The Issue Whether respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on charges of professional misconduct, including gross immorality, acts involving moral turpitude, conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, exploiting a professional relationship with a student for personal gain, and failing to conform to standards of ethical conduct, in violation of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.06(3)(e) and (h), and 6B-1.01(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate 342171, covering the area of physical education. At all times material to the administrative complaint, respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Lake Worth High School in the Palm Beach County School District. From 1973, when he joined the Palm Beach County School District, to the date of his suspension for the acts complained of in the administrative complaint, he was consistently rated to be a good teacher. His teaching ability and performance were not in question. He also maintained a close relationship with his students, frequently assisting them beyond the requirements of his job. On the afternoon of May 23, 1983, at approximately 2:30 p.m., respondent entered the K-Mart department store in Lantana, Florida, accompanied by his niece, Cathy Brown. While shopping in the store, he selected a 68-quart cooler, bearing a price tag of $43.58, then proceeded to the hardware department, where he selected a Black and Decker electric drill, bearing a price tag of $22.99. He left the hardware department and proceeded to the garden/patio area or Garden Shop. Before reaching the double glass doors separating the main building from the Garden Shop, he stopped and placed the large box (containing the 68-quart cooler) and the small box (containing the electric drill) on the floor at the end of an aisle approximately 30 feet from the double glass doors. Be then walked directly to the double glass doors opening onto the Garden Shop, and glanced in the direction of the checkout counter located at the Garden Shop exit. He then walked back past the cooler and electric drill, and proceeded into the appliance department where he met Cathy Brown. Ms. Brown had previously selected a package of hair curlers, bearing a price tag of $1.38. He and Ms. Brown briefly examined several items on a display counter in the appliance department, then returned to the place where he had placed the cooler and electric drill. He picked up these two items and proceeded to the Garden Shop; Cathy Brown, who was carrying the hair curlers, accompanied him. Jeanette Grimes, a 17-year-old Lake Worth High School student, was--at that particular time--the cashier at the register located at the Garden Shop checkout counter. Ms. Grimes knew respondent. Be had been her physical education teacher for two years and basketball coach for one year. She considered him a friend. As respondent approached the checkout counter where Ms. Grimes was serving as cashier, he placed the box containing the cooler and the box containing the electric drill on the floor at the far end of the checkout counter, not on the counter itself. At that time there were customers at the checkout counter who were being waited on by Ms. Grimes. He and Cathy Brown walked away from the checkout counter and began looking at plants. After Ms. Grimes had finished checking out the customers at her counter, he and Ms. Brown again approached the checkout counter, where he engaged Ms. Grimes in conversation. At no time did he place any items on the counter for Ms. Grimes to examine and ring up. At that time she rang up a $1.00 item and a $5.00 item, totalled the transaction at $6.00, then rang up a $.30 tax, and totalled the transaction at $6.30. He handed Ms. Grimes $10.00 in payment for the merchandise. She mistakenly rang up $10.00 for an additional item of merchandise, voided the $10.00 item off her tape, and re-rang $10.00 as cash tendered. At that point the cash register opened and indicated that change in the amount of $3.70 was due. Ms. Grimes gave respondent $3.70 in change and a receipt for the transaction. During the course of ringing up the transaction, the items of merchandise remained on the floor at the end of the counter. Ms. Grimes did not pick up the items and examine them for a price tag while ringing up the amounts. Upon the completion of the transaction, Ms. Brown engaged Ms. Grimes in conversation. Ms. Brown handed to Ms. Grimes the box containing the electric drill and the package containing the curlers; Ms. Grimes placed the items into a bag which she gave to Ms. Brown. Respondent then picked up the box containing the 68-quart cooler and left the store, accompanied by Ms. Brown, who carried the bag containing the curlers and the electric drill. Both respondent and Ms. Brown were aware that they had not paid the full price for the merchandise, and that what they were doing was wrong. Mr. Frank Heim, K-Mart's Lobs Prevention Manager, (store detective) observed respondent's activities in the K-Mart continuously, from the time respondent selected the electric drill in the hardware department to his exit from the store. Mr. Heim observed the transaction at the checkout counter, then immediately proceeded to Ms. Grimes' register, examined the register tape, and proceeded to the parking lot to ask that respondent return to the store. Mr. Heim located respondent at his (respondent's) truck in the parking lot. Respondent had placed the cooler in the back of his truck and Cathy Brown was still holding the bag containing the curlers and the electric drill. Mr. Heim identified himself to respondent, advised him of a problem with the purchase which he had just made, and requested that he return to the store with the merchandise to clear the matter up. Respondent replied that he had paid for the merchandise and had a receipt, that it was not his fault if the cashier rang up the wrong prices. After some additional conversation, respondent removed the cooler from the back of his truck and accompanied Mr. Heim back to the store. Upon entering the store through the Garden Shop entrance, respondent placed the cooler on the floor just inside the entrance, then stopped and attempted to discuss the matter with Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim advised respondent that they could not discuss the matter at that location, that they would have to go to his office. As they approached Mr. Heim's office, respondent again stopped, placed the cooler and the bag containing the other two items on the floor, and stated to Mr. Heim that he was not going inside his office. Mr. Heim replied that they could not discuss the matter in the store, and that respondent would have to accompany him inside his office. Respondent replied that he did not have time to discuss the matter, that he was in a hurry and had to leave. Mr. Heim then advised respondent that he was not free to leave and that he was being detained for shoplifting. Respondent became agitated, stated "You've got your stuff back," and began walking away. Mr. Heim sought help from others, then blocked respondent's path at the glass doors between the main store and the Garden Shop. He told respondent not to make the situation worse by trying to leave the store, but respondent attempted to force his way by Mr. Heim. Mr. Heim grabbed him by the arm and a brief scuffle ensued. At that point, respondent ripped up his cash register receipt and discarded the remnants onto a display counter. Mr. Heim immediately retrieved the remnants and later Scotch- taped the pieces together. After respondent became calmer, he returned with Mr. Heim to his office. After entering the office, Mr. Heim advised respondent of his "Miranda" rights. Mr. Heim asked him for identification and asked him to empty his pockets in order to make sure he had no weapons. Respondent removed a total of approximately $22.00 from one of his socks while in the office. Respondent admits that at the time he entered the K-Mart store, he had only approximately $30.00 on his person. The total retail price of the three items, according to the price tags affixed to each, totalled $67.95. In response to Mr. Heim's questions, respondent continuously stated that it was not his fault that the cashier rang up the wrong prices and that he paid her the amount she rang up. Conflicting accounts of this incident were given by Mr. Heim and respondent. Taking into account Mr. Heim's detached and professional manner, and his lack of apparent bias or motive to falsify, it is concluded that his testimony is more credible than respondent's, and is persuasive. As a result of this incident, respondent was arrested and charged with the crime of retail theft. Based upon the circumstances described herein, Jeanette Grimes was fired by the K-Mart department store. She was also arrested and charged with the crime of retail theft. Jeanette Grimes' job at K-Mart was a requirement for one of her school classes, "Work Experience." As a result of her being fired, she failed the course. