained relationships with several Choctaw students which went beyond the appropriate and acceptable teacher- student relationship. Those relationships were more typical of the relationships that students develop among themselves. During the 1990-1991 school year students would go to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit. Students who went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year included Sarah Stimac, David Barron, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul, Kevin Mock, Richard "Matt" Schoditsch, David Hodges, Thomas Ignas and Ross Foster. Sarah Stimac, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were seniors at Choctaw during the 1990-1991 school year. David Barron was a sophomore at Choctaw. David Hodges and Thomas Ignas were juniors at Choctaw. Matt Schoditsch and Ross Foster were also students at Choctaw. Initially, students began going to Mr. Guzalak's home for school- related purposes. They went for assistance from Mr. Guzalak with school subjects, to practice for plays and to practice for forensic team competitions. Students eventually began visiting Mr. Guzalak's home primarily for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak allowed students to come to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit without invitation, without informing Mr. Guzalak they were coming and without asking for Mr. Guzalak's permission. While at Mr. Guzalak's home, students would watch movies, listen to music, play music, play chess, talk and "just hang out." Mr. Guzalak's characterization of student visits as tending to be "academic in nature" is rejected. At some time during the Fall of 1990, Mr. Guzalak invited a group of students who had formed a rock band to come to his home to practice for an upcoming pep rally. Bobby Arnold was one of the first students to be invited to practice at Mr. Guzalak's home. Eventually, the students included Steve Bucci, Kevin Foster and John Randall. A few other students would join in on occasion. At some point, students, including those mentioned in the foregoing finding of fact, would go to Mr. Guzalak's home and just play music as opposed to practicing for some upcoming event. Other students, including Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock would listen. The music sessions were social in nature and were not school related. Bobby Arnold's suggestion that the students and Mr. Guzalak, in addition to playing music, would talk about books is rejected to the extent that Bobby Arnold was suggesting an academic purpose for his visits. As Steve Bucci described the visits, they were "jam sessions." Bobby Arnold went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least five to seven times during the 1990-1991 school year. Steve Bucci indicated that the music sessions at Mr. Guzalak's home took place two times a month and more often if he was getting ready for a talent show. Matt Schoditsch went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least six times. Matt Schoditsch's testimony that he only went to Mr. Guzalak's home for academic purposes and not for social reasons was contradicted by many of the other witnesses in this proceeding, including Mr. Guzalak, and is rejected. Mr. Schoditsch's suggestion that students would "be sitting there reading a book or something . . . Magazines" is rejected. Even Mr. Guzalak admitted that students came for social reasons. David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home more than twelve times and less than twenty times. During three to five of those visits by David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home, beer was consumed by underage students in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Matt Schoditsch, Kevin Foster, Patrick Peavy and others were at Mr. Guzalak's home at times that David Barron saw beer consumed by underage students in front of Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak also consumed beer in David Barron's presence and the presence of other underage students. The beer consumed by David Barron was either provided by Mr. Guzalak or Mr. Barron brought his own beer. On one of the occasions where Mr. Guzalak provided beer to David Barron at Mr. Guzalak's home, it was a type of beer that David Barron had not seen before. Mr. Guzalak said that he got the beer when he had gone north to visit his parents. On one occasion Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in front of Kevin Mock. This took place despite the fact that Mr. Guzalak had previously been counselled by Mr. Smith (twice) and Mr. Bounds about the impropriety of drinking alcohol in front of students. Mr. Guzalak offered Kevin Mock a drink of the wine and Mr. Mock took it. Sarah Stimac also went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year. Patrick Peavy started taking Ms. Stimac to Mr. Guzalak's. Mr. Peavy was Ms. Stimac's boy friend during the 1990-1991 school year. Mr. Peavy and Ms. Stimac had started doing things with a group of their friends during the summer of 1989 and by the end of the summer they had developed a relationship. Sarah Stimac began going to Mr. Guzalak's home because Patrick Peavy and his friends, primarily Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock, liked to go there and they went there often. On one occasion during the 1990-1991 school year, Sarah Stimac saw Mr. Guzalak and Eric Gaul smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home in the guest rest room. They used a "bong", a pipe-like device used for smoking marijuana. Ms. Stimac also witnessed Patrick Peavy and Kevin Mock smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Mock admitted to Martha Clemons, his girl friend during part of the 1990-1991 school year, that he had smoked marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Sarah Stimac also saw marijuana smoked and alcoholic beverages consumed on at least one other occasion at Mr. Guzalak's home. Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock visited Mr. Guzalak's home more frequently than other students. By their own admissions, they went to Mr. Guzalak's home, on average, from two to three times a week. Contrary to Mr. Guzalak's testimony that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock were rarely at his home at the same time, Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's together or were at Mr. Guzalak's home at the same time often based upon their own admissions. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis. Sarah Stimac substantiated the fact that Patrick Peavy went to Mr. Guzalak's home frequently. She went with him approximately six times. She also picked him up at Mr. Guzalak's and she telephoned Mr. Peavy at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Peavy told Ms. Stimac and his parents that he was going to Mr. Guzalak's home more often than he actually went. Mr. Peavy lied to Ms. Stimac and his parents so that he could do other things without Ms. Stimac or so that he could do things that his parents would not let him do if he told them the truth. This gave Ms. Stimac the impression that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home more often then he actually was. Despite this fact, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis for non-academic purposes. The 1990-1991 School Year Initiation Night. At some time during the Fall of 1990, an annual event, referred to as "Initiation Night," took place at Choctaw. Groups of students at Choctaw traditionally go out together on Initiation Night. On Initiation Night during the Fall of 1990, Sarah Stimac drove Angie Smallwood to Mr. Guzalak's home at approximately 9:00 p.m. to pick up Patrick Peavy. Mr. Peavy had told Ms. Stimac that he would be there. Mr. Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were at Mr. Guzalak's home and were picked up by Ms. Stimac. After Sarah Stimac picked up Patrick Peavy, he told Ms. Stimac that he had been drinking and that he had smoked marijuana and taken LSD. The evidence, however, failed to prove where these events took place. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was present when these events took place or that he was aware of what had happened. After leaving Mr. Guzalak's home, Ms. Stimac and the students she picked up went to a local pizza restaurant and met other students, including Matt Schoditsch. The students then went to a bayou where they built a fire. Eric Gaul had a bottle of spiced rum. At some point during the evening Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies appeared. When they did, despite the cold evening, Patrick Peavy, who had been swinging on a rope swing over the water, fell into the water. Whether Mr. Peavy did so because he was startled (as he testified) or because he was trying to get rid of the marijuana and LSD he had in his pocket (as Ms. Stimac testified) need not be decided. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was directly involved in this incident. It is also not necessary to decide whether Mr. Peavy had drugs in his pocket because the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak had anything to do with any such drugs. After Eric Gaul admitted that the bottle of spiced rum he had, and which the deputies had found, was his and he had convinced the deputies that he had a stranger buy the rum for him at a liquor store, the students were allowed to leave. Although Mr. Gaul, after getting into Ms. Stimac's automobile, stated that he had been given the rum by Mr. Guzalak, the evidence failed to prove the truth of this hearsay statement. After the incident at the bayou the students went back to Mr. Guzalak's home. The 1990-1991 School Year Senior Prom. The day of the 1990-1991 school year senior prom, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy had a fight and broke off their relationship. They did, however, go to the prom together that night. The prom was held at a local motel. Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy rented a room at the motel. At some time before the prom was over, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy went to the room they had rented. Mr. Guzalak came to the room to visit. Mr. Peavy had invited Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak left after Ms. Stimac gave Mr. Peavy an ultimatum that either Mr. Guzalak leave or she would, and Mr. Peavy asked Mr. Guzalak to leave. Mr. Guzalak stayed approximately five to fifteen minutes. Although there was alcohol in Ms. Stimac's and Mr. Peavy's room, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was aware of the alcohol or that anyone was drinking while Mr. Guzalak was there. The 1990-1991 Spring Break Canoe Trip. During the spring break of April, 1991, a student party was organized. The party consisted of a canoe trip down a local river. The party was not a school-sponsored event. Mr. Guzalak was invited to come on the 1991 canoe trip. Although Mr. Guzalak remembered that he was invited by one or more students, Mr. Guzalak, who had an excellent memory for most details, could not remember the names of any student that invited him. Mr. Guzalak spent most of the trip with Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock. There were about 120 students who participated in the canoe trip. They met at the Choctaw parking lot the morning of the trip. During the canoe trip, underage students were drinking beer. They did so openly and in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Mr. Guzalak was offered beer at least ten times by underage students. Kevin Mock admitted that he drank beer in front of Mr. Guzalak during the trip. Mr. Guzalak did not make any effort to stop any of the underage students from drinking alcoholic beverages. Mr. Guzalak's testimony that there was nothing he could do about students drink beer on the trip is not credible. Mr. Guzalak had a duty and responsibility to attempt to stop underage students from drinking beer. Even if Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not attempt to stop the drinking because of the number of students involved was credible (which it is not), his testimony did not explain why he did not say something to those students who were bold enough to offer him a beer and then students who he came into contact with that were drinking beer By allowing the consumption of alcohol in his presence by students who were under the legal drinking age, Mr. Guzalak condoned their illegal behavior. When a teacher allows the violation of one law, it becomes difficult for the teacher to enforce other laws and rules governing student conduct. Mr. Guzalak failed to report the incident to Mr. Bounds or any other administrative employees at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak should not have just ignored the fact that students, some of whom were his students, had blatantly violated the law in his presence. The 1991-1992 School Year--Mr. Bounds Second Warning. In approximately August of 1991, Patrick Peavy's father spoke to Mr. Bounds about his belief that his son was drinking alcohol and using drugs at Mr. Guzalak's home. The evidence failed to prove what basis, if any, Mr. Peavy had for his suspicions at the time he made his complaint. As a result of the concerns raised by Patrick Peavy's father, Mr. Bounds spoke to Mr. Guzalak. The conversation took place on approximately September 19, 1991. Among other things, Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that a parent had reported that students were frequenting Mr. Guzalak's home and that alcohol and drugs were being used there. Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that the parent had followed his child to Mr. Guzalak's home. While Mr. Guzalak admitted to Mr. Bounds that students were frequenting his home, he denied that alcohol was being consumed or that drugs were being used. Mr. Bounds explained to Mr. Guzalak why it was not a good idea to allow students to come to his home. Mr. Guzalak, however, did not agree with Mr. Bounds' concerns over the possible pitfalls of forming personal, social relationships with his students. On September 24, 1991, Mr. Bounds wrote a memorandum to Mr. Guzalak "to reiterate my position regarding our conversation in my office on Thursday, September 19, 1991." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also stated the following in the memorandum: During our conversation you related to me that students from our school were invited and allowed to visit your home for non-academic reasons. Furthermore, you related to me that students from our school are not discouraged by you to establish a personal friendship with you. These personal friendships are encouraged by your participating in non-school related activities. You are hereby notified that all future contact with students from our school should be exclusively of a professional and academic nature. Moreover, meetings with our students should be held on our school property exclusively unless express permission is obtained from me. Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also arranged for Mr. Guzalak to meet with Annette Lee (formerly, Annette Francis), Personnel Director of the School Board. Ms. Lee, who was Assistant Superintendent, Human Resource Division, at the time, met with Mr. Guzalak. On October 9, 1991, Ms. Lee wrote Mr. Guzalak a letter memorializing this meeting and provided him with a copy of a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching," a form containing some School Board expectations for teacher conduct. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Ms. Lee also discussed the inappropriateness of Mr. Guzalak's behavior and stressed to him the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with students. Mr. Guzalak again admitted that he had developed friendships with some of his students and that he had seen them on occasion socially. Among other things, Ms. Lee stressed the following portions of the "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching" form she had provided to Mr. Guzalak: Interaction with Students: Maintain a professional barrier between you and students. You are the adult, teacher and the professional; act like the expert not like another one of the "kids." . . . . 3. Refer students to the appropriate resource person for counseling and/or discussions about personal matters. . . . . 5. Do NOT discuss your personal life or personal matters with students. Do NOT discuss your husband, boyfriend, dates or controversial issues with students. . . . . 10. Chaperone only school sponsored functions. Do NOT socialize with students. If you chaperone a field trip, put in writing what your responsibilities will be. Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages in front of students. Do NOT take children home with you. . . . . C. Reputation in the Community. . . . . Communicate with parents and document your communications. Dress and act appropriately but professionally. You are a role model in the community as well as in the school; be a good example for students. Use common sense and good judgement. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain, or justify your behavior or actions. Avoid putting yourself in a position where it's your word against another person's word. . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Continued Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak was very concerned about what Mr. Bounds had told him about students coming to his home. Mr. Guzalak thought that he was being watched (by a parent) and he was concerned because some of the allegations about alcohol and drug use were true. Initially, Mr. Guzalak told students who dropped by or who asked if they could come by, not to come or that they could not stay. For example, Mr. Guzalak told Thomas Ignas and David Hodgson they should not come to his home. On at least one occasion, however, Mr. Guzalak allowed students to visit him at his home during the 1991-1992 school year after Mr. Bounds had instructed Mr. Guzalak to stop such visits. The incident took place during the first three months of 1992. Aaron Utley was told to come to Mr. Guzalak's home by either David Hodges or Thomas Ignas. When Mr. Utley arrived at Mr. Guzalak's home, Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ignas were there with Mr. Guzalak. There were empty beer cans on the coffee table. Mr. Hodges was drunk. Mr. Guzalak did not request that any of the students leave. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that alcohol was consumed by Mr. Guzalak in front of the students or that the students consumed alcohol in front of Mr. Guzalak. The Florida State University Trip--September, 1991. At some time after Mr. Guzalak spoke to Mr. Bounds in September 1991, Mr. Guzalak took a group of students who were participating in the forensic program to Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, for a forensic competition. Among others on the trip were Chris Hutcherson, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey. These Choctaw students stayed in the same motel room while on the trip. One evening, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey came into the motel room where they were staying and smelled marijuana smoke. Mr. Hutcherson was in the room. Mr. Hutcherson had smoked marijuana just before the other students came into the room. Mr. Guzalak came into the motel room shortly after the students arrived and he smelled the marijuana smoke also. Mr. Guzalak asked what was going on, but no one admitted anything at that time. At some point during the trip, Chris Hutcherson admitted to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana in the motel room. At no time did Mr. Guzalak report Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Hutcherson's family, Mr. Bounds or any other administrative official. Nor did Mr. Guzalak take any disciplinary action against Mr. Hutcherson. Failing to report the use of illicit drugs was against school policy. Mr. Guzalak did not even explain to Chris Hutcherson why he should not have been using marijuana. Instead, Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Hutcherson that he had put Mr. Guzalak in an untenable position by his actions. Because Mr. Bounds had spoken to Mr. Guzalak only a few days before this incident, Mr. Guzalak's concern was not for Mr. Hutcherson or even the forensic team--"[i]t was for myself." See line 11, page 595, Transcript of the Final Hearing. Mr. Guzalak, by his use of marijuana and alcohol with students prior to this incidental, had placed himself in a position of action in a manner similar to that of Mr. Hutcherson. Therefore, it became difficult for Mr. Guzalak to carry out his responsibility as a teacher to report Mr. Hutcherson's admission. The Pensacola Trip--November, 1991. In November, 1991, the Choctaw forensic team went to Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, to participate in a competition. Since the competition was out of Okaloosa County, students were prohibited by School Board policy from driving their own vehicles. Students who participated in the competition were required to have their parents sign a form granting permission for their child to travel on the trip. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. On the permission form it indicated that "students' may not drive themselves to out of county school-sponsored activities . . . ." The students who were going on the Pensacola trip were told to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. They were scheduled to leave at 6:30 a.m. Chris Hutcherson, who was to participate in the Pensacola competition, did not want to get up as early as he would have to arise to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. Therefore, Mr. Hutcherson asked his mother, Sharon Philbrook, if he could drive his automobile to Pensacola. She told him no. She also spoke to Mr. Guzalak who confirmed the School Board policy that students were not allowed to drive their own vehicles on the trip and that transportation would be provided for students for the trip. The morning of the Pensacola trip, Ms. Philbrook found a note from Chris Hutcherson indicating he had taken his stepbrother's automobile despite her instructions to the contrary. Ms. Philbrook reported the incident to Mr. Bounds who suggested that she go to Pensacola and get Mr. Hutcherson. She did so. Upon arriving at the competition site, Ms. Philbrook introduced herself to Mr. Guzalak and explained what had happened. She also told him that she had reported the incident to Mr. Bounds and that Mr. Bounds wanted Mr. Guzalak to telephone him. Mr. Guzalak was very upset about what Ms. Philbrook told him and told her he wished she had not telephoned Mr. Bounds. In light of Mr. Bounds' admonishment of Mr. Guzalak in September and Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana on the Florida State University trip (which Mr. Guzalak had not reported), Mr. Guzalak's reaction is understandable. Mr. Guzalak's reaction and the other evidence presented by the EPC concerning this incident, however, failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was responsible for Chris Hutcherson's violation of School Board policy against students driving their own vehicles out of the county. As a result of Mr. Hutcherson's actions, Mr. Guzalak informed Mr. Hutcherson that he could no longer travel with the forensic team. Mr. Hutcherson's testimony concerning whether Mr. Guzalak told him that it was okay to drive his own automobile to Pensacola was not credible and is rejected. The Rush Concert--February, 1992. In February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak was responsible for the production of a play at Choctaw. During the week before the play was to begin, Mr. Guzalak cancelled a rehearsal. The rehearsal was cancelled because Mr. Guzalak and several students involved in the play wanted to attend a concert by a musical group, Rush, in Pensacola. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak went to the concert with any students from Choctaw, although he did see and speak to at least one student at the concert. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak acted improperly or violated School Board policy in cancelling the rehearsal. Matt Schoditsch's Party--February, 1992. On a Friday evening in February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak spoke to Matt Schoditsch on the telephone. Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak to come to his home. Mr. Schoditsch told Mr. Guzalak that there would be other students at his home, students that Mr. Guzalak knew, and that they would be grilling food. Mr. Guzalak knew that Mr. Schoditsch was having a student get-together. Mr. Guzalak's and Mr. Schoditsch's testimony that Mr. Guzalak was invited and came to Mr. Schoditsch's home only to discuss his participation in a play is not credible. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak for social reasons, and that Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation and went to a student's house contrary to Mr. Bounds' directive to him and contrary to Ms. Lee's advice. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had assumed that Mr. Schoditsch's parents would be there. Mr. Guzalak also testified that it was not until after students starting showing up with beer that he realized that Mr. Schoditsch's parents were not there. This testimony is not credible. In light of Mr. Bounds' directive, which Mr. Guzalak indicated he was very concerned about, a reasonable person would have inquired. Additionally, a reasonable person, especially a teacher and one who had previously been accused of being too friendly with students, would seek out a student's parents soon after arriving at their home to introduce himself or to say hello if the teacher thought the parents were home. Even if Mr. Guzalak did not know that Mr. Schoditsch's parent would not be home before he arrived, he should have realized soon after arriving that they were not there and left. Shortly after arriving at Mr. Schoditsch's home, Mr. Guzalak saw students start to arrive with beer which they began drinking. According to Mr. Guzalak and Mr. Schoditsch, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Schoditsch about students drinking in front of him. They also testified that Mr. Schoditsch attempted to stop the drinking, but too many students started coming, and there was too much beer. This testimony is not credible. According to Mr. Barron, who also attended the party, there were only fifteen to twenty people at the party. If Mr. Schoditsch had really wanted to, he could have stopped the drinking. Mr. Schoditsch had no intention of stopping the beer drinking. And Mr. Guzalak did not expect him to. Even after Mr. Guzalak saw students drinking beer he did not leave immediately. According to his own testimony, he stayed another twenty-five to thirty minutes after he saw students drinking and even took time to go speak to a student, Jodie Brooks, before leaving. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether Mr. Guzalak drank alcohol while at Mr. Schoditsch's home. Although Mr. Barron thought Mr. Guzalak was drinking a mixed drink because he was drinking out of Mr. Schoditsch's cup or glass, Mr. Barron did not testify about how he knew that Mr. Schoditsch was drinking a mixed drink. Use of Profanity. It is against the policy of the School Board for a teacher to use profanity in the presence of students. Mr. Guzalak used the term "fucking" in front of several students when he became angry about their use of squirt guns on a forensic competition trip. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak used profanity in the classroom. Supervision of Students on Trips. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak failed to provide adequate or required supervision of students while on school trips. Mr. Guzalak's Resignation from the School Board. Ultimately, several teachers became aware of various rumors about Mr. Guzalak and some of his inappropriate behavior with students. Those comments were reported to Mr. Bounds, who spoke to a few students and then reported the problem to Ms. Lee. The Superintendent of Okaloosa County Schools met with Mr. Guzalak in March 1992, and discussed the various allegations against him. Mr. Guzalak subsequently resigned, effective at the end of the 1991-1992 school year. Credibility of the Witnesses. Mr. Guzalak and the students who were most involved in the incidents at issue in this proceeding denied that most of the more serious accusations against Mr. Guzalak are true. In addition to denying the accusations against him, Mr. Guzalak also suggested that he is the victim of unfounded rumors. Finally, Mr. Guzalak questioned the credibility and motives of some of the witnesses who testified in this proceeding. The denials of Mr. Guzalak and those students who supported his version of events have been rejected. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Guzalak's testimony was not convincing. The denial of the accusations by several (but not all) of the witnesses called by Mr. Guzalak was also not credible and has been rejected. Many of those witnesses are young men who have developed a close relationship to Mr. Guzalak. They consider Mr. Guzalak to be their "friend." Their testimony reflected their desire not to betray their "friend" and has been rejected in large part based upon the weight of all of the evidence. The efforts to suggest that Mr. Guzalak is merely a victim of rumors also failed. Rumors were caused, in part, because of the perception that Mr. Guzalak was different or eccentric, and, in part, because of the incidents described in this Recommended Order. While there were no doubt rumors concerning this matter and Mr. Guzalak, the incidents which have been found to have occurred in this Recommended Order are based upon the specific knowledge of those witnesses found to be credible. Many of those incidents were confirmed or substantiated by more than one witness. Finally, the efforts of Mr. Guzalak to discredit some of the witnesses also failed. Most of those efforts were directed at Sarah Stimac, Chris Hutcherson and Aaron Utley. The testimony of Ms. Stimac, Mr. Utley and most of the other witnesses called by the Petitioner was credible. It is true, however, that Mr. Hutcherson's testimony contained inconsistencies and that Mr. Hutcherson evidenced an extremely bitter and judgemental attitude against Mr. Guzalak. Consequently, Mr. Hutcherson's testimony has not been accepted except to the extent that it has been corroborated by other evidence. Attacks on Ms. Stimac's credibility are rejected. The suggestion that Sarah Stimac was not credible fails to consider, among other things, the fact that Ms. Stimac's actions in this matter were taken at some personal expense and aggravation. Mr. Guzalak, during the investigation of this matter by the EPC, allowed several students to read confidential statements that Ms. Stimac and other students had given during the investigation. He did so without regard to the consequences to Ms. Stimac or the other students. As a result, Ms. Stimac has faced hostility and ridicule from those misguided students who believe that not telling, or "ratting," on a friend is admirable. Despite such hostility, Ms. Stimac refused to compromise her integrity. The weight of the evidence proved that other students, such as Aaron Utley and David Barron made the same choice that Sarah Stimac made. Rather than lacking credibility, Ms. Stimac's testimony, Mr. Barron's testimony, and the testimony of most of the other students who spoke out about Mr. Guzalak's inappropriate conduct is admirable. The Impact of Mr. Guzalak's Actions on His Ability to Perform His Duties Effectively. There was no direct evidence to prove that Mr. Guzalak was not effective in the classroom. Most of the witnesses agreed that Mr. Guzalak was very effective in the classroom. Several of the witnesses spoke of Mr. Guzalak's intelligence and ability with some admiration. Unfortunately, Mr. Guzalak, by his own admission and based upon the facts presented in this case, has evidenced a lack of the judgement necessary for him to be entrusted with the education of young people. This fact is based upon the nature of the improper acts which Mr. Guzalak has been found to have committed in this case and by his attitude about the warnings he received from Mr. Smith, Mr. Bounds, Ms. Lee and even Mr. Guzalak's coworkers. A teacher that drinks alcohol in the presence of students and provides alcohol to, or condones the use of, alcoholic beverages by students has lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher because of the high standard of conduct expected of teachers. A teacher that uses marijuana in the presence of students or allows students to use marijuana in his or her presence has also lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's conduct was, therefore, contrary to the conduct expected of him by the School Board and the community. Mr. Guzalak's conduct is sufficiently notorious in the community that he has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's inability to follow