The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked, or otherwise disciplined, on grounds that he is guilty of engaging in grossly immoral conduct, as alleged.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: The COUNCIL alleges that, on or about April 3, 1979, PAGE engaged in a lewd, lascivious, immoral, and indecent act in the men's restroom of the St. Johns Marina, Jacksonville, Florida, by touching Officer Michael Legan in an unnatural manner; PAGE denies it. (Pre-trial Stipulation, Petition for Revocation, Testimony of Page.) The men's bathroom where the alleged incident took place is adjacent to the St. Johns Marina. The marina is adjacent to the St. Johns River, and across the street from the Alexander Breast Planetarium. A park area nearby is used by groups of children and other visitors to the planetarium. Prior to the time of the incident in question, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office had received complaints from people at the planetarium, and nearby park visitors, concerning indecent exposure-type incidents occurring in the Marina's bathroom and surrounding area. (Testimony of Legan.) On April 3, 1979, because of this history of reported indecent exposure incidents, Officer Michael Legan, attached to the Morals Squad of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, had the Marina's men's bathroom under surveillance for possible homosexual or indecent exposure-type criminal violations. He was accompanied by his partner, Detective Sam Durden, who remained outside the bathroom. At approximately 3:30 or 4:00 p.m., in the afternoon, Officer Legan was wearing civilian clothes and standing inside the bathroom, alongside the wall directly across from a partition which separates the toilets from the urinals. At the time, he was trying to determine whether an unidentified individual using the toilet was there "for a legitimate purpose or whether or not he was attempting to expose himself." (Tr.20) 2/ Shortly thereafter, PAGE entered the bathroom and walked directly to the urinal closest to the door, located across from where Officer Legan was standing. At the same time, Officer Legan moved toward the door, and stopped alongside the wall almost directly behind PAGE. While standing at the urinal, PAGE made what appeared to be a rubbing motion with his hands in his genital area, and glanced over his shoulder in the direction of Officer Legan. This activity continued for about 30 seconds; then PAGE turned 90 degrees to his left, towards the toilet area and away from the bathroom door, held his penis in his hand and rubbed it with a masturbating-type motion. PAGE continued this activity for approximately 20 seconds, while he looked at Officer Legan, then looked down. While Officer Legan observed this activity at a distance of from seven to eight feet, no conversation took place. PAGE then replaced his penis in his pants, started to walk toward the door, and made a motion with his head which Officer Legan understood as a request to follow. In response to what he discerned as PAGE's nonverbal request, Officer Legan followed PAGE toward the door, with the intent to place him under arrest after exiting the bathroom, where Dective Durden would be available to provide assistance. There is a small alcove in the foyer of the bathroom, which separates an inner bathroom door from another bathroom door leading to the outside. As Officer Legan followed PAGE out of the inner bathroom door into the foyer area, PAGE stopped and said, "How are you doing?" Legan answered "Okay," and started to reach into his pocket for his badge. Simultaneously, PAGE grabbed and squeezed Legan in the groin area, and said, "It looks like you're okay." Officer Legan then identified himself as a police officer, placed PAGE under arrest, searched him, gave him the Miranda warnings, and took him to jail for booking. The findings indicated in paragraphs 4(a) through (c) above are, in the main, determined from the testimony of Officer Legan. Respondent PAGE denied, under oath, engaging in the activity described by Officer Legan. It is concluded that Officer Legan's testimony is more worthy of belief and should be accorded greater weight than the conflicting testimony of PAGE. Officer Legan testified with the detached, unbiased manner of a professional law enforcement officer; his narrative testimony was clear, positive, logical, and internally consistent. His prior testimony, by deposition, introduced into evidence by PAGE, is also consistent with and supports his testimony given at final hearing. No significant defects were shown in his capacity, ability, or opportunity to observe, remember, or recount the matters about which he testified. In comparison, PAGE is a teacher accused of grossly immoral conduct justifying suspension or revocation of his teacher's license. As the accused, he has an obvious bias and interest which affects his credibility. Officer Legan's lack of any discernible bias of interest, coupled with the failure to impeach him or discredit his testimony in any significant way, renders his testimony persuasive. (Testimony of PAGE, Legan; R.E. 3.) All Court and Sheriff's Office records pertaining to PAGE's arrest for the above-described conduct were expunged on August 28, 1979, by order of the County Court of Duval County, Florida. In order to qualify for such statutory expungent, the Court necessarily determined that PAGE had never been convicted of a criminal offense or municipal ordinance violation. The effect of expungent is to restore the accused, in the contemplation of the law, to the status he occupied before the arrest. (R.E. 1.) PAGE'S PERFORMANCE AS A TEACHER PAGE has been a competent and effective elementary school teacher in the Duval County School System since 1972. His area of particular expertise has been teaching disadvantaged children reading skills through structured, federally sponsored, reading programs. He has consistently been rated by his supervisors as a "satisfactory" teacher--the highest rating possible. Principals of the schools where he has taught have commended him for his knowledge and performance in teaching remedial reading, good rapport with students, and his ability to understand deficiencies of disadvantaged children and enhance their self-concept. Because of his skills, he was selected to operate the Hoffman Laboratory, a structured reading program for disadvantaged children, at Oceanway Elementary School, Jacksonville. Under his leadership, the Laboratory has been so effective that teachers from other counties have visited to observe and learn. (Testimony of Baker, Sandberg; R.E. 3,7.) PAGE'S CHARACTER PAGE, honorably discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps in 1960, has been an active and responsible ember of his community and the Baptist religion for many years. His church pastors know him as a moral, honest, and religious man, a person of flawless reputation and integrity. He has been married for 32 years, led a normal family life, and successfully raised three children. The charges against him are not in keeping with his wife's view of his character. (Testimony of Evelyn Page; R.E. 4,5.) The policy of the Duval County School Board is to ensure that teachers accused of sexual misconduct are not left in a position where they have contact with children. The Board perceives that such action, on its parts, is necessary in order to provide assurances to parents that their children will be safe. The ability of PAGE to effectively continue to teach at Oceanway Elementary School has been reduced, due to the expected reaction of parents and staff members to the charges against him. (Testimony of Gary Simmons, Sandberg.) To the extent that proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have not been incorporated herein, they are rejected as being irrelevant to the decision reached, or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's teacher's Certificate No. 137251, be SUSPENDED for two (2) years commencing upon entry of the Final Order in this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of October, 1980. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1980.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner for seventeen years. From 1985 through his suspension in April 1992, Respondent was assigned to Kinloch Elementary School, a public school in Dade County, as an elementary classroom teacher. Respondent, age 58, has three degrees, a bachelor's degree, a master's degree in science, and a specialist in education degree. Respondent had a regular practice of kissing his female students on the hand or on the cheek, or of letting them kiss him on the cheek. Respondent was aware of the school board's policy which prohibited inappropriate contact between teachers and students. This policy was reflected in the policy handbook that was discussed with all teachers prior to the beginning of each school year. In addition, there had been prior, unsubstantiated allegations of inappropriate contact between Respondent and female students which resulted in Respondent being specifically advised of the school board's policy. Maria Vidauretta (Maria) and Saile Lopez Sanchez (Saile) are females and, at the time of the formal hearing, were ages 12 and 11, respectively. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Maria and Saile were students at Kinloch Elementary School. Maria and Saile were good friends. Although Maria was slightly older, Saile was considered to be the leader of the two. Maria and Saile attended summer school at Kinloch during the summer term in 1991. Respondent had been Maria and Saile's math teacher during the summer of 1991 and had established a friendly teacher-student relationship with these two students. During the summer session the rules of discipline at Respondent's school were relaxed because of the fewer number of students attending. Respondent gave Maria and Saile special privileges, such as permitting them to sit on the stage in the cafeteria during lunch, and he gave them candy and told them not to tell the other students. Saile sometimes called Respondent "father" because they shared the name of Lopez. Respondent was not Maria or Saile's teacher during the 1991-92 school year. Maria and Saile continued to be classmates as they were both assigned to the same classroom. 