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced as a result of his conduct and the accompanying notoriety which it received in the community. The circumstances of his offense, his arrest, and his suspension from his teaching position, all received notoriety through publication of articles in three newspapers of general circulation in the Lake Worth community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission find respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28 and Rule 6B-1.06, as alleged, and revoke his Florida Teacher's Certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire P. O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Chamblee, Esquire 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Donald L. Griesheimer, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Village of Wellington Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-11, is "in compliance" as defined in and required by the "Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act," Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and whether the Plan Amendment is supported by adequate data and analysis as required by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. Polo is a Florida corporation and the owner of real property within the Wellington Country Place Planned Unit Development (PUD), which is located within the Equestrian Preserve of the Village of Wellington, Florida. Polo is a developer of the Wellington Country Place PUD, significant portions of which remain undeveloped. Specifically, the Wellington Country Place PUD is about 30 to 35 percent built-out. Among Polo's real estate holdings in the Village of Wellington is a 17.9-acre parcel of undeveloped, commercially designated land, which is located on South Shore Boulevard at or near the intersection with Green Shores Boulevard. Glen F. Straub and Michael H. Nelson appeared at the final hearing as the corporate representatives of Polo. Mr. Nelson lives in Wellington and is employed by Effective Solutions, Inc., which provides a number of services to Polo, including management services, land use services, and lobbying services. In his lobbying capacity, Mr. Nelson has on numerous occasions advocated Polo's position before the Village. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Straub spoke in opposition to the Amendment at the October 23, 2001, meeting of the Wellington Village Council. Mr. Nelson testified at the October 23, 2001, meeting, in support of the four-laning of the two roadway segments which will remain two-lane roads under the Amendment. Mr. Nelson's objections were made in his capacity as a resident of Wellington and "as an effected [sic] resident from Basin A." The minutes of the October 23, 2001, Wellington Village Council meeting, which were introduced into evidence by Polo to establish its standing, state that "Mr. Straub stated that he was concerned with limiting traffic on South Shore Boulevard. He felt that the Council should consider 4- laning that road." Mr. Nelson also stated: ". . . the Council needed to consider ways to help circulate traffic for residents of Basin A. He felt that there would be a need in the future to 4-lane South Shore and Lake Worth Road." Polo's Amended Petition alleges that "[r]ather than improving these road segments by four laning them - the road segments are currently two lane - the Village through the current amendment seeks to lower the LOS to E and add more trips." Mr. Straub testified that a four-lane road might be an alternative. In part, he was concerned that the Village Council did not examine the effect of "build-out" in the area and the impact on traffic and resulting "gridlock" in the area. Mr. Straub views the Amendment (which he says is inconsistent with the Plan) as a "Band-Aid" to fix an ongoing traffic problem. Mr. Straub believes the traffic analysis supplied to the Village Council was performed hastily, incomplete, and inadequate. The Village of Wellington. The Village is a municipality of the State of Florida, with the duty and responsibility under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, to adopt a comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan amendments. The Village is located in the western portion of Palm Beach County and became incorporated in 1995 and operational on March 28, 1996, with the seating of the first Village Council. Following incorporation, the Village adopted its first Comprehensive Plan in 1999. Department of Community Affairs. The Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Among the responsibilities of the Department under the Act is the duty to review plan amendments and determine if the comprehensive plans and plan amendments are in compliance with the Act. Village Review and Adoption of the Amendment The Village Equestrian Preserve Committee was created to review all decisions affecting the Equestrian Preserve prior to the full review by the Village Council. On April 11 and 26, 2001, the Village Equestrian Preserve Committee considered several options for the designated roadways, including the proposed Amendment. On May 9, 2001, the Village Equestrian Preserve Committee voted to recommend approval of the Amendment. On June 7, 2001, the Village Planning, Zoning, and Adjustment Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, recommended approval of the Amendment. The Village planning staff recommended approval of the Amendment. On October 23, 2001, the Village adopted the Amendment by Ordinance No. 2001-11. Department Review of the Amendment The Village submitted the adopted Ordinance No. 2001- 11, the Staff Report, and other supporting documents to the Department for review on October 31, 2001. After a review of the adopted Amendment, on December 13, 2001, the Department sent a letter to the Village, informing the Village that the Amendment was "in compliance" as that term is defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance" pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. This notice was published in the Palm Beach Post on December 17, 2001. The Existing Village Comprehensive Plan The Village's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1999, by Ordinance No. 99-01. Subsequently, the existing Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by the Department and found to be "in compliance" with the Act. The Transportation Element of the existing Village Plan contains the following Goal, Objective, and Policy: Goal 1.0 Provide a transportation system that meets the needs of the Village of Wellington and the larger community of which the Village is a part while maintaining a high quality of life for Village residents and businesses. Objective 1.1 Motorized and non-motorized transportation system: Achieve a safe, convenient, and efficient motorized and non-motorized transportation system consisting of arterial, collector and local street and roads; pedestrian ways; bicycle ways and equestrian trails which provide: acceptable levels of service; 2) alternative routes of travel for major traffic flows; and 3) minimal vehicular intrusion into residential neighborhoods. This objective shall be made measurable by implementing policies. [9J-5.007(3)(b)(1)] Policy 1.1.1. provides, in part, LOS standards for streets and roads in the Village. All Village arterial and collector streets and all Village local streets and roads have a Level of Service (LOS) D and all Village rural collector streets have a LOS E. By definition in the Plan, "Rural Collector" and "Rural Local Roads and Streets" shall be designed to maximize safety and minimize traffic speeds in the Equestrian Preserve Area. They shall be no more than two lanes, except for turn lanes, in the case of "Rural Collector" roads. The Transportation Element includes the "Future Transportation Map." This map's legend identifies the various types of roadways within the Village, which are graphically depicted on the map. Some of the roadways have different classifications for discrete roadway segments. The Plan includes an optional section entitled "Equestrian Preservation Element," which is designed to preserve the Village's equestrian community. The data and analysis for this Plan Element provides: (1) a history, overview, and assessment of the Village's equestrian industry; (2) an assessment of the potential threats and opportunities affecting that industry; and (3) actions which may be taken to further the preservation and integration of the equestrian industry and rural lifestyle into the fabric of the growing community. The Equestrian Preservation Element supplements other provisions of the Plan which relate to the Equestrian Preserve area. It is not the sole portion of the Plan which applies to that area. The Equestrian Preservation Element was placed in the Plan to protect the unique character of the Equestrian Preserve area. It identifies the equestrian uses that are found there and seeks to preserve the rural lifestyle that is found in the equestrian area. The Equestrian Preservation Element includes data and analysis, Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs), and a Future Equestrian Circulation Map, which includes roads and equestrian trails. Unlike this map and the GOPs, the data and analysis are not adopted portions of the Plan. The Equestrian Preservation Element of the existing Plan contains the following Goal, Objective, and Policies: Goal 1.0 The goal of this element is to ensure the preservation and protection of the neighborhoods which comprise this area, the equestrian industry and the rural lifestyles which exist in the Equestrian Preserve. Objective 1.3 The Village shall control traffic volume, speed and type within the Equestrian Preserve to limit the negative impacts of high volume, high speed and through traffic on the Equestrian Preserve. This objective shall be made measurable by its implementing policies