the directions of his supervisors has also reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak probably has begun to take too much stock in the praise he has received concerning his intelligence and abilities. He has begun to believe his "reviews." As a result, Mr. Guzalak believes that he knows more about how to be an effective teacher than his supervisors and fellow teachers. Mr. Guzalak was asked during the hearing why he had a problem with Mr. Bounds' directive concerning his student friendships. Mr. Guzalak's response, which evidences his attitude about the appropriate role of a teacher with his or her students, was as follows: Because I was used to the idea at that point of having some social contact with students. It was important to me. I was, basically, disturbed because I felt that Richard Bounds was asking me to suddenly make some sort of major capitulation, not in my life-style, but in my mode of thought, in the way I viewed my relationship with students. He wanted me to be an authoritarian clone, if I must. Lines 18-25, Page 627 and Lines 1-2, Page 628, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Additionally, Mr. Guzalak answered the following questions: Q. [Mr. Bounds is] your principal. Shouldn't he be allowed to tell you how you should behave with your students? A. No. Q. He shouldn't be able to tell you how you conduct yourself with your students? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I'm an adult and because I'm a professional. And I'm capable of making those decisions on my own. . . . . Lines 17-25, Page 628 and Lines 1-2, Page 629, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Rather than being an "authoritarian clone," Mr. Guzalak attempted to reach some of his students by being their friend on their level. To some extent, he was influenced by Ms. Yeager, who developed friendships with her students. Ms. Yeager, however, was more mature, married, had a family and had been teaching for some time. As Ms. Yeager put it: . . . . Of course, I have an advantage, being an old, married woman. I mean, I had a husband. I had a family. I had a track record when I came here, Ms. O'Sullivan. I taught seven years junior high and two more years in high school. So I think age -- Not all people are respected because they're older, as you know. But, I'm saying I sort of had an edge there on John [Guzalak], plus experience. Lines 19-25, Page 375 and Lines 1-2, Page 376, Vol. III of Transcript. More importantly, Ms. Yeager, by her actions, her character and her good judgement, was able to develop a certain level of friendship with her students while maintaining her distance and her professionalism. Mr. Guzalak has not evidenced the ability to do the same because of his lack of judgement and his inability to heed the advice and experience of his supervisors and peers.
Findings Of Fact This matter concerns an incident which took place at Brownsville Junior High School on August 16, 1984, during the last week of the summer school session. The incident involved a female victim and several male students. It is undisputed that a sexual assault on a female student did take place. The only question involved here is what part, if any, the respondent played in this incident. The sexual assault was initiated by another male student John Felder. Essentially, Felder pulled the victim, Nettie Thomas, into room 101 at the school. That room contained a television set which also served as a computer monitor. After the victim was pulled into room 101, various attempts were made to remove her clothing and she was fondled and touched by Several male students. At one point during the victim's struggles, she was forced down on the teacher's desk and was held on top of the desk by her arms. While on the desk, she was assaulted by a male student who laid on top of her and made motions which simulated the motions made during sexual intercourse. At times, someone held his hand over her mouth so that she could not cry out for help. Additionally, during the time the incident occurred, the lights in the room were turned on and off on more than one occasion. The assault was stopped when the assistant principal walked up the hall to investigate the noises which were reported to be coming from room 101. The students involved in the assault fled the room. The assistant principal, Freddie Robinson, observed and identified five boys fleeing room 101. Specifically, he identified Darrien Byrd, John Felder, Anthony Dowdell, Richard Daniels, and Vernon Clark. The victim, Nettie Thomas, identified these same five, either in written or verbal statements made during the investigation of this incident. Nettie Thomas identified Richard Daniels as having served as a "look out" by looking out of the back door of the classroom toward the principal's office and as having warned the others during the assault that the assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, was coming. Richard Daniels was in room 101 when the sexual assault took place and he had been in the room before the female victim was pulled into the room. He was in the room in violation of rules and he had no valid purpose for being in the room. He was watching TV when he should have been in class. However, Richard Daniels denied having served as a lookout during the incident. In resolving this apparent conflict between the testimony of the victim and the testimony of Richard Daniels, substantial weight is given to the written statement of the victim which was made shortly after the incident. The written report does not specifically name Daniels by name as having been the lookout, but does indicate that a lookout warned that the assistant principal was coming. In light of this written statement and having judged the demeanor of the various witnesses, it is found that Richard Daniels did serve as a lookout and did warn the others during the sexual assault. Richard Daniels did not make any attempt to assist or rescue the victim during the assault nor did he leave the room to seek any assistance for her. Richard Daniels had an extensive record of misconduct at Brownsville Junior High School prior to this incident. Those incidents included fighting, disruptive behavior, disrespect to teachers, provocative language and threatening a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Richard Daniels to the McArthur Senior High School North. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: MS. NETTIE DANIELS PARENT OF RICHARD DANIELS 1924 N. W. 49TH STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33142 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY TWIN OAKS BUILDING, SUITE 100 2780 GALLOWAY ROAD MIAMI, FLORIDA 33165 MS. MAEVA HIPPS SCHOOL BOARD CLERK SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1450 N. E. SECOND AVENUE SUITE 301 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 DR. LEONARD BRITTON SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 N. E. SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid Florida teaching certificate, No. 150877. That certificate allows him to teach in the areas of business education, mathematics, social studies and vocational education and is valid through June :30, 1995-. Respondent has been an employee of the School Board of Nassau County since 1979. He teaches mathematics at West Nassau High School in Callahan, Florida where he also serves as the chairman of the mathematics department. Respondent taught general math to a male student, Joey Roundtree, in the school 1985-86. One day while the student was in class he stood at Respondent's desk. Respondent was to the right of the student seated his chair. The student laid a book or piece of paper down and the Respondent reached across to pick up the book or paper and the back of his hand touched the student in the area of his midsection or the zipper of his pants. Respondent's hand moved straight across. Nothing was said by Respondent to the student at that time nor did Respondent make any facial gestures at that time. The student said nothing to the Respondent about this and no other action of this nature occurred between the Respondent and the student on any other occasion. While the Administrative Complaint by the Commissioner describes it as inappropriate conduct in that the Respondent is alleged