1/ Discipline during the regular school term is not as relaxed as it is during the summer term. Consequently, Respondent instructed Maria and Saile that they were not to sit on the stage in the cafeteria during lunch, and he told Saile not to call him father. Respondent also stopped giving the girls candy. This practice stopped after Ms. Warren, the principal of Kinloch, told Respondent to stop that practice after she had received a complaint from a parent. 2/ There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Respondent kissed Maria in the school library on or about November 19, 1991. Maria and Saile testified in a clear and forthright manner at the formal hearing that Respondent kissed Maria on the mouth as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Respondent testified that he was with the two girls in the library, but that he did not kiss Maria. The conflict is resolved by finding, after weighing the credibility of the witness and the surrounding circumstances of the incident, that the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the following events occurred at Kinloch on November 19, 1991. Maria and Saile were in the school library immediately before lunch on the date in question along with their classmates, their teacher, the media specialist, and the Respondent. There were approximately 32 children in the class. The teacher returned to the classroom with nine of the students leaving the remaining 23 students, including Maria and Saile, in the library. Respondent's class was taking physical education and Respondent was in the library doing research in preparation for an upcoming science fair. At the time Maria and Saile first saw Respondent, he was working on a computer in the area of the library containing the encyclopedias. Maria and Saile came to the area in which Respondent was working and watched him work on the computer. Because he was unfamiliar with the computer software, Respondent was having difficulty with the computer. Saile tried to help Respondent, but she was unable to make the computer perform the desired tasks. Respondent next opened an encyclopedia to an optical illusion involving a picture of a flag. He first showed this optical illusion to Saile. After seeing the trick, Saile went to the front of the library to check out a book. While Maria was kneeling on the floor looking at the picture of the flag, Respondent grabbed Maria and kissed Maria on the mouth, forcing his tongue inside of her mouth. Saile returned to the area where Respondent and Maria were located and saw Respondent kissing Maria. Maria then pulled away from Respondent, Maria and Saile got into the lunch line, and the two girls left with their classmates for lunch in the cafeteria. The library (media center) is an eight sided room with a column in the middle of the room and contains book cases, desks, and computer tables. On occasions, more than one class is taught in the media center. On the date in question, a large blackboard was in the media center. This blackboard was solid from top to bottom, it was on rollers, and was two sided 3/ so that it could be used to divide the two classes and shared by two teachers. The media specialist testified that the blackboard was positioned on the day in question at an angle so that she could see events occurring behind the blackboard from the area in which she was working. This testimony is accepted in part only because it is clear from the evidence presented that the view of the media specialist would have been at least partially obstructed by the blackboard. The area in which Respondent was sitting, which is where the incident allegedly occurred, is behind the blackboard. When the alleged incident occurred the media specialist was preoccupied with checking books for the students. The other students in the media center, none of whom testified, were lining up near the entrance of the media center to go to lunch and were generally facing away from where the incident occurred. While the media specialist testified that she saw nothing unusual on the day in question, her testimony does not establish that the events could not have occurred as Maria and Saile testified without her having seen the incident. After Maria and Saile left the media center with their class, Respondent gathered his class from the physical education field and went to the lunch room where he had supervisory responsibilities. Respondent monitored the lunch period for the different classes by standing at one end of the cafeteria with a microphone. At the cafeteria, Saile told Maria several times that she had seen Respondent kissing her. Maria repeatedly denied that Respondent had kissed her and asserted that Respondent merely showed her a book. These statements were overheard by Layda Vega, a cafeteria worker who was stationed at a cash register approximately 15 feet from where the two girls were sitting. Respondent noticed that Saile and Maria appeared to be upset and crying. Respondent instructed Mercedes Reyes, a cafeteria worker, to go check on the two girls. Saile told Ms. Reyes that she had seen "him" kissing Maria. 4/ Maria denied that she had been kissed and asserted that she had only been looking at a book. Ms. Reyes took Maria and Saile outside of the cafeteria in order to avoid a disturbance. Respondent saw them exiting the cafeteria and followed them outside. Respondent heard Saile accuse him of kissing Maria in the library. Respondent asked Maria if she had been kissed, fondled, abused, or touched in any way. Maria answered that question in the negative. Saile asserted that she had seen Respondent kiss Maria. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Reyes reported the incident to Ms. Warren. That night, Saile reported the incident to her mother. An unnamed parent reported the incident to one of the school counselors on November 20, 1991. Thereafter, the incident became widely known at the school. Maria changed her statement and asserted that Respondent had kissed her as witnessed by Saile. 5/ An investigation into the allegations brought by Maria and Saile was initiated by Petitioner and by the Metro Dade Police Department. Respondent was arrested on November 22, 1991, on the charge of lewd and lascivious behavior. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent had not been convicted of any crime. All charges had either been dismissed or were still pending. The incident received local television and newspaper coverage that identified Respondent and Kinloch Elementary School. The allegations were known throughout the school. Counsellors were brought into the school to deal with the school children, many of whom were confused, upset, and embarrassed by what had reportedly happened. Maria and Saile were accused by some of their peers of having lied about the Respondent. Maria transferred to another school following the incident. Respondent's employment with Petitioner was suspended without pay at the school board meeting of April 1, 1992. As part of the investigation that followed the incident with Maria, other students at the school were questioned by investigators and counsellors. One of the students who was questioned was Cynthia Martinez. Cynthia is a ten year old student at Kinloch who testified that Respondent kissed her and other female students on the cheek and on the hand almost every day. Cynthia also testified that Respondent kissed her on the mouth one day on the way to lunch. Cynthia also testified that Respondent engaged her in conversations about love on sugar (what was meant by that phrase was never explained) and doing sex carefully. Cynthia's testimony about Respondent kissing her and other females on the cheek and on the hand was consistent with the other evidence presented at the formal hearing and supports the findings made that Respondent engaged in that behavior. Cynthia's testimony that Respondent kissed her on the mouth one day on the way to lunch is vague and forms an insufficient basis upon which to base a finding of fact. Cynthia's testimony as to conversations she had with Respondent was also vague and also forms an insufficient basis upon which to base a finding of impropriety. Yanet Rodriguez, a 13 year old former student at Kinloch, testified that on a date uncertain she opened the door of Respondent's class and saw that Respondent had a female student sitting on his lap. Yanet did not know when this happened, the name of the student who was sitting on Respondent's lap, or the circumstances that preceded the student sitting on his lap. Yanet testified that when this event occurred, Respondent's entire class was present. This vague testimony forms an insufficient basis upon which to base a finding of impropriety.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which upholds the suspension of Respondent's employment and which terminates his continuing contract with the Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1992.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. O’Neill holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 470617, covering the areas of early childhood development and elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 2007. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. O’Neill was employed as a third grade teacher at Lakemont Elementary School (Lakemont) in the Orange County School District (School District). Dr. Susan I. Stephens has been the principal at Lakemont for 12 years. Dr. Stephens was Ms. O’Neill’s supervisor at Lakemont. On September 30, 2005, Dr. Stephens received a call late in the afternoon from a student’s parent complaining that she had smelled alcohol on Ms. O’Neill’s breath during a teacher-parent conference a few days before the call. Dr. Stephens went to Ms. O’Neill’s classroom to discuss the issue with Ms. O’Neill, but Ms. O’Neill had left for the day. The following Monday morning, October 3, 2005, Dr. Stephens confronted Ms. O’Neill in her classroom before school started about the allegations made by the parent. At that time, Dr. Stephens smelled alcohol on Ms. O’Neill’s breath. When Dr. Stephens told Ms. O’Neill that the parent wanted the child removed from her class, Ms. O’Neill acted very nonchalant and began to talk about other things that were not responsive to the issue being discussed. Dr. Stephens has had training to detect the use of alcohol and was of the opinion that Ms. O’Neill was under the influence of alcohol. After her discussion with Ms. O’Neill, Dr. Stephens sent her assistant principal, Randall Hart, to talk with Ms. O’Neill and to observe her. Mr. Hart returned and reported to Dr. Stephens that he also smelled alcohol on Ms. O’Neill’s breath and thought that Ms. O’Neill had been “acting differently.” By the time Mr. Hart had returned from observing Ms. O’Neill, students were arriving in the classroom. Dr. Stephens sent Mr. Hart back to Ms. O’Neill’s classroom to remain in the classroom while the students were present. Dr. Stephens called the Employee Relations Office of the School District and was given the name of a principal in a nearby school, who was trained in the detection of the use of alcohol. Dr. Stephens contacted the principal, Suzanne Ackley, and asked her to come and observe Ms. O’Neill. Ms. Ackley and Dr. Stephens went to Ms. O’Neill’s classroom. The students in Ms. O’Neill’s class had been sent to other classes for art, music or physical education. Ms. O’Neill was “giggly” and was slurring her words. She talked about things which were not related to the issues raised by the two administrators. Ms. Ackley agreed that Ms. O’Neill was under the influence of alcohol. Dr. Stephens and Ms. Ackley went back to Dr. Stephens’ office and called the Employee Relations Office for guidance. They returned to Ms. O’Neill’s classroom, and Dr. Stephens asked Ms. O’Neill to accompany her to an alcoholic testing center. At first, Ms. O’Neill agreed to do so, but wanted to go home first and get her medications. Dr. Stephens refused to let her go home before going to the test center. Ms. O’Neill then refused to go for testing and left her classroom headed for her car. Dr. Stephens did not feel that Ms. O’Neill should be driving in her condition and followed Ms. O’Neill to her car. Dr. Stephens had called for the police officer who was the school resource officer to meet them at Ms. O’Neill’s car. The police officer, Lina Strube, had over nine years of experience and had been trained to detect when a person was under the influence of alcohol. By the time Officer Strube got to the parking lot, Ms. O’Neill was in her car driving toward Officer Strube. Before Ms. O’Neill could get to the gate of the parking lot, Officer Strube stopped her and asked her to roll down her window, which Ms. O’Neill did. Officer Strube could smell alcohol on Ms. O’Neill’s breath and told Ms. O’Neill that she wanted to talk to Ms. O’Neill. Ms. O’Neill became agitated, and Officer Strube had to call for assistance. Based on her experience and training, Officer Strube felt that Ms. O’Neill was under the influence of alcohol. As a result of the incident on October 3, 2005, Ms. O’Neill employment with the School District was terminated. Ms. O’Neill’s was under the influence of alcohol while in the classroom and such conduct seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School District and showed her failure to make a reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions that are harmful to learning and/or to the students’ mental health or physical safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) and revoking her educator’s certificate for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Michele O'Neill 110 Wigwam Place Maitland, Florida 32751 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency charged with the responsibility of operating and supervising the free public schools within the Dade County school district. As such, it is responsible for the discipline of instructional personnel employed by the district. The Education Practices Commission is responsible for the discipline of teachers who hold teaching certification from the Department of Education. At all times material to the issues of these cases, Respondent, Terrice Stevens, teaching certificate number 187207, was employed by the Board and assigned to instruct a fifth grade class at Stirrup Elementary School. Respondent is 48 years of age, has been employed by the Board for 17 or 18 years, and has taught fifth grade at Stirrup for at least 6 years. Respondent holds a bachelors degree from Bethune Cookman College and a masters degree from Nova University. During the 1984-85 school year Respondent had a student named Sasha Petersen assigned to his class. On or about November 2, 1984, Sasha's parents filed a complaint with the school principal against Respondent regarding an incident which had occurred between Sasha and the Respondent. At the end of the school day, Sasha, the last student to leave the classroom, was grabbing her personal belongings and vacating the room when Respondent blocked the doorway and wouldn't allow her to leave. Respondent grabbed Sasha by the waist and told her to give him a kiss if she wanted to leave. In order to expedite her departure, Sasha kissed Respondent on the cheek and exited to go home. She subsequently told her mother of the foregoing and they requested that Sasha be removed from Respondent's class. As a result of the incident with Sasha, on February 13, 1985, Respondent received a written reprimand which included the following instructions: Cease and desist from any physical contact with students in the performance of your duties that may give cause for students and/or adults to question your actions. Cease and desist from any action that would intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Deal with all students and adults in a professional and ethical manner. Maintain a positive classroom climate free from threat or embarrassment in which mutual respect develops between students and teacher. Failure to abide with the above directives will be deemed as insubordination. During the 1988-89 school year students Johanna Diaz and Monique Lafuente were assigned to Respondent's class. During this time, a number of incidents occurred in Respondent's classroom wherein Respondent unnecessarily embarrassed students or touched them inappropriately. On one such occasion, Respondent placed his hand in Johanna's front pocket and touched her breast. This touching was not accidental, nor was it prompted by the student's conduct. Other incidents which occurred included: Respondent's constant referral to female students who sat on the front of their chairs as "Bertha Butt" Respondent's statement to the students that their parents had made a big mistake (referring to the night of their conception) which he wished he could have stopped; Respondent repeatedly told the class that one day he would marry Maria Alcazar (a student in the class); Respondent took a female student (Monique) into a rear workroom on two occasions, hugged her, and attempted to touch her breast; Respondent grabbed a female student by the hips to push her back into her chair; and Respondent accused a student of cheating which embarrassed the student in front of the class. When students advised the Stirrup administration of the activities described above, Respondent was relieved of his classroom assignment. Respondent's explanations regarding the acts and his denial of the incidents were not credible. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Respondent's effectiveness to instruct in the Dade County public schools has been significantly impaired. Respondent failed to abide by the terms of the written reprimand and demonstrated an indifference to his students which resulted in repeated incidents of embarrassment and disparagement for them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from his employment with the public school district. That the Department of Education, Education Practices Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 25th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3668 AND 89-6802 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Paragraph 1 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the first three sentences are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is accepted in substance. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 7 is rejected as cumulative to the findings reached regarding students named Sasha, Johanna, and Monique. Except as listed in findings of fact paragraph 6, paragraph 8 is rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Except as listed in findings of fact paragraph 6, paragraph 9 is rejected as cumulative, repetitive, or unnecessary. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as recitation of testimony. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, BETTY CASTOR: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as cumulative. Paragraphs 13 through 16 are rejected as cumulative. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as cumulative. Paragraphs 22 through 24 are accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26 is accepted. To the extent that substantively paragraphs 27 through 28 correctly state the community concern regarding this Respondent they are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are rejected as recitation of testimony. It is accepted as fact that Respondent has embarrassed and disparaged students and that such conduct reached a level which demonstrates Respondent's effectiveness in the school and in teaching has been significantly impaired. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, irrelevant, or supposition not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 John A. Rudolph, Jr. HUEY, GUILDAY, KUERSTEINER & TUCKER, P.A. Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dade County School Board Paul W. Bell, Superintendent 1444 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should take disciplinary action against the Respondent's teaching certificate for the reasons set forth in an Administrative Complaint dated September 1, 1988. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent is incompetent to teach and that the Respondent's personal conduct has seriously reduced her effectiveness as a School Board employee. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses and offered five exhibits, all of which were received in evidence. No evidence was offered by or on behalf of the Respondent. A transcript of the hearing was filed on March 8, 1989, and on March 20, 1989, the Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Respondent did not file any post- hearing documents. The substance of all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner has been accepted and incorporated in the findings of fact in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing in this case, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Dade County School Board as a Science Teacher assigned to Kinloch Park Junior High School. During the 1982-1983 school year, an incident involving the Respondent and one of her students was brought to the attention of her principal, Henry J. Pollock. The incident involves an alleged act of child abuse, wherein the Respondent was reported to have struck one of her students with a ruler. The incident precipitated notices being sent to the HRS and the Special Investigative Unit of the Dade County School District. An investigation was ordered. During the investigation, the Respondent was requested to make contact with and participate in the Employee Assistance Program. This recommendation was based on not only the immediate incident under investigation, but also on the fact that the Respondent had shown great difficulty in coping with the work assignment. Further, the Respondent was observed losing her temper and reacting to students in a way that was not acceptable. A follow up by the Respondent's principal revealed that the Respondent had refused to participate in the Employee Assistance Program. Thereafter, the Respondent sought and obtained a leave of absence. The basis of the request was for medical reasons. The Respondent's initial leave of absence was scheduled to end on May 10, 1984, but was extended to June 1984 based on a physician's statement from a Dr. Strobino in Rochester, New York. In June of 1984, the Dade County School District sent a letter to the Respondent informing her that in order to extend her leave of absence for the 1984-1985 school year, certain additional documentation would be required. The Respondent submitted a report from Dr. Strobino, dated July 18, 1984. In part, the doctor noted that "[Respondent] was still under his professional care, she remained ill, was unable to continue with her duties as a school teacher for a period of one year...." Leave was granted for the 1984-1985 school year. The Respondent made an additional request for a leave of absence for the 1985-1986 school year. In support of this request, the Respondent submitted a report from a Dr. Agostinelli, of Rochester, New York. The report was dated May 23, 1985. Essentially, the physician diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from "a moderate situational anxiety and depression." In May of 1986, the Respondent was notified by Dr. Gray's office of a scheduled "conference for the record" to be held on September 2, 1986. The Respondent appeared at the conference, and at the conclusion of the conference, she agreed to be examined by a Dr. Gail Wainger, M.S., who is a licensed psychiatrist. Dr. Wainger's report concluded that the Respondent could return to work if she remained in active psychiatric treatment. The Respondent never initiated the required psychotherapy. Instead, the Respondent remained in an unauthorized absence or absent-without-leave status until she retired in lieu of dismissal. The Respondent's retirement was effective June 24, 1987. During the ensuing months and up through the pleading stage of these proceedings, the Respondent has demonstrated that she not only does not wish to retain her teaching certificate and/or her eligibility to renew same, but is not emotionally stable enough to carry out her responsibilities as a member of the teaching profession. By her own admission, the Respondent is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and is unable to teach school. This condition and the conduct associated with the condition has seriously reduced the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order in this case suspending the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of April 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 18th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Flagler Court Building 215 5th Street Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ms. Elaine Daggar 605 21st Place, East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Mr. Martin Schapp, Administration Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Commission of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Petitioner's Amended Notice of Specific Charges, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto and since 1980, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a continuing contract. She was assigned to Pine Lake Elementary School for the 1992-93 school year. She is familiar with the School Board's rules regulating employee conduct and prohibiting the use of corporal punishment. Prior to the 1992-93 school year and as a result of complaints from parents, Respondent was given written directives, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority, to desist from using abusive, sarcastic, and disparaging language with elementary school children. Those directives specifically reminded Respondent of her obligation as a teacher to not intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement and to avoid using abusive language in the presence of children. She was also cautioned against the use of intimidation and ridicule. Prior to the 1992-93 school year Respondent received another written directive, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority, to refrain from intimidating or being disrespectful to other employees. Respondent was further specifically ordered to stop directing profanity at members of the staff and to avoid situations that result in confrontations. In December of 1992 a fight broke out between Respondent's son and Tony, another elementary school student, while they were in the breakfast line in the school cafeteria. Frederick Collins, the route salesman for Velda Farms Dairy, was delivering milk to the cafeteria and saw the two boys fighting. He put down his milk so he could stop the fight. As he ran toward the two boys, he saw Respondent, whom he knew to be a teacher at that school, running toward the two boys. Respondent got to the boys first. Respondent grabbed Tony around the neck with both hands and began choking him and shaking him. Respondent was choking Tony so hard that his tongue was out of his mouth. She was hysterical and kept screaming at Tony over and over again about him "messing" with her son. Collins reached Respondent and tried to pull her away from the frightened child. By that time, Moses Holcomb, the head custodian at the school, had heard the noise and the other children calling to him to come help. He ran to where Respondent was choking and shaking the child, and together Holcomb and Collins were able to separate Respondent from Tony. Even after the two men were able to pull Respondent away from the child, she tried to get to him again. Holcomb had to physically get between Respondent and Tony, and Collins had to physically hold her to prevent her from grabbing Tony again. Tony did not kick at Respondent during the altercation. Further, Tony did not flail his arms at her and did not try to hit her. He was passive during the entire time that she was choking and shaking him and screaming at him. Holcomb took Tony to the principal's office and reported Respondent's conduct to the principal. When the principal spoke to Respondent about her attack, Respondent admitted hitting, choking, and shaking Tony. Respondent's attack on Tony was observed by students, parents, faculty, and staff members. Collins expressed his shock at seeing a teacher behave in such a manner. The incident became widely known. On January 20, 1993, Respondent's son and the son of Cynthia Williams, another teacher at Pine Lake Elementary School, fought with each other. After the fight, Mrs. Webb, the assistant principal, spoke to Williams and to Respondent and explained that she had investigated the circumstances of the fight, that Respondent's son had started the fight, and that the Williams boy had only defended himself. On the following day, Cynthia Williams waited for the school bus to bring her son from his nearby school to Pine Lake Elementary. When she saw Respondent also waiting for the bus, she knew there would be trouble based on Respondent's reputation and past behavior. Williams asked another teacher to wait with her. When the bus came, Williams and the other teacher walked over to the bus to get Williams' son. Respondent approached them and it was apparent that Respondent was very angry. She began grilling the Williams boy as to why he had been fighting with her son. Mrs. Williams calmly told Respondent that she would take care of it and would speak to her son after they got home. Respondent continued grilling the boy in a very threatening and intimidating manner and shaking her finger in Mrs. Williams' face. As Williams and her son began backing away from Respondent, the other teacher ran to get a principal. As a result of her aggressive behavior, Respondent was given another written directive ordering her to stop intimidating and abusing other faculty members and to conduct herself in a professional manner. Respondent was subsequently given an alternate assignment and was relieved of her teaching duties at Pine Lake Elementary School. In April of 1993 in the late afternoon Respondent returned to Pine Lake to pick up her personal belongings. When she encountered Williams, she told Williams "this isn't over" in such a threatening manner that Williams reported that incident to the principal at Pine Lake Elementary. The principal wrote a letter to Respondent ordering her to stay away from that school. During the week of November 9, 1992, Respondent was on jury duty. Although the courthouse was closed on November 11 and Pine Lake Elementary School was open, Respondent failed to report for work at the school. Instead, she falsely claimed that she had been on jury duty the day the courthouse was closed, in order to receive her regular pay from the School Board. When the principal discovered Respondent's false report, she instructed the staff to report Respondent as having taken a personal day rather than reporting Respondent as having been on leave without pay in order that they could avoid the expected confrontation by Respondent. Yet, in spite of the principal's attempt to be very fair with Respondent, Respondent thereafter kept harassing the attendance staff to pay her for that day. On March 1, 1993, a conference for the record was conducted with Respondent by Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards. Because of Respondent's history while employed by Petitioner, she was placed in an alternate work assignment and referred for a medical evaluation to determine her fitness to carry out her duties. The clinical interview and psychological testing revealed that Respondent has difficulty handling stress, avoids dealing with problems, and blames others when problems occur. She has paranoid tendencies and is defiant of authority. Her personality structure is stable, and she is unlikely to change. She should not be in a teaching position but should be in a position where stress is unlikely to occur. Further, Respondent's difficulties with stress, with authority figures, and with co-workers existed well prior to the occurrence of Hurricane Andrew and are not attributable to stress following the hurricane.