The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, June C. Rawls, currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 240351, covering the areas of early childhood education and elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent has been employed by the Dade County Public School System for 25 consecutive years and was so employed at all times pertinent to these proceedings. During the 1990-91 school year, respondent was employed as a kindergarten teacher at Gloria Floyd Elementary School. Her class, comprised of 5 and 6-year-olds, was typical in terms of class size, with 22 to 24 students, and in terms of the nature of her students, with the vast majority considered within the "norm" and two or three that might ultimately be identified as "outstanding" or "exceptional" students. Here, petitioner charges that during the 1990-91 school year respondent used inappropriate physical force to discipline or control the behavior of her students, and made inappropriate or disparaging remarks to her students. The proof overwhelmingly supports such charges and demonstrates that not only did respondent subject her youthful charges to such loathsome conduct, but that she did so on a routine basis. 1/ Regarding the verbal abuse respondent visited upon her students, the proof demonstrates that she routinely spoke in a loud, harsh and intimidating voice, and ridiculed, mocked and denigrated her students. Exemplifying the tenor of remarks she vented upon various of her student or the class are the following: "You're no good, I know you're no good, you're mother knows you're no good and you're father knows you're know [sic] good so sit down and shut up." In a 7 minute tirade, abraded a student with the following remarks: the "reason you're parents don't like you; you are so bad; when you come home tonight you're parents are going to be gone, they're going to go off and leave you; you are so bad; nobody likes you, you're parents don't love you." Abrading the entire class, she commented with regard to their comparative worth with the class next door, which was a prekindergarten, high risk, special education class, the following: "If you don't shut up you're going to be like those kids next door, you know what their like. If you don't, you're going to be just like those children next door; you are just like those children next door; you're stupid; you're dumb." Upon being advised by another teacher that she had found a dollar lying on respondent's classroom floor, and one of the respondent's students averring that it was his, respondent remarked in a loud strident voice so the entire class could hear that he "was a sick puppy, . . . he would never amount to anything and it was no wonder his parents didn't like him and [that the other teacher] shouldn't touch the money since it had been in his underwear." And, variously, "you're not worth anything," and "you're dumb, you're never going to be anything." In addition to the loud, harsh and intimidating voice respondent used to address her students, she was also physically abusive towards them. In this regard, the proof demonstrates the following: Respondent would occasionally drag students across the floor by their wrists to the "time out corner," and slap them; pick students off the ground by their wrists and shake them; and roughly push or slam them into their seats or on the floor. On one occasion, respondent picked a student up by the jaws, about two feet off the floor, and carried the child about seven or eight feet across the room. Respondent was observed pushing students, pulling their hair, squeezing their ears and pinching them. On one occasion, respondent was observed angrily throwing a back pack and lunch box across the classroom, and on another occasion, she was observed to have kicked a child who had kicked another child. Finally, respondent was observed to have forced her students to sit in a cross legged position, and when one child apparently was having problems because the child's legs were getting cramped and opened them up, respondent took the child's legs and slammed them close to cross them again. The foregoing incidents of verbal and physical abuse reflect the tenor of respondent's conduct toward her students during the course of the 1990-91 school year, which was routinely punctuated by verbal haranguing. Such conduct failed to present a good example, as a role model, for the students or set a good example for the children to emulate in dealing with their peers; caused various students to become hysterical,cower, cry and fear respondent; damaged their self esteem; and raised concern that her rough handling of students could result in serious injury to them, such as damage to their spinal cord. Respondent's conduct during the 1990-91 school year was condemned by her peers and parents. Such conduct evidenced a reckless indifference to the mental and physical well-being of her students, was contrary to Dade County Public School policy which forbids the use of corporal punishment, and such punishment was administered contrary to the provisions of state law. Section 232.27, Florida Statutes. While respondent's conduct during the 1990-91 school year forms the basis for the charges lodged against her by petitioner, the proof demonstrates, as elicited by respondent, that her abusive behavior was not limited to that school year. Rather, the proof demonstrates that the demeanor she exhibited towards her students deteriorated over the two-year period preceding the 1990-91 school year, and her verbal haranguing continued into the 1991-92 school year even though she had been reassigned to teach a higher grade level. In December 1991, respondent's physician advised her, after consulting him for some "physical problems," that "different chemicals within [her] body were elevated and he thought [she] should seek counseling or take some time off from work." Consequently, respondent took two weeks leave, in addition to her normal Christmas holidays, and during such time saw a psychologist for counseling. The record is, however, devoid of any proof concerning respondent's diagnosis, the purpose for the counseling, the frequency of the counseling, or the prognosis for her recovery from the