and by limiting vehicular speed on rural roads, installation of signage, road design features, implementation of capital improvement projects and other actions of the Village Council. Policy 1.3.1 Within one year of the effective date of this plan, the Village will develop a traffic-calming plan for all roadways in the Equestrian Preserve. This plan shall: Minimize traffic through the area by considering alternative routes around the area; Provide for safe equestrian crossings at all identified points of vehicular and equestrian conflict. Particular attention shall be paid to the intersection of South Shore and Pierson Road and Lake Worth Road and South Shore Boulevard and generally along Pierson Road; Provide for a reduction in speed through the installation of traffic circles, speed humps, four-way stop signs or other traffic calming measures as deemed appropriate by the Village Engineer. Policy 1.3.3 Roadways within the Equestrian Preserve shall be maintained as two-lane facilities. Adopted levels of service for these roadways shall be Level of Service E. As noted, the Equestrian Preservation Element gives special planning treatment to the Village's equestrian preserve area to protect its equestrian nature and rural lifestyle. The Element protects the Equestrian Preserve by controlling the impacts of traffic. It treats traffic and roadways inside the Equestrian Preserve differently from that outside the Preserve. It seeks to limit through-traffic in the Equestrian Preserve by reducing speeds and level of service, and requiring traffic signage and calming measures in the Preserve. The Element also establishes an Equestrian Committee to review and make recommendations regarding development proposals in the Preserve. The Amendment On October 23, 2001, the Village Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-11, which approves certain amendments to the Plan. The Ordinance adopted various changes to the Transportation and Capital Improvements Elements related to the creation and implementation of a new roadway classification, "Rural Arterial." The Transportation Element Policy 1.1.1 establishes LOS standards for roadways depicted on the Future Transportation Map, identifies corresponding criteria for each roadway, and defines roadway classifications and qualifying criteria. Prior to the Amendment, "[a]ll Village arterial and collector streets" and "[a]ll Village rural collector streets," had an LOS of D and E, respectively. (The Future Transportation Map shows the types of roadways and the segment classifications for each of the various roadways within the Village.) The Amendment amends the Transportation Element Policy 1.1.1 of the Plan to create the new Village roadway classification of "Rural Arterial" and to adopt an LOS standard of "E" for all Village Rural Arterial roads and describes these roads as follows: These roads shall be designed to maximize safety and minimize traffic speeds in the Equestrian Preserve Area. They shall be no more than two lanes, except for turn lanes. Rural Arterial Roads shall be paved and shall be designed and marked in a manner to limit vehicular speeds. Transportation Element Policy 1.5.2 is amended and adopts right-of-way widths for roadways based on their classification in Policy 1.1.1. Under Policy 1.5.2, all public roads, except local streets, must have right-of-way widths of 120 feet. The Amendment provides a right-of-way width of 120 feet for Rural Arterial roads "to allow comfortable separation between vehicles and horses." The Amendment also amends the Transportation Element to designate two roadway segments within the Village as Rural Arterial on the Future Transportation Map. These re- designated roadway segments are South Shore Boulevard from Pierson Road to Lake Worth Road, and Lake Worth Road from 120th Street West to South Shore Boulevard (the roadway segments). The roadway segments are located in the Wellington Country Place PUD and the Equestrian Preserve. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) Policy 1.2.1 mirrors Transportation Policy 1.1.1 to a large extent by reiterating the same LOS standards. CIE Policy 1.2.1 identifies criteria for various roadways, as does Transportation Policy 1.1.1. With respect to arterial and collector streets, pre-Amendment CIE Policy 1.2.1 described the qualifying criteria as "[u]ntil such time and at such locations as signalized intersections exceed 2.49 per mile." The Amendment deletes this description. CIE Policy 1.2.1 also was amended to delete the description of Village Rural Arterial roads as having "2.49 or fewer intersections per mile." Under the Amendment, this Policy refers to all Village Rural Arterial roads as having an LOS standard of E with no mention of signalization or intersections or other qualifying criteria. The Amendment also amends the CIE to include funding for the improvement of the two re-designated roadway segments in the five-year capital improvements schedule in the CIE. The two roadway segments are to be reconstructed as two-lane roadways with a median and turn lanes. The term "rural" in the context of the Village's roadway classifications refers to a roadway lying within the Equestrian Preserve. It is not used to describe the nature of the roadway's surroundings. See endnote 2. Polo's Amended Petition Polo alleges that the Amendment is not "in compliance" because it is internally inconsistent with Transportation Element Goal 1.0 and Objective 1.1, and Equestrian Element Objective 1.3 of the Village Comprehensive Plan. Polo also alleges that the Amendment is inconsistent with the Wellington Country Place Planned Unit Development (Wellington PUD), which is, according to Polo, incorporated into the Village Comprehensive Plan and contemplates that the two road segments in question will be four-laned. Further, Polo alleges that the Amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(6),(8), and (10), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code. In the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, Polo clarified and stated with particularity that its claim of inadequate date and analysis relates to three deficiencies in the Pinder- Troutman traffic analysis relied upon by the Village. Specifically, Polo contended that the Pinder-Troutman traffic analysis is deficient because it (1) used only a one-day traffic count as opposed to three days; (2) failed to properly account for future growth; and (3) did not include a safety analysis. See Findings of Fact 60-74. The Affected Roadways The two roadway segments directly affected by the Amendment are (1) South Shore Boulevard from Pierson Road to Lake Worth Road; and (2) Lake Worth Road from 120th Street to South Shore Boulevard. The two roadway segments are located in the Equestrian Preserve of the Village. Currently, the two roadway segments are two-lane undivided roads. They are designated on the Future Transportation Map of the existing Village Comprehensive Plan as two-lane collector roads with an LOS D. Internal Consistency Polo contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with the following Plan provisions: (1) Transportation Element Goal 1.0; (2) Transportation Element Objective 1.1; and (3) Equestrian Preserve Element Objective 1.3. The existing Village Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1999, and subsequently reviewed and determined to be "in compliance" by the Department. The Department’s final determination of compliance included a determination that the provisions of the Village's original Comprehensive Plan were internally consistent and supported by adequate date and analysis. In determining the internal consistency of the Amendment with existing provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, each Comprehensive Plan Goal and its umbrella Objectives and Policies must be read and considered together. It is not appropriate to read and interpret an individual Policy in isolation. Maintaining the high quality of the equestrian lifestyle for the Equestrian Preserve Area is a major goal for the Village. Transportation Policy 1.1.19 recognizes the unique character of the Equestrian Preserve Area, and the need to preserve it, by requiring the Village to "implement its system of streets and roads in coordination with the system of equestrian trials and other equestrian facilities set forth in the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Equestrian Element." Limiting the speed for through-traffic and discouraging cut-through traffic is consistent with Goal 1.0 and Objective 1.1 of the Transportation Element. The Amendment accomplishes this by limiting the Rural Arterial roads to two lanes, and adding medians and turn lanes to those roadways. Such traffic limitations are required by the Equestrian Preservation Element. In that Element's data and analysis section, it is stated that the Village will adopt an LOS of E for roads within the Equestrian Preserve Area in order to protect that area from increasing speeds by widening the rural collector roads to four lanes. Policy 1.3.3 of the Equestrian Preservation Element addresses this concern and provides that roadways within the Equestrian Preserve shall be maintained as two-lane facilities with adopted LOS E. This Policy was found to be internally consistent with Transportation Goal 1.0 and Objective 1.1 and Equestrian Preservation Element Objective 1.3 when the existing Village Plan was found to be "in compliance." Policy 