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed against her in this cause, suspending her without pay up to the date of termination, and terminating her employment by the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 21st day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2452 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law and recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 16, 21, and 22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 8, 9, 11-15, 19, 20, and 23-29 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, conclusions of law, or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 6 and 10 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact number 7 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 17 and 18 have been rejected as being not supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Bovell, Esquire 3211 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. Suite One 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from her position as an instructional employee for gross insubordination and being willfully absent from duty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this termination case, Petitioner, Lake County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate Respondent, Brenda Armstead, an instructional employee, on the ground that she was willfully absent from duty without leave and guilty of gross insubordination by virtue of having repeatedly refused to report to her job assignment. In a letter dated May 26, 2000, Respondent asked for a hearing "as soon as possible," contending that the "termination was illegal." In school year 1999-2000, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Hills School in Eustis, Florida, where she taught 3 to 5-year-old children with severe emotional disabilities. In September 1999, Respondent was arrested for stalking. However, the criminal charges were later dropped or reduced to a lesser charge. Pending the disposition of the matter, Respondent continued working in the classroom. In January 2000, Respondent reported to her supervisor that she had been exposed to "CMV," an infectious viral disease. Despite being tested as negative, Respondent continued to have concerns with her health and began to exhibit unusual or bizarre behavior in the classroom. Among other things, Respondent constantly wore gloves in the classroom, avoided physical or close contact with her aides, and exhibited other unusual habits or practices. She also began sending "unusual" correspondence to the Superintendent. Because of this, she met with her principal and the Board's Assistant Superintendent on February 14, 2000. At that meeting, Respondent was orally directed to report to the Board's MIS Copy Center (Copy Center) effective immediately until she "could meet with a medical doctor." This action was authorized by School Board Policy 6.171(4), which allows the Board to "require a physical, psychological, and/or psychiatric examination by a physician licensed in the state of Florida when in the School Board's judgment such an examination is relevant to the teaching performance or employment status or a School Board employee." Given Respondent's behavior, the transfer to a non-teaching position was also appropriate and necessary since Respondent was working with emotionally handicapped children. Accordingly, the Board arranged for an evaluation of Respondent by a Dr. Kendall on February 17, 2000; that physician recommended that Respondent be further examined by a psychiatrist. By letter dated February 24, 2000, the Board's Superintendent again directed Respondent to report to the Copy Center for temporary duty pending the results of the examination. The letter was hand-delivered to Respondent on February 25, 2000. Despite both orders, Respondent never reported to work at the Copy Center. Although she "came on campus" a couple of times, she never returned to work. She was later given another oral instruction by telephone on March 16, 2000, by the Board's Assistant Superintendent. By certified mail sent on April 13, 2000, the Board's Superintendent again directed Respondent to report to work, and he warned that if she did not do so by April 19, 2000, she would be subject to being terminated for being absent without leave, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duties. Respondent received the letter the following day. Even so, she never reported to work. It is fair to infer from the evidence that Respondent was willfully absent from work without leave. On April 21, 2000, the Superintendent recommended to the Board that Respondent be terminated because of her "continuing intentional refusal to report to work despite repeated direct orders, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority to do so." This recommendation was accepted by the Board at its meeting on May 8, 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order determining that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination and being willfully absent without leave, and that she be terminated as an instructional employee for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. R. Jerry Smith, Superintendent Lake County School Board 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778-2496 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin, Burnsed, Morrison, Johnson, Newman & Roy, P.A. Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Brenda Armstead 32412 Crystal Breeze Lane Leesburg, Florida 34788 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue This case concerns the propriety of Respondent's abolishment of Petitioner's position of Occupational Specialist within the Gilchrist County School System. In particular, it is to be determined whether Respondent has failed to meet requirements of law in that its action of abolishing the position was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to Petitioner's constitutionally protected rights to free speech and assembly.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the holder of a Rank 111 Teaching Certificate, issued by the State of Florida. The certification recognizes her as an Occupational Specialist. On July 8, 1974, she was granted a continuing contract of employment with the Gilchrist County School Board as an Occupational Specialist in the Trenton and Bell schools within the Gilchrist County School District. A copy of that contract may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. The contract by its terms states at Paragraph 9, "This contract shall not operate to prevent discontinuance of a position as provided by law." It is the discontinuance or abolishment of the position of Occupational Specialist held by the petitioner that occasioned the formal hearing in this cause. Since being granted the position of Occupational Specialist in permanent status, Petitioner has performed those duties described in the job description, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Those functions include career planning for students, considering their personal problems, preparing them for assessment tests and the execution of job application forms. In the school year 1981-82, Petitioner worked three- fifths of her time in Trenton High School and two-fifths in Bell High School. In her capacity, Respondent considered her to be acting as the equivalent of a guidance counselor. She has never been certified by the State of Florida as a guidance counselor. Around the beginning of April 1982, the superintendent of Schools in Gilchrist County, Ray Thomas, decided that the position of Occupational Specialist held by the petitioner should be abolished. At that time, and at all relevant times, this position of Occupational Specialist was the only position of its type in the Gilchrist County School System. The basis for the abolition or discontinuation of the position concerned anticipated revenue shortfalls or budget inadequacy for the upcoming school year 1982-83, pursuant to information from persons within the State of Florida responsible for educational funding. In arriving at his decision, Thomas sought comment from Robert Ervin, the principal at Hell High School and James Surrency, the principal at Trenton High School. Ervin was asked if the guidance responsibility at Bell High School could best be achieved by the provision of a full-time guidance counselor. Thomas gave the impression to Surrency that the basis for requesting the discontinuation of the position of Occupational Specialist pertained to funding. No particulars were revealed to the two principals on the question of the financial position of the school system facing the advent of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, admitted into evidence, are the comments of the Trenton and Bell principals on the subject of the abolition of the position of Occupational Specialist. Ervin accepted the idea of abolishing the Occupational Specialist position based upon his belief that a full-time guidance counselor would be provided to his school, as contrasted to the half- time guidance counselor and two-fifths time work of the Petitioner during the school year 1981-82. In his remarks, Surrency indicates reconciliation to the idea of losing the three-fifths time that the Petitioner was spending at Trenton High; however, he indicates his preference to have the Occupational Specialist position remain if it could be afforded. In the school year 1981-82, Trenton had a full-time guidance counselor in addition to the work being done by the Petitioner. After receiving the comments of the principals and in keeping with his choice, the Superintendent of schools wrote to the petitioner on April 21, 1982, advising her that he would recommend to the School Board, effective the beginning of the school year 1982-83 that the position of Occupational Specialist not be filled and offering Bowdoin a leave of absence without pay for one year. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. On April 22, 1982, the recommendation of the Superintendent was presented to the School Board and in the course of that meeting, the Petitioner was represented by counsel. Action on this recommendation by the Superintendent was tabled. On May 3, 1982, the Superintendent wrote the School Board and modified his position on the question of Occupational Specialist from one recommending that the position of Occupational Specialist not be filled in 1982- 83 school year to one of recommending the discontinuance of the position for economic and curriculum reasons, stating that the duties of that position could be assumed or transferred to the guidance counselor at each school in Gilchrist County. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. On May 4, 1982, consideration was given to the suggestion of total abolishment of the position of Occupational Specialist and the School Board in a 3 to 2 vote determined to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist. This action was in keeping with Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. Prior to the vote, no specific information was imparted by the Superintendent or other school officials as to the financial benefits to be derived from the action or effect of the abolishment in terms of curriculum changes. The school board simply accepted the Superintendent's word that it was necessary to abolish the position for financial reasons. (The Superintendent, since taking office in 1981, has abolished other positions within the Gilchrist County School System, such as assistant principal at Trenton High School, general supervisor of instruction, food services supervisor, brick and block masonry teacher, librarian at Trenton High School and has left vacant teacher's aide positions.) At the May 4, 1982, meeting, Petitioner asked for and the Board agreed to afford a formal hearing to the Petitioner to challenge the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist position. Again, on June 1, 1982, a request was made in the Petitioner's behalf to have a grievance hearing before the board concerning the board's decision to abolish the job and it was determined that grievance hearing should be held on July 6, 1982. On July 6, 1982, the Board requested the Superintendent to prepare a list of vacancies which Mrs. Bowdoin might be certified for, the salary schedules related to those positions, a list of programs offered other than K-12 and the state certification requirements for those positions and the name of those persons filling the positions at the time. On July 20, 1982, the Board considered the level III grievance of the Petitioner in the presence of the Petitioner's attorney on the topic of an alternative placement of the Petitioner and the salary associated with that placement. On August 3, 1982, the Board entered a written resolution of decision pertaining to the level III grievance pertaining to the Petitioner, a copy of that resolution being found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. In this resolution, the School Board properly identified that the Petitioner could not be placed as a guidance counselor in that she did not hold a master's degree required for such position. In lieu of the position of Occupational Specialist which had been abolished by the School Board on May 4, 1982, by its August resolution, the Board offered the position of Teacher's Aide at Trenton Elementary School, with a substantial reduction in salary from approximately $15,000 a year to approximately $6,300 a year. This position of Teacher's Aide was reserved until August 16, 1982. Petitioner did not elect to accept the position of Teacher's Aide and has been unemployed since August 1982. In the course of an August 11, 1982 meeting, the Superintendent reported to the Board that the petitioner had "responded" at a level IV grievance procedure. On August 31, 1982, the Board was asked to consider litigation which had been presented to it by the Superintendent. On September 2, 1982, in an Executive Board session of the School Board of Gilchrist County, discussion was made of certain civil litigation brought by Petitioner against the Board. On October 5, 1982, an update was given to the Board concerning that case of the Petitioner versus the Board. Another update was made on October 5, 1982. On December 7, 1982, the Board was made aware of the fact that the case was to be considered in arbitration. (Various minutes of School Board meetings as described in this paragraph are more completely set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, admitted into evidence.) The matter was presented before the American Arbitration Association and the Arbitrator in his report absolved the Board of any violation related to the job abolition. The copy of that report may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence. The date of the report is July 21, 1983. As stated before, the Bell High School in 1982-83, employed a full-time guidance counselor in substitution for an approximately half-time guidance and two-fifths time from Bowdoin the prior year. The Trenton school went from a 1981-82 school year in which a full-time counselor and three-fifths of Bowdoin's time was devoted to counseling activities to a full-time counselor, an aide working two-thirds time mostly in a clerical capacity and some assistance by a vocational teacher in school year 1982-83. Bad Bowdoin returned as an aide to the Trenton school in 1982-83, she would have been used in the guidance department in the same role as she had been given as Occupational Specialist. There was a revenue surplus left at the end of the 1982-83 school year and it was sufficient to have allowed the funding of the position of Occupational Specialist for the 1982-83 school year; however, that surplus was less than the 1981-82 school year by approximately 65,000. This funding difference in the face of providing essentially the same services in the school system, pointed out the more difficult economic circumstance that Thomas had made mention of in his initial decision to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist. In the 1982-83 School year, employees in the school system received salary increases. At the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year, there were approximately 900 students at the Trenton school which included grades K-12. According to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, excerpts from the standards of the Commission on Secondary Schools of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, schools of a population of 750-999 need two guidance professionals. Therefore, the reduction of one and three-fifths counselors in 1981-82 to one counselor and something less than three-fifths in 1982-83 was contrary to the statement of standards. This excerpt is at 4.10.0, Figure 1, minimum personnel requirements. Respondent replies to that assertion through its Exhibit No. 9, which are excerpts of the standards for unit schools by the Commission on Secondary Schools and Commission on Elementary Schools of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. At Page 9, 9.16.0-9.16.2, Respondent argues that one guidance counselor suffices for any school with a membership of 500 or more students up to 999 students. Without determining which of these guidelines related to accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is correct, it suffices to say that the changes that were made by the School Board in abolishing the position of Occupational Specialist as it might affect accreditation were made in good faith in that it can arguably be said that Trenton school, having 900 students, only needed one guidance counselor to meet conditions of accreditation. There were no curriculum changes made in the 1982-83 school year as a result of abolishing the Occupational Specialist position. There were curriculum changes but they were not the result of any influence provided by the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist job.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. 1 At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties stipulated that students N.E., C.Z., T.C., and S.M., were unavailable, and that their deposition testimony, included within the School Board’s Exhibit No. 12 and Respondent’s Exhibit Nos. 16 through 18, could be received in evidence in lieu of their live testimony. The School Board hired Respondent in 2010 as a teacher at Campbell Drive K-8 Center ("Campbell Drive"), a public school in Miami-Dade County. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years and at all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed at Campbell Drive as an intensive reading teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension and termination of Respondent occurred during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Allegations Involving K.S. The School Board alleges in paragraph 10 of the Notice of Specific Charges that during the 2016-2017 school year Respondent made grossly inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact with K.S. At the time of the alleged conduct, K.S. was a female 12-year-old student in Respondent’s seventh-grade intensive reading class. Specifically, paragraph 10 of the notice alleges: During the course of the school year, beginning sometime after the Winter Recess, he would touch her private area over her clothing. On one day during lunch, the Respondent requested that this student come to his room during lunch to make up a test. When she arrived in the room, the Respondent initiated physical sexual contact with the student. In addition to touching the girl beneath her clothes, the Respondent exposed himself to her and had her touch his private area. After the brief encounter, the girl exited the room. During the course of the school year the Respondent also asked her to engage in sexual acts and made sexual comments to her. The School Board further alleges in paragraph 10 of the notice that during the 2017-2018 school year, when K.S. was a student in Respondent’s eighth grade intensive reading class, "Respondent requested a sexual favor from [K.S] on a small note that he had handed her." At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with K.S. 2 K.S.’s Written Sworn Statement to Detective Webb On March 2, 2018, K.S. was interviewed by Detective Steven Webb, with the School Board’s police department, regarding alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Respondent against her. That same day, K.S. gave a written sworn statement to Detective Webb, received into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 11. In this sworn statement, K.S. stated that during the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent "became sexually active with students, he did multiple things." K.S. went on state that Respondent: started off by touching my private area and then he advanced a couple of days later by pulling his pen[n]is (sic) out and grabbing my hand and, placing it there. One day he sent a student to get me from the cafeteria and on the pass it stated that I had to make up a test, but when I entered his class he rubbed my breast, and started to suck them for about 10 to 15 seconds, and then I pushed him away. He was dropping my grade until I did the things he wanted me to do with him which is to have sex, give him head, thing of that nature. Recently, about 2-3 weeks ago he asked me to do things with him and that’s a reason to why I left early recently. 2 K.S. did not complete her seventh-grade school year at Campbell Drive. Before the school year ended, the principal of Campbell Drive asked K.S. to leave the school because of disciplinary problems involving physical altercations with other students and defiant behavior. K.S. subsequently enrolled in Villa Prep Academy, a private school where she completed her seventh-grade year. K.S. did not attend Villa Prep Academy for very long because she was dismissed from that school during the early part of her eighth-grade year. In December 2017, K.S. re-enrolled in Campbell Drive. Upon her return, K.S.’s mother requested that she be put in Respondent’s classroom and K.S. was a student in Respondent’s eighth-grade intensive reading class for the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year. There was nothing mentioned in K.S.’s written sworn statement about Respondent engaging in any inappropriate conduct toward K.S. while she sat at her desk in Respondent’s classroom. K.S.’s Audio Recorded Interview with Detectives Webb and Ochoa In a subsequent audio recording interview of K.S. on March 2, 2018, by Detective Webb and Detective Gil Ochoa, received into evidence as the School Board’s Exhibit No. 5, K.S. initially described the cafeteria pass incident as follows: K.S. stated she left the cafeteria with her food tray in hand and went to Respondent’s classroom. Upon entering Respondent’s classroom, she began telling him things about her family. K.S. stated Respondent then took away her food tray, set the tray down, and pulled her over to another area of the room, at which time he touched her breasts over her shirt, lifted up her shirt and sports bra, exposed her breasts, and sucked on one of her breasts for about 10 to 15 seconds. K.S. stated she got scared and left the classroom, and that is all he did that day. K.S. failed to mention anything about Respondent pulling out his penis on this occasion until asked specifically about it by Detective Ochoa near the conclusion of the interview. School Board’s Ex. 5 at 13:22. K.S. then stated that she saw his penis, but she was scared and looked away. K.S. made no mention of Respondent placing her hand on his penis. During this interview, K.S. went on to describe another occasion in Respondent’s class that occurred after school was dismissed for the day. According to K.S., on this particular occasion, Respondent asked her "to give him head" and "to have sex with him." However, according to K.S., it never happened. K.S. further stated that recently (two to three weeks ago), Respondent asked that she "give him head." There was no mention in this interview of Respondent touching K.S.’s vaginal area or dropping her grades. The entire audio recorded interview lasted approximately 15 minutes. At the conclusion of the interview, K.S. was asked if there was anything else that she remembered that she wanted to add. K.S. declined and she did not state any other alleged inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact by Respondent. K.S.’s Testimony at Hearing At the final hearing, K.S. testified that toward the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent moved her seat next to his because she was easily distracted by the other students and failed the first test. Subsequently, the following exchange occurred between counsel for the School Board and K.S.: Q: Now, during that school year, did Mr. Rizo ever do anything inappropriate to you during class time? A: Yes. Q: All right. Can you explain to the Judge what he would do to you? A: He would, like, walk by, ‘cause since I was sitting so close to him, he would just touch me, like, my private areas or he’ll just, like go down on my arm, like that. Stuff like that. Q: All right. Now, this would occur during class time? A: Yes. Q: When specifically--was there a specific time that it would occur during class time? A: Mainly when we were testing or doing our work. T. Vol. 1, pp. 28-29. Counsel for the School Board went on to question K.S. about the testing process and Respondent’s efforts to curtail students cheating on tests. K.S. testified that students placed raised stapled manila folders on their desks to prevent students from seeing each other’s tests. Counsel for the School Board then asked K.S., in leading fashion: "So it was this time, during the testing, when he would touch you? K.S. responded: "Yes." Id., Vol. 1, pp. 29-30. However, K.S. could not describe the number of times "this occurred" during the 2016-2017 school year. Moreover, this alleged inappropriate touching supposedly occurred while 20 to 25 other students were in the classroom. At hearing, K.S. testified at one point that Respondent’s touching of her vaginal area occurred every time they had tests, but she acknowledged that the raised stapled manila folders were not always present on the students’ desks during testing. At hearing, K.S. further acknowledged that had the inappropriate touching occurred as she testified to, any student at any point could have looked and seen Respondent caressing her in her vaginal area. Counsel for the School Board then inquired of K.S. if there was "ever anything more serious that [Respondent] did to [her]" that school year (2016- 2017). In response, K.S. described the alleged cafeteria pass incident as follows: A: I was in lunch--because I was in seventh grade at the time, seventh grade goes to lunch before anybody, and he sent one of his eighth grader students with a pass to go to get me. Because in order to leave the lunchroom, you have to have a pass. Security didn’t let you leave the lunchroom. Security called me and told me that my teacher was calling me to make up a test. When I got in the room, I had my tray in my hand, and he took my tray, put it down, he exposed himself. And then there was a corner and he, like, put me in the corner and he sucked on my breast. T. Vol. 1, pp. 32-33. However, moments later, K.S. described the incident differently: First he pushed me to the corner, and then after he sucked my breast, then he exposed himself. And then I was just scared. And he--when he exposed himself, he grabbed my arm and he made me touch his area, and then I grabbed my tray, I threw it away, and then I left. Id. at p. 33. According to K.S., she was in Respondent’s classroom on this particular occasion between five or ten minutes. The corner of Respondent’s classroom is located right next to the door entering the room. K.S. testified that the incident occurred with just Respondent and K.S. in the classroom, but with the other student who had retrieved K.S. from the cafeteria still waiting outside the door when K.S. left Respondent’s classroom. At hearing, counsel for the School Board also asked K.S., in leading fashion, whether she ever told the police officers that Respondent would "suck on your breasts or try to have sex with you multiple times?" In response, K.S. testified: "I told them--I told them the suck on my breast part, when he exposed him. And then when they asked about my eighth-grade- year, I told them how he wrote on a sticky note that I want to give him head, like oral sex …." Inconsistently, K.S. testified in her deposition that Respondent wrote on the sticky note: "Can I eat her?" According to K.S. in her deposition, Respondent picked up the sticky note, showed it to K.S., and she grabbed it from him and threw the note away. School Board’s Ex. 11, p. 11. At hearing, K.S. testified that Respondent handed her the sticky note and that she then threw it away. K.S. and Respondent never communicated by telephone, text, e-mail, or social media. There are no witnesses to any of the alleged incidents. K.S. never reported any alleged inappropriate conduct by Respondent to her parents, a teacher, or school administrators. However, at hearing, K.S. testified she told V.S.C. about Respondent’s conduct toward her during the 2016-2017 school year when V.S.C. came to her house on a single occasion sometime during K.S.’s eighth grade school year. Allegations Involving V.S.C. The School Board alleges in paragraph 11 of the Notice of Specific Charges that during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent also made inappropriate comments to V.S.C. during his role as an afterschool care supervisor, and that he would "bump up against" V.S.C., "rubbing himself on her buttocks