condition, albeit unexplained of record, which prompted her referral to counseling. What does appear of record is, however, the fact that what ever counseling she received was limited to December 1991, and that she has sought no counseling since that time. In January 1991, following the Christmas holidays, respondent returned to Gloria Floyd Elementary School, where she remained until she was transferred to another school in May 1992. Apparently no change occurred in respondent's behavior because, notwithstanding counseling, respondent's principal was of the opinion, which is credited, that respondent "should leave the classroom . . . I don't think she should be teaching elementary school." While severe, the conclusion that respondent should not be permitted to return to the classroom, at the current time, is well supported by the clear and present danger respondent posed to her students' mental and physical well- being during the 1990-91 school year, and the lack of any compelling proof that such conduct would not reasonably be expected to repeat itself. In so concluding, respondent's testimony that she has not suffered similar problems during the 1992-93 school year has not been overlooked; however, such testimony is not persuasive or credible given respondent's contemporaneous denial, in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary, that she ever committed any of the acts of verbal or physical abuse heretofore discussed, and would never have done so because it would have been "demeaning and disparaging" to the students. In sum, respondent is either a prevaricator or her grasp of reality is so distorted as to lack reliability, such that her testimony is unworthy of belief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which permanently revokes respondent's teaching certificate for a term of five (5) years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 26th day of February 1993.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a classroom teacher, committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has held Florida teaching certificate 497810 issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of journalism. This certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. Respondent was 36 years old at the time of the formal hearing and had been a teacher for 14 years, 13 of which were in the Dade County School District. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Palmetto Middle School, one of the schools in the Dade County School District. D. K. is a female who was fifteen years old at the time of the formal hearing. During the 1992-93 school year, D. K. was a student in Respondent's homeroom and in his honors history class. D. K. is a good student who made primarily As or Bs. At different times during January 1993, Respondent made certain comments to D. K. The conflicts in the evidence as to what was said are resolved by finding that in the presence of other students in the room Respondent made the following comments to D. K. told her that she was a nice, sweet, good-looking girl; told her that someday she will make someone a wonderful wife; told her that if he were younger he would marry her; asked her how many children she wanted; told her that he was going to law school, and that when he finished, that they could get married; told her that he had two children and that if they married she would be the stepmother of his two children; told her that her parents would not approve of her dating such an older man. D. K. felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by Respondent's comments. D. K. told her mother about the comments as they occurred. D. K.'s mother believed that Respondent's comments were inappropriate, but she did not think Respondent was trying to establish an inappropriate relationship with D. K. D. K. testified that when Respondent told her that she would make someone a good wife he was talking in general terms and not insinuating that he wanted to marry her himself. On February 19, 1993, Respondent was absent from his classroom. Some of the students began to look into his desk. One student, a male who had previously teased D. K. about other matters, found a picture of D. K. taped to the pullout writing tablet of Respondent's desk. D. K. was teased by some of the students in the class and she was embarrassed. D. K. told her mother about the students finding her picture in Respondent's desk the day the incident occurred. The following day, D. K. and her mother reported the incident with the picture and the comments that had been made to the assistant principal of Palmetto Middle School. D. K. was immediately transferred out of Respondent's homeroom and assigned to a different history class. On or about June 2, 1993, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the principal of Palmetto Middle School because of his conduct with D. K. Respondent testified, credibly, that D. K. had been teased by certain of the male students and that her self-esteem had suffered. He testified that he made these comments to D. K. only because he was trying to make D. K. feel good about herself and to have greater self-esteem. D. K. gave Respondent the picture of herself that was found taped to the sliding writing tablet. Respondent taped the picture to the writing tablet because he felt that the sliding writing tablet would be a good place to put the photograph and he taped it so it would not fall off. He was not trying to embarrass D. K. by placing the picture on the writing tablet. Respondent never propositioned D. K., he never asked her out on a date, and he never attempted to make inappropriate contact with her. Respondent was not trying to flirt with D. K. or make inappropriate sexual advances towards her. Respondent's comments were inappropriate. These comments did not impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which dismisses the administrative complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, 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 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7717 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 and 4 were admitted by Respondent in response to Petitioner's request for admissions, but are rejected as findings of fact as being irrelevant to the issues. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 11 and 12 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 411 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Paul W. Lane, holds teacher's certificate number 323312, issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of substitute teaching. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1993. Pertinent to this case, respondent was on a list of authorized substitute teachers in the Broward County School District, and during the 1989- 90 school year he was assigned as a substitute teacher at Plantation Middle School. In May 1990, a complaint was lodged with school authorities by one of respondent's students, Debi Keefe, regarding respondent's conduct. Following investigation, respondent was removed from the list of approved substitute teachers for the Broward County School District. 1/ Regarding the complaint lodged by Debi Keefe (Debi), the proof demonstrates that during the course of the 1989-90 school year, she was an eighth grade student at Plantation Middle School and was occasionally assigned to respondent's internal suspension class (ISC). On or about May 10, 1990, she was informed by a member of the faculty that he was going to return her to respondent's ISC, at which time Debi objected and accused respondent of various acts of misconduct which she contended occurred while previously assigned to his ISC. The acts of misconduct voiced by Debi, that were identified at hearing, were essentially four in number. First, she testified that when she wore her bicycle shorts to school, respondent would tell her to lift her shirt so he could see her "fat thing" (vagina). Second, when, following respondent's inquiry as to where she would be going for spring break, and Debi informing him that she would be at the beach, respondent stated that if she did "they could do it in [the] car". Third, upon becoming aware that Debi was dating her friend's cousin, respondent stated "I hope he fucks you so he makes you scream." Finally, Debi testified that on one occasion during ISC, respondent grabbed her on the leg, and she pushed his hand away. Regarding the later allegation, Debi had no recollection of the circumstances surrounding the event, and no conclusion can be drawn regarding the propriety of respondent's action in grabbing Debi's leg from the paucity of proof. According to Debi, she at first thought respondent's remarks to be a joke, but because they had continued, she elected to make her disclosure when faced with reassignment to his ISC. She was not really scared or embarrassed by respondent's remarks, but they did make her feel uncomfortable. Following Debi's revelations to the authorities at Plantation Middle School, an investigation was undertaken which included interviews with other students who had been in respondent's classes that school year. During the course of that investigation, three other students revealed what they felt was objectionable conduct by respondent. Those three students, Chantalle Habersham, Marilyn Gonzales, and Catherine Illiano testified at hearing as to the events which follow. Chantalle Habersham (Chantalle) was a seventh grade student in respondent's drop out prevention class for the 1989-90 school year. On Chantalle's fourteenth birthday, in May 1990, respondent announced that, following the end of class, he was going to give Chantalle some birthday "licks" (spanks), thereafter took her over his knee, and gave her fourteen licks across her buttocks. According to Chantalle, each time respondent gave her a lick, he rubbed his hand across her buttocks, but she declined to characterize such contact as a caress. At the time, Chantalle was wearing slacks and the spanking occurred in front of approximately four other students. Although embarrassed by the incident, it did not really scare Chantalle or make her angry. Nor was Chantalle's birthday spanking the first of such events in respondent's class. Rather, such had become a ritual or game, although perhaps ill advised, during the course of the year. Chantalle further testified regarding a spelling test where respondent used the word "saliva" in a sentence to demonstrate its meaning to the class. According to Chantalle, the sentence selected by respondent was as follows: "When I kiss Chantalle, saliva ran out my mouth". Chantalle did not, at the time, interpret respondent's statement to be a sexual or intimate reference on his part, but did find it embarrassing. Marilyn Gonzales (Marilyn) was a seventh grade student in respondent's language arts class, during the 1989-90 school year and also participated in track, where respondent was her coach. According to Marilyn, on one occasion during the school year she experienced a cramp in her thigh while running and respondent offered his assistance to alleviate the problem. While rubbing her thigh to isolate the area where the pain was located, Marilyn says that respondent "touched [her] vagina" once. Marilyn further testified that respondent, on another occasion, "touched [her] butt". On each of these occasions Marilyn was wearing shorts, and respondent did not then, nor did he ever, make any sexually suggestive remarks toward her. Regarding Marilyn's allegations of "touching," the record is devoid of any specificity as to the manner in which respondent "touched" Marilyn's vagina on one occasion and the manner in which or the circumstances surrounding the one occasion on which he "touched" her buttocks. Under such circumstances, the proof is as susceptible of demonstrating accidental contact, as it is an improper touching on respondent's part. Finally, Marilyn testified regarding an event that occurred in respondent's ISC while she and Chantalle were passing out papers. According to Marilyn, she and Chantalle were discussing, in respondent's presence, Marilyn's sister, who was single and pregnant with her second child. During the course of that conversation, respondent was attributed with saying something to the effect that, "if a girl lay down and spread her legs something would happen." Such statement was not, however, shown to be a sexually suggestive remark, nor was it so taken by