1.3.1 of the Equestrian Preservation Element does not distinguish between classifications of roadways. The Village interprets Policy 1.3.3 to apply to all classes of roadways within the Equestrian Preserve regardless of classifications. The Village's planning expert, Mr. Schofield, testified that, in his opinion, this interpretation is reasonable. Mr. Basehart, Polo's planning expert, testified that Policy 1.3.3 of the Equestrian Preservation Element was intended to address only local roads and collectors because the original Plan did not provide for rural arterials, and that the Village had always intended that the two roadway segments be four-laned. However, the Transportation Element's Future Transportation Map of the existing Village Plan depicts the two roadway segments as two-lane facilities consistent with Policy 1.3.3 of the Equestrian Element. Adopting an LOS standard of E for the newly created Rural Arterial roads and limiting those roadways to two lanes is consistent with Transportation Element Goal 1.0 and Objective 1.0. By continuing to require Equestrian Policy 1.3.3's two-lane requirement and LOS of E for future roads within the Equestrian Preserve Area, the Amendment is consistent with that Policy. Data and Analysis: The Pinder-Troutman Traffic Analysis As noted herein, Polo raised three issues related to the Amendment's data and analysis. Each of those issues relates to the sufficiency of a report prepared by traffic consultants and relied on by the Village as data and analysis to support the Amendment. The March 2001 report is referred to herein as the "Pinder-Troutman Report." The validity of the data, as collected, is not in dispute. Polo's traffic engineer, Mr. Rennebaum, accepted the accuracy of the count data in reaching his conclusions. Prior to the adoption of the Amendment, the Village was experiencing traffic capacity problems with the two roadway segments. The Village asked Pinder-Troutman whether the traffic volume and growth in the area justified a Plan change. To address the problems, in January 2001, the Village retained Pinder-Troutman Consulting, Inc. (Pinder-Troutman) to do a traffic analysis of the two roadway segments and to make recommendations for solving the problem. Pinder-Troutman performed the analysis and submitted an initial report on February 6, 2001, and a final report on March 1, 2001, i.e., the Pinder-Troutman Report. In the February 6, 2001, report, Ms. Troutman, the author of this report, noted that the roadways for the Equestrian area are limited to two lanes with a LOS of E and that in accordance with the Village's adopted Transportation Element, this roadway cross section and LOS correlate to an adopted peak hour directional service volume of 900. (This service volume was derived from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 1995 LOS Manual, Table 5-1, for Urbanized Area arterials.) Directional volumes were derived from count data and annual average conditions examined. Because of the limited count data available for the roadway links in question, peak season factors and historic growth rates were developed, based on available count data for area roadways. An historic growth rate of 4.73 percent was applied. One conclusion reached was that the adopted two-lane LOS E service volume of 900 was projected to be exceeded in one year for Lake Worth Road. In the February 6, 2001, report, Pinder-Troutman concluded that "in order to ensure operation at adopted LOS D standards, in the near future the inclusion of a four-lane cross-section in the equestrian area is recommended." The February report discussed one option for creating additional capacity on the roadway segments. Thereafter, the Village requested Pinder-Troutman to consider, in part, whether the Plan’s classification of the road segments was appropriate. The February and later March studies followed the same methodology, examining growth and the traffic along the corridor. (The February study was attached to the March study.) The March 1, 2001, Pinder-Troutman Report considered various alternatives for improving service volumes to the South Shore Boulevard and Lake Worth Road segments. Turn lanes and medians were specifically evaluated, both of which are design features which increase safety. Traffic data was collected along the corridor, and morning and afternoon intersection turning movement counts were conducted at four locations. Twenty-four hour count data collected by the Village and Palm Beach County were also utilized. The FDOT 1998 LOS Handbook was also utilized to examine the potential for creating additional capacity with the construction of auxiliary turn lanes. A two-tier analysis was performed which included consideration of the appropriateness of utilizing "the category" for "unsignalized uninterrupted flow" for the roadway segments. Based upon observations of the roadway segments, Ms. Troutman testified that there was a minimal amount of traffic entering and exiting the driveways on the roadway segments and that the fixed traffic signals only existed at the ends of the roadway segments. In her judgment, this meant that the flow of traffic was uninterrupted, notwithstanding the placement of a flashing signal at the intersection of South Shore Boulevard and Lake Worth Road (which Ms. Troutman treated as "a fully functional signal"), which is a mile from the traffic signal at the intersection of South Shore Boulevard and Pierson Road, and a traffic signal (flashing yellow signal) at the fire station, which flashes only during emergencies, and is not considered "as a fully-operational signal." See Findings of Fact 70-74. Based on its traffic study and analysis, Pinder- Troutman concluded that LOS D could be maintained on the two roadway segments for at least five years without widening to four lanes1 if the new roadway category of "Rural Arterial" and service volumes for these segments are adopted and a median with turn lanes is provided.2 In the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, Polo alleged that there are three specific deficiencies in the Pinder- Troutman Report’s data and analysis. Specifically, Polo alleged that the Report was inadequate because it: (1) utilized one day of data instead of three; (2) did not properly account for future growth; and (3) did not include a safety analysis. Regarding the traffic counts, using a one-day traffic count does not invalidate the traffic analysis. For traffic studies like the Pinder-Troutman Report, a one-day traffic count is the standard procedure approved by Palm Beach County and the FDOT. The FDOT requires three days of counts only when variables or characteristics of a roadway are being changed, and no variables are being changed in the Pinder- Troutman report. Polo's expert, Mr. Rennebaum, stated that the Pinder-Troutman Report did not change any variables. Further, Mr. Rennebaum testified that he also typically uses a one-day traffic count, and that a one-day traffic count is professionally acceptable. Mr. Rennebaum did not collect any new data on or perform an independent analysis of the roadway segments. However, although Mr. Rennebaum accepted the count data as accurate, he was critical of the use of a one-day count versus a three-day count because, according to Mr. Rennebaum, FDOT "typically requires three day counts." Pinder-Troutman took traffic counts in the middle of the week at peak hours. It is professionally accepted standard practice to conduct traffic studies during the middle of the week rather than on weekends. Pinder-Troutman used the best available data in its traffic analysis. In its traffic analysis, Pinder-Troutman used a future annual growth rate of 4.73 percent. This rate was based on the historical growth rate of the areas adjacent to the South Shore Boulevard and Lake Worth Road segments. This rate was conservative because there has actually been negative growth in the area. The growth rate Ms. Troutman used was professionally acceptable. The historic growth rate was based on information provided by Palm Beach County. There was no historic data available for the two roadway segments. Only recently have Palm Beach County and the Village begun to collect data for the two roadway segments in dispute. The growth rate took into consideration future development that had been approved by development orders, including the Village of Wellington Mall and the Mento property. As the growth rate utilized in the study already projected future growth and it did not appear that those developments would add to those anticipated impacts, the Mall and Mento developments were not specifically added to the projected 4.73 percent growth rate. The methodology used in developing the historic growth rate is professionally acceptable. Polo did not offer persuasive evidence that the growth rate used in the Pinder-Troutman Report was inaccurate or inadequate. Polo's traffic expert, Mr. Rennebaum, had not conducted a growth rate analysis to determine if Pinder- Troutman's growth rate was correct, and had not formed an opinion on the growth rate. Regarding safety issues, the Pinder-Troutman Report did not expressly discuss safety because the report was a capacity analysis. Experts for both the Village and Polo testified that safety is primarily a design feature, more appropriately considered and addressed at the design stage of a roadway. However, the Pinder-Troutman Report does include safety as a consideration; it considered and