area." V.S.C. was not a student in Respondent’s classroom. The alleged inappropriate conduct occurred while V.S.C., a female 14-year-old eighth grade student at Campbell Drive, attended the school’s Students with a Goal ("SWAG") afterschool program. SWAG is an outdoor program where students can engage in a variety of recreational activities. Respondent was one of six school staff members that participated in the program. At any given time, there were approximately 100 students in attendance. Students could play soccer, basketball, football, dodge ball, board games, or do homework. Students could freely rotate through the different activities by simply notifying the adult conducting the desired activity. Respondent primarily engaged in soccer, but would occasionally participate in other activities. At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with V.S.C. V.S.C.’s Audio Recorded Interview with Detective Bernice Charley On March 6, 2018, V.S.C. was interviewed by Detective Bernice Charley, with the School Board’s police department, regarding alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Respondent against her. An audio recording of the interview was received into evidence as the School Board’s Exhibit 8.3 During the interview, V.S.C. stated that while she and Respondent were at SWAG during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent told her he wanted to slap her face with his penis; he asked her if she liked it rough (referring to sex); and he told her his penis was his "third leg." According to V.S.C., she and Respondent would engage in a verbal "back and forth," and he would say these comments in front of other students at SWAG. Additionally, V.S.C. stated she and Respondent would "bump" into each other at SWAG. According to V.S.C., Respondent would bump into her side or back from behind. During the interview, V.S.C. stated she had a bad memory. V.S.C. was reluctant to speak and there were many long pauses by her after questioning by Detective Charley. After much prodding and requests by Detective Charley for V.S.C. to "open-up," V.S.C. actually stated: "There’s nothing to talk about because nothing did happen." School Board’s Ex. 8, at 38:48-38:52. After further pauses, prodding, and requests by Detective Charley for V.S.C. to "open up," V.S.C. stated that Respondent also touched her breasts one time while they were at SWAG. According to V.S.C., this incident occurred with her shirt on. The School Board argues in its proposed recommended order that V.S.C. also described another incident while she and Respondent were at his classroom. According to V.S.C., Respondent was standing at his desk and V.S.C. was standing in the doorway, at which time Respondent stated to V.S.C.: "me and you here and now," followed by Respondent tapping on his desk. V.S.C. interpreted this comment as meaning that Respondent wanted 3 The audio recorded interviews of K.S. and V.S.C. (School Board’s Exhibits 6 and 8) are contained on a thumb-drive accompanying the School Board’s written exhibits received into evidence at the hearing. to have sex with her. According to V.S.C., other students were present when Respondent allegedly made the comment. Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. The entire recorded interview lasted approximately 52 minutes. Much of the interview involved Detective Charley’s repeated efforts to redirect V.S.C. and her attempts to have V.S.C. "open-up." V.S.C.'s Testimony at Hearing At the final hearing, V.S.C. could not even remember whether she was in seventh or eighth grade during the 2017-2018 school year. In any event, V.S.C. testified that during the 2017-2018 school year, she attended Campbell Drive and the afterschool SWAG program. Respondent and V.S.C. did not have much interaction in the SWAG program. V.S.C. testified that she did not really participate in any of the SWAG activities; rather, she would either just "hang-out with [her] friends or sleep," or watch her friends and Respondent play soccer. However, most of V.S.C.’s time was spent sleeping near a tree, far away from where Respondent spent most of his time with the soccer group. When asked if Respondent ever did anything inappropriate to her during the SWAG program, V.S.C. testified that he talked about his "private part" to her, saying that "it was big," and referring to it once as "his third leg." Counsel for the School Board then asked V.S.C. in leading fashion: "Okay. Did he ever mention anything that he would like to do with his private part," to which V.S.C. responded, "I don’t remember. I just know that he talked about it once." T. Vol. 1, p. 82. V.S.C. described unspecified things that Respondent allegedly said to V.S.C. as "playful, like, in an inappropriate way," and "weird." Counsel for the School Board then asked V.S.C. in leading fashion: "Do you remember telling these things that he would say to you to the police at a given point," to which V.S.C. responded, "I barely remember. It’s, like, such a long time ago now." Id. at p. 83. As with her recorded interview with Detective Charley, V.S.C. was reluctant to testify at hearing and there were many long pauses by her after questioning by the School Board’s counsel. After further prodding and requests by the School Board’s counsel to describe "the things he would say to you, other than his talking about his private part," V.S.C. described the aforementioned verbal incident in Respondent’s classroom. On cross-examination, V.S.C. acknowledged this comment was loud enough so that other students could hear it and that she read a sexual connotation into the comment. Id. at p. 97. Counsel for the School Board again asked V.S.C. if Respondent ever made any other comments to her during SWAG, to which V.S.C. responded, "I can’t remember." Id. at p. 85. Subsequently, the following exchanges occurred between counsel for the School Board and V.S.C.: Q: Did he ever threaten to slap you with anything?" A: Yeah, with his penis. Q: What did he say? A: He said he wants to, like, slap me in the face with his penis. Q: And when did he say that? A: I think in SWAG. Yeah, it was in SWAG. * * * Q: Do you remember Mr. Rizo touching you in any other way other than bumping you with his hip or anything like that? A: When we would play fight, he would, like, put his pelvis, like, on my back area. Q: What would he do with his pelvis? A: He would just, like, be there, like, behind me and play fighting me. Q: Did he ever try to touch you sexually in any way? A: I guess, yeah, if he’s doing that, if he’s behind me like that. Id. at pp. 87 and 92. V.S.C. never reported any alleged inappropriate conduct by Respondent to her parents, teachers, or school administrators. At hearing, V.S.C. acknowledged that she and K.S. were friends. At hearing, V.S.C. admitted that she and Respondent were never alone during the SWAG program and that she was always close to the other students. At hearing, nothing was mentioned about Respondent touching V.S.C.’s breasts. Allegations involving N.E. In paragraph 12 of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board alleges that "Respondent also made sexual advances and over the clothing sexual contact with a third female student [N.E.] during the 2017-2018 school year." However, N.E. did not testify live at hearing and the School Board did not present any eyewitness testimony in support of the allegations. At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with N.E. Ultimate Findings of Fact At hearing, the undersigned had the opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of Respondent, K.S., and V.S.C. The testimony of Respondent is credited and is more persuasive than the testimony of K.S. and V.S.C., which is not credited or persuasive. Notably, K.S.’s and V.S.C’s versions of the events as set forth in their statements to the police and testimony at hearing were vague, differed in key respects, and much of their testimony and statements to the police were obtained through patently leading questions. Moreover, V.S.C. admitted that her memory is bad and that "there’s nothing to talk about because nothing did happen." It is also inconceivable that K.S. would have returned to Respondent’s classroom for intensive reading during the 2017-2018 school year had the alleged conduct during the 2016-2017 school year actually occurred. Had the alleged incidents occurred as testified about by K.S. and V.S.C., who were friends, it is also expected that there would have been eyewitnesses. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Respondent did not engage in inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact with K.S., V.S.C., or N.E., as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, and Respondent did not engage in conduct with K.S., V.S.C., or N.E., which constitutes misconduct in office or immorality.4 4 K.S. and N.E. were also friends. As detailed above, N.E. did not testify at the hearing. However, an audio statement and a written statement purportedly authored by N.E., both of which are hearsay, were received into evidence at the final hearing as the School Board’s Exhibit Nos. 6 and 16, respectively. Although hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, this does not necessarily mean that the undersigned must use the hearsay in resolving a factual issue. The statements cannot be used as the sole basis to support a finding of fact, because they do not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the statements do not supplement or explain other non-hearsay evidence. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. ("Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions."). At hearing, the parties stipulated to the receipt into evidence of N.E.’s deposition testimony in lieu of her live testimony. Even if the audio statement and written statement could be used by the undersigned, however, the audio statement, written statement, and deposition testimony would not be given any weight based on the live testimony Respondent presented at hearing. Unlike N.E., who did not testify live
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order rescinding the suspension and termination of Respondent, Oscar D. Rizo, and reinstate Respondent with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 18th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