Marilyn. Rather, considering the context in which it was uttered, such remark was, as likely as not, intended to evoke caution least the girls find themselves in the same predicament as Marilyn's sister. Catherine Illiano (Catherine) was an eighth grade student at Plantation Middle School during the 1989-90 school year and participated in after school athletics, discus and shot put, for which respondent was the coach. According to Catherine, on one such afternoon she and Marilyn Gonzales, along with the other girls who were participating in shot put and discus, were gathered, and respondent stated to Marilyn that "he liked her big titties", and then turned to Catherine and stated "don't worry, I like little ones too." While such statements were certainly improper, the circumstances surrounding such remarks were not adequately explicated at hearing to demonstrate baseness or depravity. Finally, Catherine also testified that on another afternoon respondent stated to her that her "father wouldn't like it if [she] had a black hand across [her] ass". When asked why respondent made such a statement, Catherine answered: I don't know. We were just talking about the shot put and we were all playing around and he bursted out with that. While the circumstances surrounding the incident are sparse, they suggest, as likely as not, that respondent's statement was intended as a reproach for Catherine's disruptive conduct at the time, rather than for any improper motivation. Contrasted with the recollections of Debi, Chantalle, Marilyn and Catherine, respondent testified that, but for the birthday spanking of Chantalle, which did occur, and his current lack of recollection regarding the statement made by him during the spelling test, that the remaining statements or conduct attributed to him by the other students did not occur. Considering the proof offered in this case, with due deference to the standard of proof applicable to these proceedings, discussed infra, compels the conclusion that respondent was not shown to have committed any improper or immoral act when he touched Debi and Marilyn, and was not shown to have committed an improper or immoral act when he spanked Chantalle on her birthday. Such conduct was also not shown to seriously reduce respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the District, or to constitute the intentional exposure of a student to unnecessary embarrassment or the exploitation of a professional relationship for personal gain or advantage. 2/ Regarding the remarks attributed to respondent by Debi, Chantalle, Marilyn, and Catherine, the proof in this case is compelling that respondent did utter such remarks. The remarks uttered to Debi, a fourteen-year-old girl at the time, were base, exposed her to unnecessary disparagement, and seriously reduced respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the District. The remarks uttered to Chantalle, Marilyn and Catherine, while not shown to be of such inherent baseness as to rise to the level of gross immorality, were nevertheless improper and, to varying degrees, demonstrated respondent's failure to fulfill his duty of providing leadership and effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered which permanently revokes respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of August 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 27th day of August 1991.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Respondent's admissions in the Election of Rights form and on the exhibits and testimony received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 554716 covering the subject of Spanish, issued September 29, 1986, and valid through June 30, 1991. At all times material hereto, the Respondent taught in the Hillsborough County, Florida, school district at Middleton Junior High School. On or about March 23, 1981, the Respondent was arrested by the Lumberton, North Carolina, Police Department and charged with forgery. On or about June 6, 1984, the Respondent submitted an Application for a Teaching Position to the Hillsborough County (Florida) Public Schools in which she certified that she had never been arrested for a criminal offense. On or about June 28, 1984, June 27, 1985, and July 23, 1985, the Respondent submitted applications for teacher's certificates to the Department of Education of the State of Florida in which she certified that she neither had been convicted, nor had adjudication withheld, of a criminal offense. On or about December 10, 1986, the Respondent was arrested by the Tampa (Florida) Police Department and charged with grand theft and uttering a forged instrument. On or about May 28, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty before the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, to one count of grand theft in violation of Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and 18 counts of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. Said court thereupon adjudicated the Respondent guilty of said felonies and sentenced her to six months community control and four and one-half years probation. On or about February 23, 1988, the Respondent was arrested by the University of South Florida Police Department, Tampa, Florida, and charged with four counts of uttering a forged instrument. In or about May, 1988, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty by the Circuit Court of having violated the terms of her probation in violation of Section 948.06, Florida Statutes, and she was sentenced to three years in prison.