evaluated turn lanes and medians, in conjunction with two-lane roads, which are safety features. Mr. Rennebaum agreed that turn lanes and medians are relevant safety considerations. Although Polo did not identify it as an issue in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, Mr. Rennebaum opined that the un-signalized uninterrupted flow analysis used by Pinder- Troutman for the two road segments was inappropriate. The issue is at least the subject of fair debate. According to Mr. Rennebaum, Pinder-Troutman inappropriately treated the two road segments as a freeway because the uninterrupted flow analysis only applies to freeways and un-signalized sections of rural highways and because the roadway segments are not un-signalized segments. However, Ms. Troutman testified that the FDOT manual provides that both arterials and freeways may be analyzed under the un- signalized uninterrupted flow category. Pinder-Troutman treated the two roadway segments as an arterial for purposes of the uninterrupted flow analysis which is provided for in the FDOT manual. See Finding of Fact 58. The rural arterial classification of the two roadway segments is appropriate. The term "rural" is used to indicate that the roads are located in the Equestrian Preserve which is the "rural" area of the Village. The arterial classification is appropriate because the two roadways currently function as arterials and will continue to do so after implementation of the Amendment. See endnote 2. The weight of the evidence indicated that the two roadway segments currently function as arterials and will continue to operate as arterials if the Amendment is implemented. As noted by Ms. Troutman: "The change in classification does not change how the roadway operates. It's already operating as an arterial today. It's already operating at an uninterrupted. All we're doing is changing the classification to make it consistent with how it operates. It will not change how the road operates." It is professionally acceptable to use the uninterrupted flow analysis on the two roadway segments. Litigation Costs and Attorney's Fees Should Not Be Assessed Against Polo Polo raised a reasonable dispute regarding the traffic analyses prepared by Pinder-Troutman. For the most part, experts supported Polo's positions, but their testimony and other evidence were not sufficient to overcome the statutory burden. Polo did not prove that the Amendment is not "in compliance." Nevertheless, on this record, it can not be concluded that Polo participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Amendment adopted by the Village of Wellington in Ordinance No. 2001-011 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, and further, that the Department not award attorney's fees and costs against Polo. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 29th day of October, 2002.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's actions on December 13, 1994, were in violation of Section 231.17(3)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1997), which requires the holder of a Florida Educator's Certificate to be of good moral character. Whether Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). Whether the Petitioner committed an act which would authorize the Education Practices Commission to revoke his teaching certificate, pursuant to Section 231.17(10)(a), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact On or about September 9, 1997, Petitioner filed an application for Florida Educator's Certificate. Petitioner taught a drop-out prevention class at Cypress Lake High School in Ft. Myers, Florida, for approximately half of the 1997-98 school year. After the Notice of Reasons was issued in February 1998, Petitioner continued to work at Cypress Lake High School. He was transferred to a non-instructional position in the in-school suspension program, where he worked for the remainder of the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner returned to that position for the 1998-99 school year. Both before and after the Notice of Reasons was issued, Petitioner worked as a coach for football and baseball at Cypress Lake High School during the 1997-98 school year, and during the 1998-99 school year. Petitioner has a Bachelors of Arts Degree in English Education from Wright State University in Ohio. He completed the Beginning Teacher Program in Florida while working at Cypress Lake High School. All other requirements for certification have been completed by the Petitioner. After Petitioner applied for his Florida Teachers' Certificate, he was informed by Respondent's investigators that he needed to provide additional information regarding an arrest that had occurred in Key West, Florida, in 1994. Petitioner provided the Respondent's investigators with a letter explaining that he was arrested in Key West on a domestic battery charge involving his girlfriend at that time, Dory Catahan. Petitioner entered into a Pre-trial Intervention agreement with the local State Attorney's office. At the end of his probation term, on or about November 30, 1995, the State Attorney filed a Nolle Prosse dismissing the charges against him. Petitioner has not been convicted of a crime or had adjudication withheld in any jurisdiction in the United States. On or about December 13, 1994, Petitioner came home from work to the apartment he shared with his live-in girlfriend, Catahan. Catahan was angry at Petitioner because a young lady, whose name was either Stephanie or Carolyn, had called the apartment looking for him. Catahan was jealous, and she began yelling and screaming at Petitioner, accusing him of cheating on her. Petitioner tried to ignore her to get her to calm down, but instead Catahan became more enraged, and began pushing and hitting Petitioner. She tried to kick him in the groin area, and he took steps to hold her back, in an attempt to protect himself from being hurt by her attack. One of the steps Petitioner took to protect himself was to hold her arm and try to keep her from kicking him. He also had one hand on her neck area to hold her off as she repeatedly tried to kick him in the groin. On one of her kicks, he caught her foot, and told her, "Stop this or I'll break your damn ankle." Petitioner used that threat to try to get her to stop kicking before she hurt him. He did not do any harm or damage to her ankle, letting go after holding on to it for a minute or so. Catahan became even angrier when he pinned her against the wall to stop her attacks. Petitioner was still trying to get her to calm down. She finally said she was going to call the police. Petitioner dialed the police for her. When the police arrived, Petitioner was arrested and charged with Domestic Battery against Catahan. He spent the night of December 13, 1994, in jail, and was released the following day. Subsequently, Petitioner moved out of the couple's apartment for a few weeks. After a few weeks apart, Petitioner and Catahan resumed their relationship without further incident, until they broke up when he left Key West and moved back to Ohio in 1996. Petitioner felt responsible for Catahan becoming angry at him because he knew she was a jealous and possessive woman. He felt he should not have been trying to "cheat" on her. When he went to court Petitioner was assigned a public defender. His attorney advised him that the State's Attorney was willing to offer him a Pre-Trial Intervention as a disposition of his case, if he was willing to undergo a period of probation, community service, and attend an anger management class. Petitioner accepted the Pre-trial Intervention because he was informed that he would not have any permanent record and would not go to jail. Petitioner's testimony relating to the incident on December 13, 1994, is credible. No witness testified contrary to the version of the events provided by the Petitioner. The evidence failed to prove Petitioner battered his girlfriend or make any threat to do bodily harm to her in an offensive or aggressive way on December 13, 1994. The only touching or threats made by Petitioner to the shoulders and neck of Catahan were defensive in nature, and designed to prevent his girlfriend from harming him. Back in Ohio, Petitioner was a substitute for a short period of time. He then moved to Ft. Myers, Florida, in June of 1997. In August of 1997, Petitioner was hired as a teacher and coach at Cypress Lake High School, in Ft. Myers, Florida. Petitioner had been pursuing a career in teaching since his graduation from college, with a degree in English Education. In fact, when he moved to Key West in 1994, he was trying to find work as a teacher, but the job market was very difficult in Monroe County, and he ended up working in a marina. Petitioner is dedicated to teaching. He wants to make it his career. Petitioner cares about children; he feels he can make a difference. He believes he is a good teacher. His co-workers and peers at Cypress Lake High School have given positive references and reported that Petitioner is a good teacher, with a good demeanor with children, including those students who have difficult discipline problems at school. Two vice-principals at Cypress Lake High School were very supportive of Petitioner. They had positive recommendations about his character, his teaching skills and aptitude, as well as his demeanor around children. Petitioner has been recommended for a permanent teaching position at Cypress Lake. Through the