to have "reached across the desk and brushed against the student's lower midsection", this touching by the Respondent is not found to be inappropriate. It is also significant that counsel to the Commissioner in the proposed fact finding does not urge upon the fact finder that this touching was inappropriate. While Joey Roundtree was in Respondent's general math class in the school year 1985-86 he recalls Respondent making sexually suggestive comments or innuendoes from statements made by other students. While Roundtree can not recall specific statements as they were made he remembers that generally the nature of the exchange between Respondent and a student would be to the effect that the student would say something like, "this is a hard question" and Respondent would say "well it's extremely hard" and in doing so the Respondent would emphasize the word hard. Roundtree recalls walking between the desks on several occasions at which time the Respondent would stare below Roundtree's belt until Roundtree arrived at Respondent's desk at which time time Respondent would lick his lips and look above his glasses. On many occasions Roundtree observed, almost daily, that if a comment was made about length, size or shape that the Respondent would turn this around in a suggestive way that was sexual. Roundtree in his 1985-86 school year understood that the Respondent was referred to as "Dirty Rob" and after being in class Roundtree recognized that the basis for that name was associated with what Roundtree refers to as dirty and nasty and suggestive conduct by the Respondent. These terms by Roundtree equate to sexual innuendos by the Respondent. `This even extended to Respondent and his conduct involving sexual innuendos out of the classroom and in the hallway. Roundtree observed that the Respondent in emphasizing the word "hard" would make facial gestures by looking down above his glasses and licking his lips at Roundtree as a member of the class and smiling and laughing when he said the word "hard". Roundtree recalls Respondent making comments to female members of the class of a sexual nature in the school year 1985-86 but cannot specify what those comments were. He did observe that they were accompanied by liplicking and smiling. Those actions by the Respondent met with comments by some of the female students to the effect "you're being nasty" or "I know what your trying to say," to which the Respondent would reply that "well, your mind is in the gutter". Roundtree has no recollection that the female students appeared embarrassed by the actions of Respondent directed to them, actions which were an every day occurrence. Allegations in the Administrative Complaint and Statement of Charges concerning the school year 1989-90 as to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct involving the touching of the breast and buttocks of a female student, sexually suggestive comments to a female student, inappropriate comments to a female student about her appearance, touching a male student in the genital area, making innuendoes from statements made by students and the use of profanity in front of and directed at students were not proven except to this limited extent: Dana Kriete was a math student taught by the Respondent in the year 1989- She overheard the Respondent talk about a girl's breasts, how large they were. That girl was Dell Evans. More specifically Respondent commented that he wondered "what her boyfriend could do with them," referring to Evans' breast. This comment was made in the presence of other students and loud enough so that the other students could have heard the remarks. When the remarks were made about Dell Evans, Evans appeared upset. The general remarks about Dell Evans were made on approximately five occasions. Kriete also overheard the Respondent use profanity in the classroom, specifically the words "ass" and "damn." In the school year 1990-91 Respondent taught consumer math to Carla Bass, a female student. Bass routinely attended class which was held on each school day, five consecutive days. While attending class Bass overheard the Respondent make sexually suggestive comments. Most of these comments were directed to Sylvia Brantley, a female student, regarding the breasts of Ms. Brantley. Bass overheard Respondent describe how big Sylvia Brantley's breasts were. Bass also heard Respondent say in class that when Brantley was asleep that Respondent was going to "kiss Brantley and wake her up like they do in Snowwhite". These remarks by Respondent were stated loud enough for other students to hear them. In the school year 1990-91 Bass heard Respondent refer to a female student whose name is Christine Hughes as Christine "Huge" which was an innuendo having to do with the student's breasts. Bass observed that when Respondent would make remarks about Brantley and Hughes that Brantley and Hughes would appear embarrassed. In the school year 1990-91 Bass observed the Respondent while staring at her breasts lick his lips and roll his eyes. Bass observed the Respondent lick his lips and raise his eyebrows while looking at other female students in particular certain parts of their bodies. While Bass was in the Respondent's class in the school year 1990-91 she overheard Respondent make suggestive comments about a student Jason Englert whom Respondent referred to as "inch". Englert would be cheating in class and giving out answers to other students and would refer to a measurement associated with inches to which the Respondent said, "yeah, I heard that's how long it was" taken by the student Bass as a sexual connotation referring to Englert's genitals. That connotation could be drawn by Bass from the remarks made by Respondent concerning the student Englert. The use of sexual connotations in the classroom made Bass feel uncomfortable and embarrassed her. On one occasion in the school year 1990-91 Respondent told Bass to "get the hell out of his classroom." This had occurred at a time when Bass was disrupting the Respondent. As previously alluded to, Respondent taught math to Sylvia Brantley in the school 1990-91. At hearing Brantley described events in the Respondent's classroom. She recalled the sexually suggestive manner in which the Respondent spoke of Christine Hughes as being Christine "Huge." This was done in Brantley's presence while Respondent called the class attendance roll. This occurred throughout the time that Christine Hughes was in school in that academic year. In the school year 1990-91 Brantley overheard Jason Englert give answers out in class referring to "an inch" and the Respondent would say something that had a sexual connotation, to the effect, "is that all it is" or "I know that's how small it is". Brantley observed the Respondent roll his eyes and lick his lips after making statements in the class that had a sexual connotation. Brantley observed the Respondent look at the breasts and as she refers to it "the behind" (posterior) of a female student while rolling his eyes and licking his lips. Brantley also observed the Respondent roll his eyes and lick his lips while looking at male students. The class which Brantley attended in the school year 1990-91 had approximately 28 to 30 students. Sabrina Silcox was a female student in Respondent's math class in the school 1990-91. When the Respondent would refer to her name in class he would refer to her as Sabrina "Silcock." This was a reference which had a sexual connotation. Respondent made this reference twice during the school year. This reference was made in front of approximately 20 students. On one occasion someone came to the class to get Sabrina Silcox and asked for her by that name, to which Respondent said "do you mean Sabrina Silcock." The person who had called for the student in the class then said "no sir, Sabrina Silcox". Silcox recalls that in class she observed the Respondent "do a little smirk and then do his eyes or something like that, just look at us out of his eyes, the corner of his eyes funny and stuff". Silcox did not pay any attention when Respondent made these gestures. Silcox indicated that at times she was embarrassed by Respondent's mispronunciation of her name. When she observed Respondent make the gestured with his facial expressions the other students would laugh and she was