Recommendation Based on all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations described in the foregoing conclusions of law and permanently revoking the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 22nd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2993 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings submitted by all parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. (The evidence in support of these proposed findings does not even reach the level of competent substantial evidence.) Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant in view of the lack of proof regarding paragraph 9. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted in substance, with some incorrect details modified. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Accepted. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings proposed by Respondent (None.) COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemary E. Armstrong and Catherine Peek McEwen 401 South Florida Avenue Post Office Box 3273 Tampa, Florida 33601-3273 Iris Locklear Zapata Florida Correctional Institution Post Office Box 147 Lowell, Florida 32663 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted certification as a law enforcement officer under the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-16, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the matter to' be determined deals with the propriety of the denial of certification based upon the belief on the part of the Respondent that Petitioner does not have the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. See Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Sheriff's Office of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, had submitted an Affidavit of Certification for Petitioner Harold B. Walbey, Jr. In response to that affidavit, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issued a Statement of Denial, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The basis of denial was related to the belief that Petitioner did not evidence the requisite good moral character required for certification. See Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes. In particular, the denial related to a series of events leading to the revocation of Petitioner's Florida Teaching Certificate by order of the State Board of Education entered on October 12, 1979. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 is a copy of that order of revocation together with the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The revocation of the teacher's license was premised upon a conclusion of law that Petitioner had committed acts of gross immorality and moral turpitude in his relationship with junior high school female students in the school in which he taught. Those acts had sexual connotations. It was also determined in law that Respondent had lost his effectiveness as a teacher in view of the underlying circumstances. Petitioner took issue with the denial of his law enforcement certificate and requested a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and a hearing was held on October 8, 1982, in Jacksonville, Florida. On November 2, 1981, Petitioner was employed as a temporary or probationary employee of the Sheriff's Office, in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, in the position of Correctional Officer at the County Prison Farm and remains in that employment at this time. Duties of the Petitioner would include floor assignment, medication, food, preparation for commitment, booking, releasing and other functions. Among those other functions Petitioner transports female inmates, by motor vehicle, with no other law enforcement official or other person in attendance. These trips in which Petitioner has custody and control over female inmates are infrequent. Officials within the Duval County Sheriff's Office who presented Petitioner's Affidavit of Certification maintain a neutral posture on the question of his certification and have vouched for Petitioner to the extent necessary to elicit a final decision from Respondent on the question of certification. The chief personnel officer for the Duval County Sheriff's Office feels that the Petitioner would make a good employee if he has become sufficiently rehabilitated following the incidents which led to the revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate. Petitioner is well accepted by his superiors in his capacity as Correctional Officer and has received acceptable performance evaluations. Petitioner has been married three (3) times and is the father of twelve (12) children, none of which reside with him. He is responsible for furnishing support to his children. Petitioner holds a BS degree from Edward Waters College and a Masters degree from Florida A & M University. He has served in the military, both in the Air Force and the Army National Guard. Walbey is now forty-five (45) years of age. Testimony from community leaders and neighbors and acquaintances of Petitioner show him to be a person deemed to be reputable and hard working and a fine neighbor. No testimony was offered related to efforts which Petitioner had made in trying to effect his rehabilitation through professional assistance on the topic of those matters which caused him to lose his teaching certificate or opportunities in which Petitioner had conducted himself with proper decorum when in the presence of young women following that disciplinary action. Petitioner did not concede the facts of those incidents leading to the revocation as a part of his presentation.
Findings Of Fact Thomas Pelley, the Respondent, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 318598, Standard, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1982, covering the area of furniture repair. The Respondent was employed during the 1978-79 school year in the public schools of Orange County at the Westside Adult Center in Winter Garden, Florida, as an instructor in furniture upholstery. The then Florida Professional Practices Council received a report from officials of the Orange County School System indicating that the Respondent had allegedly misappropriated school funds to his personal use. Pursuant to Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, an inquiry was conducted into the matter and a report made to the Professional Practices Council which culminated in the Commissioner of Education finding probable cause to file a proceeding against the Respondent, which probable cause finding was entered on November 5, 1979. The Respondent and his students typically engaged in the repair and re- upholstery of furniture brought in by members of the public at a reduced price as part of the training program in the occupation of re-upholstery. The procedure for payment for this re-upholstery work was that the customers wrote a check after Mr. Pelley wrote a "training order" and then Mr. Pelley was to