efforts of persons in the administration, Petitioner has stayed on at Cypress Lake in the non-instructional position in the In- School Suspension program. David LaRosa is the Athletic Director at Cypress Lake High School. He hired Petitioner as a football and baseball coach. LaRosa was also the teacher whose class Petitioner took over during the 1997-98 school year. In his dealings with Petitioner, he found him to be very competent, and trustworthy with freshman football players. They are a very special group of athletes which require coaches with special abilities. In spite of his knowledge about Petitioner's arrest in Key West, LaRosa had no misgivings whatsoever about Petitioner's character and abilities as a teacher and coach. Rose Marie Bobbs is a parent of a student that was on Petitioner's football team. She is also an employee at Cypress Lake High School. She was active in the booster program at Cypress Lake and was very comfortable and satisfied with Petitioner's work as a football coach of her child. She had no qualms about having her children in Petitioner's classes or athletic teams. Michael Cooper, a Sergeant with the Sanibel Police Department, with 14 years experience in law enforcement, has known Petitioner since they were coaches together for the Cypress Lake High School freshman football team during the 1997-98 school year. Through his dealings with Petitioner, he found him to be a very honest person, and one who was very caring for his students. Petitioner did not engage in any acts of moral turpitude that should prevent him from teaching in the State of Florida. Petitioner did not engage in any acts that would justify or authorize the Commissioner to deny his teaching certificate. Petitioner is competent and morally fit to teach students in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Education Practices Commission granting the Petitioner a Florida Teacher's Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1998, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: David Brooks Kundin, Esquire 906 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock and Williams, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Kathleen Richards, Executive Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Compensatory Education Teacher at Lake Butler Middle School. Additionally, he served as Assistant Football Coach and Junior Varsity Baseball Coach. The Petitioner is over the age of eighteen years. During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner possessed a temporary teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education (Certificate Number 562142) disclosing "Highest Acceptable Level of Training - Bachelor's Degree." The Petitioner also possesses a permanent teaching certificate with a validity period of July 1, 1987, through June 30, 1992. Superintendent of Schools, James H. Cason, III, met with M. H. Boyd, Principal, Lake Butler Middle School and Petitioner's principal, prior to formulating his decision to recommend Petitioner to Respondent for additional year of employment. Boyd advised Superintendent Cason that she was not entirely satisfied with Petitioner's performance but that she could "live with" Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason also conferred with the head coach, James F. Niblack, Petitioner's supervisor for the athletic duties performed by Petitioner, prior to formulating a recommendation to Respondent concerning Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Coach Niblack recommended Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason made a timely written nomination that Petitioner be reappointed by the Respondent in an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. On April 27, 1987, Respondent conducted a meeting for the purpose, inter alia, of acting upon the recommendation of Superintendent Cason for personnel appointments. The Respondent voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of Superintendent Cason that Petitioner be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. No reason for the rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner by the Respondent was verbally stated at the April 27, 1987, meeting nor spread upon the minutes of such meeting. During the hearing, and after conferring with the members of the board, counsel for Respondent stipulated that Petitioner met the statutory requirement to be eligible for appointment to a position with Respondent in that he is of good moral character, is over the age of eighteen (18) years and holds a certificate issued under the rules of the State Board of Education. School Board member, W. S. Howard, Jr., a cousin of Boyd, requested that Boyd prepare an evaluation of Petitioner. The record is not clear as to whether the evaluation was made before or after the Superintendent conferred with Boyd on Petitioner's reappointment. Petitioner was evaluated "satisfactory" in ten (10) of the eighteen (18) areas measured on the evaluation instrument that was utilized, "unsatisfactory" on two (2), "not applicable" was marked on two (2) criteria and four (4) were left unmarked by the evaluator. The evaluation instrument utilized by the Respondent in evaluating the Petitioner's performance was not the instrument which should have been utilized during the 1986-87 school year although such instrument was utilized by the principal for other employees at the Petitioner's school. The Respondent officially sponsors, maintains and funds the athletic programs in which the Petitioner rendered services during the 1986-87 school year. Such programs constitute an integral part of the overall educational program offered by the Respondent to children of Union County. The Petitioner's service to the athletic program conducted by the Respondent was rated satisfactory or above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, School Board of Union County, enter a Final Order GRANTING the Petitioner an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year and reimbursing Petitioner for any loss of wages due to his non-pay status which resulted from Respondent's rejection of his nomination. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 27th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2536 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 11, respectively. 12.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 16, respectively. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact and 6. The fact that Boyd had some reservations concerning Petitioner's abilities to teach the compensatory education class is adopted in Finding of Fact 5, the balance of paragraph 6 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Niblack recommended Petitioner for reappointment is adopted in Finding of Fact 6, the balance of Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the Union County School Board voted not to rehire Petitioner is adopted in Finding of Fact 9, the balance of paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the reason for Respondent's vote to reject Petitioner's reappointment was not verbally stated or spread in the minutes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10, the balance of paragraph 9 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record in that the testimony of the individual School Board members lacked credibility. Rejected as being presented as an argument and not as a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bobby Lex Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 James H. Cason, III, Superintendent The School Board of Union Co. 55 Southwest Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent David Halfen applied for a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation authorizing construction of a footbridge across Little Red Fish Lake in Section 7, Township 3 South, Range 19 West in Walton County, Florida. The footbridge would be 490 feet long and four feet wide with a raised area five feet high in the middle permitting small boat traffic underneath. The bridge would be constructed from treated pilings, timbers and planks and the pilings would be jetted down into the sub-strate or bottom of Little Red Fish Lake. Mr. Cliff Rohlke was accepted as an expert witness in water quality. He is employed by the Department as an Environmental Specialist with the specific duties of dredge and fill inspector. In this capacity he conducts field appraisals, reviews and makes reports of biological impacts of dredge and fill projects in conjunction with applications filed with the Department for dredge and fill permits. In this regard, Mr. Rohlke went to the site of the project and made an assessment of both the long and short-term impacts of the project on water quality in Little Red Fish Lake. Mr. Rohlke made a biological appraisal of the subject project in evidence in this proceeding as Exhibit 1. It was thus established that the short-term impacts of the project would be limited to minor turbidity and sub-strate disturbance related to the placement of the pilings. Long-term impacts will be insignificant. Based upon his long experience as a dredge and fill inspector and biologist, Mr. Rohlke established that no significant problems or impairment of water quality are associated with the construction of such a pier or footbridge by using treated pilings and timbers. Mr. Richard Fancher was accepted as an expert witness in water quality. He is the Environmental Supervisor of the Department's