unaware if any of those students were embarrassed by Respondent's actions. Stella Darlene Metts, a female student, was taught math by the Respondent in the school year 1990-91. While in the class she heard Respondent make sexually suggestive comments. She heard Respondent refer to Christine Hughes as Christine "Huge," seen as a sexual innuendo referring to the student Hughes's breasts. An innuendo which was correctly interpreted by Metts under the circumstances in which that reference was made by the Respondent. Respondent made these remarks about the student Hughes while looking at her in a manner which Metts describes as perverted. Metts also saw the Respondent look at Sylvia Brantley in that fashion. The looks made toward Hughes were to Hughes's breasts. Respondent then would look back at the rest of the class and laugh about the situation with Hughes. Christine Hughes had large breasts, as observed by Metts when commenting about the events in Respondent's classroom, and when Respondent would look at Hughes's breasts the male students in the class would think that these antics were funny because to looking at Hughes's breasts Respondent would gain the attention of the male students in the class and laugh. The male students would state, while the Respondent was looking at Hughes, "yeah look at Mr. Roberts looking at you you better not wear red". The reference to the color red had to do with Respondent's expressed fondness for that color. Crystal Hicks, a female student, was in a math class taught by the Respondent in the 1990-91 school year. In the class Respondent made sexual innuendo statements in front of Hicks. First, reference football players Respondent stated, "all they do is get out of class and get down and hut all day up the butt." In referring to the band members Respondent stated, "all they do is beat and blow all day." As Hicks established, these statements were made "every now and then". Hicks observed the Respondent raise his eyebrows and stick his tongue out, like licking his lips, when staring at female students in the class. She was unable to determine exactly where those stares were directed concerning the students' bodies. About the use of profanity, which Hicks described Respondent using in class, the swear words "damn" and "hell" are found to have been stated in the presence of that witness. Jennifer Yawn, a female student, was in Respondent's math class in the school year 1990-91. Yawn described how Respondent would act if Yawn were chewing gum, that Respondent would say to "quit advertising." Yawn described the sexual connotations behind the remarks of the Respondent as "he would just say it like you were doing something with a sucker", by which Yawn meant that Respondent was describing what the student was doing with a sucker. While making the remarks about advertising Yawn saw the Respondent raise his eyebrows and lick his lips. The comments about advertising with the gum had to do with the instances in which the student blew bubbles. This made Yawn uncomfortable. Yawn also heard the Respondent use profanity in class, the words "hell" and "damn." Jason Englert was a male math student taught by the Respondent in the school year 1990-91. He overheard Respondent talk about Sylvia Brantley's breasts in the classroom, in an instance in which Respondent called Sylvia Brantley's breasts "pillows." He recalls sexual gestures by the Respondent when he was talking to Ms. Brantley. Those gestures involve staring at Ms. Brantley's breasts, moving his eyebrows and licking his lips. In addition Respondent made a sexually suggestive comment to Englert while Englert was walking away from the Respondent's desk. Englert glanced back at the Respondent and Respondent was looking at Englert's "butt," (posterior) Englert put his hands over his posterior, to which Respondent said, "well, that's the part I want to see." There were other persons standing by the desk who could have heard the remarks by Respondent. Those persons looked at Englert and laughed. This circumstance did not bother Englert. Englert also overheard the Respondent speak of Carla Bass and her breasts as being "pillows." Students other than Joey Roundtree, (school year 1985-86), who were in the Respondent's classes in the school year 1990-91 and who testified at the hearing made mention of the Respondent's nicknames "Dirty Rob" and "Red Rob". These references have to do with perceived conduct by the Respondent leading to the impression that his personality was that of an individual who was perverse, having to do with his involvement with sexual innuendoes. The students knew of Respondent's reputation for sexual innuendos before entering the classroom. Such knowledge might influence their reaction to Respondent's conduct which they observed first hand. However the impression which the students gained from his actions in the classroom as reported in these facts were not so influenced by his prior reputation that the students are found to have misinterpreted Respondent's intentions by his remarks and facial expressions which had sexual connotations. In crediting the testimony by the students which pointed out the inappropriate conduct by Respondent in engaging in sexual innuendoes, some of the circumstances which the students identified as being in a similar category have been discounted and any doubt about Respondent's conduct in those instances resolved in his favor. Moreover the decision to favor the impression which the students had about some of these events recognizes that the classroom conduct by some of the students who testified at the hearing was less than commendable in its own right. The conduct by those students did not control or excuse Respondent's improprieties in engaging in sexual innuendoes. The fact that some students who had been in the Respondent's math classes at various years, after the school year 1985-86 but including the school years 1989-90 and 1996-91 did not observe the Respondent participate if any form of misconduct involving sexual innuendoes does not change the impression held about the testimony given by students who described those sexual innuendoes. This refers to testimony by Vicki Giveons and Bryan Hopkins who did not observe misconduct by the Respondent in their classes. The classes that they attended were different from the classes attended by witnesses who identified Respondent's sexual innuendoes. Finally, Respondent's testimony concerning these events in which he has been found to have acted inappropriately with regard to sexual innuendoes is rejected. Racial discussions were held in the Respondent's classes; however, the remarks which he made about racial issues were not biased when examined in the context of the testimony presented at hearing. Likewise the Respondent did not engage in any form of misconduct for which he is held accountable pertaining to the racially inflammatory notes, racially inflammatory replica of a grave site cross, racially inflammatory replica of a grave site tombstone, and racially inflammatory replica of a coffin and funeral carriage. Jeff Rieves, a male student in one of Respondent's math classes in the school year 1990-91 was responsible for producing the notes and other paraphernalia. Rieves contends these items were produced in an environment that was cordial or done in the way of a joke. Although the Respondent created the appearance that he was somewhat indulgent concerning the insensitive acts by the student, a stance taken by the Respondent to minimize the impact created by the correspondence and paraphernalia, Respondent did not believe that these incidents were intended to be all in good fun. It is not accepted that Rieves gave the notes and paraphernalia to the Respondent intending it wholly as a joke and that the Respondent perceived that these items were presented as a joke. Whether what extent Rieves intended his actions to have a more sinister influence, to the extent that you could say that Rieves intended racial harassment is less clear. Being uncertain concerning the student's intent, Respondent was prudent to make officials within the Nassau County School District aware that these circumstances existed and to be a willing participant in the investigation that ensued by the Nassau County Sheriff's Office. When interviewed