submit the customer's money to the school bookkeeper in order to requisition material for the re-upholstery work involved. At the conclusion of the job the customer would come to the school office and pay for whatever charges were left for the labor and take custody of the furniture. Mr. Pelley did not comply with that procedure, however, with regard to customers Vicki Teal, Carol Johnson, and Winifred Good. In these instances involving work done for these customers, the Respondent was paid by the customers directly. The Respondent was fully informed of the proper procedure for payment by the customers for upholstery work. Customer Vicki Teal complained on one occasion that a sofa she had left to be re-upholstered had the wrong material installed on it and that Mr. Pelley had refused to replace the materials with those that she had actually ordered. Ms. Good and Ms. Johnson similarly complained about the workmanship on the furniture they had left to be repaired. With all three of these customers, the office personnel at the school discovered that they had no record that the customers had ever ordered work to be done by the Respondent and his students, nor that they had purchased anything, until they came forward with their cancel led checks for the same. Each of the checks was endorsed by Mr. Pelley. The subject checks from these three customers totaled $515.29, the funds represented which were received by the Respondent and never turned over to officials of the school, the bookkeeper of the school nor anyone employed by the Orange County School Board for proper accounting and use. Rather, the Respondent converted all of the monies collected to his own personal use. Witness House, who worked with the Respondent at the same school and who was his superior, has had long experience in the education profession and in teaching and dealing with students. He established that such conduct is not a proper example to students and is sufficiently notorious to bring the Respondent and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect, especially in view of the several members of the public directly involved and victimized by the Respondent's misdeeds. It should be pointed out that at the times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was in severe financial straits due to medical expenses incurred by his wife being stricken with cancer.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of wrongfully converting monies to his own use that rightfully belonged to the Orange County School Board, which conduct constitutes gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude and seriously reduces the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board; and that the Respondent's Teaching Certificate be revoked for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of th Division of Administrative Hearing this 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Thomas Pelley 149 Silver Star Road Ocoee, Florida 32761 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged acts of incompetence and ineffectiveness as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated July 23, 1996, in violation of Sections 231.28(1)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 353304, covering the area of English, which is valid through June 30, 1999. During the 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and first half of the 1994-1995 school years, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Oak Ridge High School in the Orange County School District. 3. During the 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 school years, administrators at Oak Ridge High School received numerous complaints from students and parents about the Respondent’s teaching performance. Many students requested permission to be transferred out of the Respondent’s English class because they were not learning anything. 4. During the 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 school years, administrators at Oak Ridge High School conducted both formal and informal observations of Respondent’s teaching performance in the classroom. The administrator’s observations consistently disclosed that Respondent was disorganized and not in control of her students. Respondent exercised poor disciplinary methods with her students. Upon repeated requests, Respondent could not produce her grade book, or other documentation, to support her grading of students. Respondent’s behavior with, and around, students in the classroom was erratic and aberrant. Her actions in and out of the classroom were unusual, inexplicable and disturbing to her students and colleagues. Respondent’s assigned room was disheveled and dirty. Although administrators at the high school offered the Respondent professional help, made useful suggestions and recommended workshops and in-service training, the Respondent failed to follow their advice or attend any workshops or training sessions. As the result of her erratic and aberrant conduct, in January 1995, the Respondent was relieved of her teaching duties by the Orange County School District and directed to undergo psychiatric evaluation. The Respondent refused to comply with said directive. The Orange County School District brought dismissal proceedings against the Respondent based upon her unsatisfactory teaching performance, her inappropriate conduct and behavior, and her refusal to comply with directives. The Respondent failed to respond to the notice of the recommendation for dismissal. Respondent was subsequently dismissed from her position of employment. The Respondent’s teaching performance during the 1992- 1993, 1993-1994 and the first half of the 1994-1995 school years demonstrated that she was incompetent to teach. The Respondent’s personal conduct during the 1992-1993, 1993-1994, and the first half of the 1994-1995 school years at Oak Ridge High School seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Orange County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Respondent, Ruby Lightsey, did violate the provisions of Sections 231.28(1)(b)and (f), Florida Statutes, due to her incompetence and ineffectiveness. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent’s teaching certificate subject to re-application upon such conditions as the Education Practices Commission shall deem appropriate and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904)488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South 9th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Ms. Ruby Lightsey 524 Kittredge Drive Orlando, Florida 32805 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director The Florida Education Center Room 224-B 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The substantive issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondents Florida teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked based upon the allegations of Petitioner's complaint dated June 4, 1987. Respondent has raised various procedural issues in his written documents and in a telephone motion hearing held on November 10, 1987. Those issues include whether he has already surrendered his teaching certificate, whether the investigation was proper and whether the formal hearing was properly scheduled.
Findings Of Fact Based upon a consideration of all evidence properly made part of the record in this proceeding, the following findings are made: David Cunningham is now, and was at all times relevant, certified as an elementary school teacher under State of Florida Certificate No. 468382. The certified copy received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 reveals a date of issue of April 14, 1986 and an expiration date of June 30, 1990. No competent evidence was presented to support Respondent's allegation that the certificate was invalid or otherwise lawfully relinquished or revoked. David Cunningham was employed as an elementary teacher at Caley Elementary School in Orlando, Florida during school year 1983-84, until March 1984, when he was placed on leave without pay for the remainder of the school year. Dynell Harrell was a fifth grade student in Cunningham's reading class during the first semester of 1983-84 at Caley. Dynell was twelve years old at the time. During the second semester of 1983-84, Dynell transferred to another school, but began having contacts with Cunningham outside of the school setting. The two went to amusement parks and to restaurants. On only one occasion they were accompanied by Dynell's siblings. Dynell began spending weekends at Cunningham's house. Cunningham gave him presents of clothes, shoes, and money - - $20 or $30 at a time, for an eventual total of at least $500. On the occasion of the second weekend visit, Cunningham got in bed with Dynell. Later, during the night, he began touching and rubbing the youth and took his clothes off. In response to Dynell's question of what was going on, Cunningham responded with a reminder of their friendship and all the things he had done to benefit him. They engaged in oral sex at that time. After that, the sexual contact was routine on the weekend visits, once or twice a month. Cunningham engaged Dynell in oral and anal sex and gave him vodka and cigarettes. Dynell was afraid to tell anyone as he thought he would lose his friend. He also felt he owed Cunningham a favor. During this time, Dynell's mother noticed a withdrawal of her son from his close relationship with her. She was somewhat suspicious of Cunningham's interest but Dynell denied that Cunningham had ever asked him to do anything that he didn't want to do. She believed him because she felt he would be candid with her. At the beginning of the seventh grade, Dynell went to Illinois to live with his grandmother in Illinois. Cunningham called him on the phone, but his grandmother was suspicious and didn't let Dynell talk. On one occasion, Cunningham stopped at the grandmother's house on his way to North Dakota. The grandmother let Cunningham take Dynell out to eat, but only in the company of Dynell's cousin. Dynell also wanted his cousin to come along as he figured nothing could happen if they were not alone. Cunningham told Dynell he wanted to continue seeing him, but Dynell did not want that and responded that he would be in Chicago and would not be able to see Cunningham. Dynell has had no further contact with Cunningham, even after the youth's return to Florida in eighth grade. Dynell has received mental health counseling to help him deal with the relationship with Cunningham. Dynell has been reluctant to associate along with male students and adult males, and refused to participate in his church's Big Brother program unless one of his friends is able to accompany him. John Hawco, administrator of Employee Relations for the Orange County School Board, would not recommend that Cunningham ever be employed in any position in which he would be exposed to children. His effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously impaired by his conduct toward his former student. He exploited his professional relationship with that student in return for personal gain and advantage. By certified letters and through contacts with Cunningham's prior attorney Jerry Whitmore, consultant for the State Department of Education, provided notices to Cunningham regarding the complaint and investigation. Cunningham sent his original teaching certificate to the investigator, stating that he should not be investigated as his certificate was no longer valid. The investigation continued, again with notice to Cunningham. He declined to participate in an informal conference and refused to indicate on the Election of Rights form provided to him which option he chose in response to the complaint: voluntary surrender for permanent revocation, admission of allegations and request for informal hearing, or dispute of allegations and request for a formal hearing by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Instead, he appended a separate statement to the form disputing the allegations and arguing that he was not a valid certificate holder as his certificate was based on a correspondence course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that David Martin Cunningham's Florida teaching certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire RIGS BY & HOLDER 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. David Cunningham 8775 20th Street, #921 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