by the principal at his school and officers from the Nassau County Sheriff's Office, both before and after the law enforcement officials had spoken to Jeff Rieves about this incident, Respondent did not name Rieves as the individual who had prepared the tombstone, coffin and funeral carriage. Whatever suspicions the Respondent may have had that Rieves was the person who had constructed these items, especially given the realization that Rieves had written notes with overtones that bore a racial threat, those notes having been sailed in Respondent's direction by Rieves as paper airplanes, Respondent did not know absolutely that Rieves had constructed the paraphernalia. Contrary to Rieves' assertion, the cross, headstone, coffin and funeral carriage were not handed overt directly to the Respondent as Rieves had told the law enforcement officers when interviewed. Respondent discovered these items where Rieves had left them in his class. Having held their conversation with Rieves, rather than confiding to the Respondent that the sheriff's office had ascertained who the culprit was, the officers for reasons that are not apparent, chose to believe Rieves' comment to the effect that Rieves had directly presented the paraphernalia to the Respondent and to confront the Respondent with this belief by asking the Respondent once again who the person was who had created the paraphernalia. When Respondent did not respond that Rieves was the person who had prepared the paraphernalia in a setting in which the sheriff's office was convinced that he did know, he was charged with giving false information to a police officer concerning the alleged commission of a crime by claiming that he had been harassed by persons not known to the Respondent when indeed he knew who the individual was who had constructed the paraphernalia. Under summons the State Attorney's Office for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida took action against the Respondent on the theory of the false reporting concerning the alleged commission of a crime in Case No: 91-301218, August 1, 1991. This matter was disposed of through the misdemeanor pretrial intervention program involving deferred prosecution. Respondent served the 40 hours of community service contemplated by the disposition in the case. He did this upon advice of counsel that if he went to a trial that he might not prevail in that case. Notwithstanding his decision to conclude the court action by subjecting himself to the requirements set forth in the pretrial intervention, for purposes of this hearing it is not found that the statements which Respondent made concerning his knowledge about the person who had constructed the paraphernalia were false, in that Respondent did not know with certainty who had prepared the paraphernalia. Although the sheriff's office interviewed Rieves and another individual Michael Lloyd who had been involved in the creation of the paraphernalia, neither the sheriff's office nor the administrative prosecutor sought to verify the information received from the culprits who had created the paraphernalia to determine from a more unimpeachable source that Respondent knew who had created the paraphernalia, in that the Respondent had been given the paraphernalia personally in the classroom as Rieves describes, before attributing false motives to the Respondent in complaining about the racial harassment. This could have been achieved by interviewing students who would have been in attendance at the time when Rieves purportedly presented the paraphernalia to the Respondent in the classroom. Absent that effort Respondent was charged upon information provided by a less than credible source and tried in the present case, leading to the impression that Respondent's explanation about this event is more compelling. Craig Marsh, Superintendent, Nassau County School District, a professional educator, was accepted as an expert in the field of education. As an expert Marsh expressed the opinion that the Respondent, based upon his participation in the sexual innuendos discussed in the fact finding, were matters so serious that they impaired Respondent's effectiveness in the school system. That opinion is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Nassau County enter a final order which dismisses the Respondent from his employment as a continuing contract teacher based upon the violations found. That the Education Practices Commission suspend Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years during which time Respondent shall submit himself to evaluation by a qualified professional to ascertain the underlying causes for the conduct which has brought about this discipline. If the qualified professional believes that Respondent needs to participate in a program to gain insight and correct any underlying condition in the interest of the Respondent and his prospective students, then Respondent shall cooperate in that endeavor. If Respondent fulfills any necessary requirement for counseling or if counselling is not deemed necessary, then the last year in the suspension period shall be served in a probationary status during which time Respondent shall not engage in conduct which violates Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, and the associated rules found within Chapter 6B, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 91-6677 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner Castor Paragraphs 1 through 13 are subordinate to facts found, except the date in Paragraph 7 which should be 1989-90. Paragraphs 14 through 16 are rejected for reasons of credibility. Paragraphs 17 through 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is rejected. Paragraphs 21 through 24 4re subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is rejected. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found with exception to the last phrase of profanity which is rejected. Paragraphs 27 through 42 are contrary to facts found in their suggestion that the Respondent acted in a racially biased manner or gave false information or reports as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 44 through 46 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 47 and 48 1 not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and are contrary to the legal conclusions drawn. Petitioner Marsh Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.. Paragraph 2 see discussion of Paragraphs 1 through 26 for Petitioner Castor. Paragraph 27 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts in the Prosecution by Commissioner Castor Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.. Paragraphs 2 through 36 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 37 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 38 in its first two sentences are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is rejected as it attempts to absolve the Respondent of his conduct. Paragraph 39 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 40 is consistent with the disposition of the case. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 44 is consistent with the disposition in the case as are Paragraphs 45 through 48. Paragraph 49 is subordinate to facts found where it describes use of profanity but conary to facts concerning the number of times. Paragraph 50 is rejected in its attempt to be persuasive in countering the notion that Respondent used profanity in the classroom more than an isolated incident. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 53 and 54 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 55 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts in the Prosecution by Superintendent Marsh Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 2 through 15, see discussion of facts in the Castor prosecution, Paragraphs 3-7 through 50. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Karen Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 East Union Street, Suite 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Brian T. Hayes, Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, FL 32344 Craig Marsh, Superintendent Nassau County School Board 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 Robert Johnson, Chairman Nassau County School Board Post Office Box 436 Callahan, FL 32011