northwest district, supervising the Department's permitting and enforcement program in the area of dredge and fill permitting. In his years of experience with the Department, he has reviewed some 3,000 dredge and fill applications. He evaluated Mr. Halfen's application for the proposed footbridge. His review of the proposed project was conducted with a view toward whether it complied with the standards of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes and Chapter 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. He established that the water quality standards that the Department is charged with enforcing by these legal provisions would be complied with, with construction of the proposed project, in that the pilings for the pier or footbridge would be jetted into the sub-strate of the lake and turbidity curtains would be used to minimize the short-term deleterious effects of turbidity or sediment disturbance on the lake as a whole by confining such turbidity to the immediate area of the project. The project will not significantly affect fish and wildlife in the water body involved, nor impair water flow so as to be contrary to the public interest. Neither will any significant loss of fish or wildlife or fish or wildlife habitat be occasioned by installation of the subject bridge. Mr. Fancher was of the opinion that the bridge would impede and interfere with navigation to some extent, but not, in his opinion, so as to be contrary to public interest. Mr. Fancher, however, has not visited the site himself and has no direct knowledge as to how the lake is used in terms of navigation, fishing, water skiing and the like. Mr. Rohlke opined that navigation in terms of "normal boat traffic" would not be interfered with since on his brief inspection he saw no boats using the lake, and the bridge would have a single span raised to a five-foot elevation over the lake's surface for the purpose of permitting boats to pass under the bridge. Mr. Rohlke, however, spent only a period of less than an hour visiting the lake site and did not confer with any adjacent landowners to ascertain what uses they made of the lake. He did not measure the lake bottom depth but did acknowledge that it was of sufficient size to be used for both sailing and water skiing. He admitted that a portion of the lake would be cut off by the bridge, consisting of approximately two acres on the western side. The Petitioners, the Bannermans, as well as witnesses Klep and Hughes own property and homes on the western side of the lake and their access to the remainder of the approximately 50-acres of the lake would be partially cut off by the bridge. They would be denied some use and enjoyment of the majority of the lake. Mr. and Mrs. Bannerman have a home which fronts on the western edge of the lake. Mr. Bannerman has measured the lake and established that it is five to seven feet deep near the water's edge and approximately 12 to 15 feel deep in the center of the lake. He has a dock and a small boat on the lake and uses the boat for fishing and navigation of the lake. Fishermen frequently utilize the lake from a public access point. The lake is large enough to be used for normal recreational pursuits such as water skiing, sailing, and fishing. Mr. John Klep owns property bordering on the western edge of the lake. Access to the lake was an important consideration in his purchase of the property, and in his continuing use of it. The lake is in excess of six feet deep at his property and physically navigable. He does not wish his access to the entire lake to be restricted. Mr. Lyle Hughes has legal access to the lake conveyed to him by deed although his own property does not actually border the lake. Sailing has been his lifetime recreational pursuit and he desires to use the lake for sailing for himself and members of his family, especially the children in his family. The small sailboats for which the lake is suited generally have a mast of approximately 14 feet in height. Such a boat could not pass under the bridge if constructed as proposed, since the five-foot raised center span would only barely permit small power boats and their occupants to safely pass under it. In short, the subject bridge, while it permits small fishing and pleasure boats to pass under with their occupants, would preclude the adjacent landowners in the western end of the lake cut off by the bridge, from sailing beneath the bridge or water skiing on the lake, since their point of access for water skiing and other purposes is at their own property and it would be impossible to water ski in the lake since the bridge would not be navigable for water skiing boats and skiers. The only way sail boats could navigate under the bridge would be to use a motor, oars or paddles until the sailboat negotiates the bridge span, with attendant stepping and unstepping of the mast every time the boat passes under the bridge. This arrangement is totally impractical for those adjacent landowners to do in order to use the lake for sailing. Water skiers could not pass under a five-foot span for obvious reasons of safety. In short, it has been established that the proposed project comports with Department permitting requirements in terms of water quality impacts and impacts on fish and wildlife and fish and wildlife habitats. The project, however, has not been established to be in the public interest and not contrary to the public interest in terms of its impact on the rights of adjacent landowners to navigate the entire 52-acre lake which they presently have access to for the above-mentioned reasons. Any approval of the permit applied for must be in conjunction with a condition that the bridge be so constructed that sailboats can pass through without having to unstep their masts and water ski boats and skiers can pass through it, possibly through use of a movable span. An additional and more basic problem exists in approving this project as proposed. Department's Rule 17-1.203, Florida Administrative Code requires that a permit applicant execute and submit, with his application, an affidavit of ownership of the property involved in a dredge and fill project. The affidavit and rule requires that a permittee be either the record owner, lessee, record easement holder or an applicant to the record owner of the property for an easement to the property described in the application, and in the affidavit. Mr. Halfen submitted this affidavit with his application certifying that he was the record owner, lessee, or record easement holder of the property upon which the bridge was to be constructed and of the property landward of the construction site, and either had or would have the permission of all other persons with a legal interest in the property prior to undertaking the project. It is the policy of the Department to require the applicant to be the record owner of the submerged land, his lessee or easement holder and to submit the necessary affidavit of ownership or control. The rationale for this policy is so that the Department "will not knowingly issue a permit for dredging and filling or other activities which would constitute a trespass." 1/ The property involved at the project site is subject to an active title dispute being litigated in the Circuit Court. In dispute is the question of whether the title to the lake bottom is held by the Petitioners, the Bannermans or FDIC, Mr. Halfen or the State of Florida. The property was initially conveyed into private ownership by the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, in 1918 as shown by stipulated Exhibit 2 in evidence. The federal government thus conveyed the pertinent property, Lots 1 and 2 of Section 7 in Township 3 South of Range 19 West together with other unrelated land to one Carl Froholm. That conveyance transferred all of the land in Lots 1 and 2 without making reference to Little Red Fish Lake. It does not indicate any reservations of public rights in and to the waters located on that property. It does not indicate any reservation of title to the bottom of the lake to be held by the State or Federal governments. Thus, the legitimate title question now being litigated in the court, is whether the Petitioners, Mr. Halfen or the State of Florida own the lake bottom upon which the bridge will be constructed and not simply whether DNR approval for its use has been obtained. Resolution of that quiet title action is still pending and argument and legal authority has been extensively briefed and provided to the Hearing Officer in the form of the various parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and memoranda. 2/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application by David Halfen for a dredge and fill permit, as described above, be granted, provided the plans and construction of the proposed bridge are sufficiently altered so as to permit water skiers and sailboats to safely and simply navigate and pass under or through the area of the proposed bridge and provided that Mr. Halfen, at the conclusion of the pending quiet title action, can establish that he has ownership or other right of control of the property on which the project will be built. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The following are the facts to which the parties have stipulated: Respondent is the holder of a pound net registration issued on November 30, 1983, by Dennis E. Holcomb, Director, Division of Fisheries, for the Executive Director of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Commission). The registration authorizes the Respondent to operate pound nets for Commercial purposes on certain areas of the St. Johns River, subject to law and Commission rules. On April 30, 1986, Petitioner pled guilty to illegal fishing with pound nets and was adjudged guilty and fined by the County Court of Putnam County, Florida. As a result of this Conviction, Respondent's pound net registration was temporarily revoked for a period of six (6) months dating from June 23, 1986 until December 23, 1986. On October 15, 1986, during the afore-mentioned revocation period, Respondent pled guilty to illegal fishing with unpermitted pound nets, and was adjudged guilty and fined by the County Court of Putnam County, Florida. Based on the Respondent's conviction of illegal fishing with pound nets during the revocation period, the Commission found just cause to permanently revoke Respondent's pound net registration and filed an Administrative Complaint on March 30, 1987 against Respondent to effectuate that revocation. Based on Respondent's unrebutted testimony which I found to be credible, the following relevant facts are found: That in addition to the fine imposed on the Respondent by the County Court of Putnam County, Florida on October 15, 1986, for illegal fishing, the Commission seized and Confiscated two (2) of Respondent's pound nets worth approximately $6,000.00. Respondent, subsequent to October 15, 1986, continues to fish pound nets as the designee of other parties holding pound net registrations, without incident and in compliance with the law and Commission rules. The Respondent is substantially dependent upon pound net fishing for his livelihood and has been prohibited from fishing his pound nets since June 23, 1986. Respondent's pound net registration was not reinstated at the end of the revocation period ending on December 23, 1986.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the conduct and demeanor of Use witness, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order temporarily revoking Respondent's pound net registration for a period of twelve (12) months beginning December 23, 1986. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 11th day of August, 1987.
The Issue The issues in this case are: whether Respondent's intent to award a contract to Intervenor for an immediate response notification system pursuant to Request for Proposal 2007-01 (the RFP) was contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, policies, and solicitation specifications and whether Petitioner has standing to protest the intended award.
Findings Of Fact The Florida legislature designated funds in the amount of $1,500,000 in Specific Appropriation 116 of House Bill 5001, the 2006 General Appropriations Act (Specific Appropriation 116) for pilot implementation of an immediate response notification system in seven Florida school districts. The appropriation provided: Funds for School Safety/Emergency Preparedness are provided for pilot implementation of an immediate response information system in one large, two medium, and four small school districts. The system will serve to enhance the safety of school children in emergency situations, such as impending hurricane and severe weather, fire, bomb threat, homeland security and other critical school safety events. The system must be real-time and multi-lingual with the ability to notify parents of emergency and non-emergency situations in at least ten different languages through email, telephone, and other communication devices. The Department of Education shall competitively bid this project in accordance with the provisions of chapter 287, Florida Statutes. To allow for early implementation, all funds shall be under contract no later than September 15, 2006. The Department issued the RFP on or about September 1, 2006. Pertinent portions of the RFP provided: PROPOSALS ARE DUE BY: 2:30 EST, ON SEPTEMBER, 15, 2006. ESTIMATED POSTING BEGINS SEPTEMBER 25, 2006, AND ENDS SEPTEMBER 28, 2006. [Cover Sheet] The Department is seeking qualified vendors to provide pilot implementation of an immediate response notification system to be piloted in seven (7) Florida school districts. Additional school districts may be added in subsequent years based on appropriations and periodic performance reviews. The Proposer must have a notification system that currently exists. The system must have undergone rigorous field testing and evidence must be provided to demonstrate successful implementation for similar school districts. The Proposer must have demonstrated the ability to coordinate and integrate all components of the system. The proposed system shall not require the school districts to purchase or lease any additional hardware or software or infrastructure upgrade to obtain the service. The pilots will be in one large, two medium, and four small districts. For purposes of this proposal a large district would be any district with over 150,000 students, a medium would be any district of 50,000-100,000 students and a small district would have up to 50,000 students. [Page 29] The State's performance and obligation to pay under this contract are contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature. [Page 11] Any protest concerning this solicitation shall be made in accordance with Sections 120.57(3) and 287.042(2) of the Florida Statutes and chapter 28-110 of the Florida Administrative Code. Questions to the Procurement Office shall not constitute formal notice of a protest. It is the Buyer's intent to ensure that specifications are written to obtain the best value for the State and that specifications are written to ensure competitiveness, fairness, necessity and reasonableness in the solicitation process. [Page 16] Any person who is adversely affected by the specifications contained in this RFP must file the following with the Department . . . A written Notice of Intent to Protest within seventy-two (72) hours after posting of this RFP specifications, and The Formal Written Protest by petition and Protest Bond in compliance with Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, within ten (10) days after the date on which the written Notice of Protest is filed. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. [Page 19] A responsive proposal is a proposal submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor which conforms in all material respects to the solicitation. A responsive and responsible vendor is a vendor that has submitted a proposal that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation and who has the capability in all respects to fully perform the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability that will assure good-faith performance. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth as mandatory, or without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is unreasonable or impossible, or those which affect the competitiveness of proposals or the cost to the State. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or non- responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to, failing to utilize or complete prescribed forms, modifying the proposal requirements, submitting conditional proposals or incomplete proposals, submitting indefinite or ambiguous proposals, or executing forms or the proposal sheet with improper and/or undated signatures. Proposals found non- responsive will not be considered. Proposers whose proposals, past performance or current status do not reflect the capacity, integrity or reliability to perform fully and in good faith the requirements of the Contract may be rejected as non-responsible. The Department reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP, and which proposers are responsible. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal in accordance with all requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving seventy (70) points or more on the Technical Proposal. [Page 21] The Department will determine whether the Proposer is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon their proposal demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. [Page 25] REFERENCES: (ATTACHMENT 3) Provide at least three (3) references, which demonstrate efforts comparable to the one described in the RFP. Provide a list of school districts and other venues where this technology is currently in use. The Department reserves the right to contact the references regarding the services provided. [Pages 27-28] ATTACHMENT '3' WORK REFERENCES Provide the following reference information for a minimum of three (3) similar school districts or other venues where services of similar size and scope have been completed. [Page 37] Proposals will be evaluated and graded in accordance with the criteria detailed below. a. Technical Proposal (100 Points) Technical evaluation is the process of reviewing the Proposer's Executive Summary, Management Plan, and Technical Plan for understanding the project, qualifications, approach and capabilities, to assure a quality product. Only those proposals that are found to meet the verification of Section 4.2 Mandatory Submittal Documents will have the technical proposal evaluated. For this purpose, evaluators will consider a Proposer's description and explanation of the proposed products and services as described in the proposal and the supporting documents. The proposal evaluation committee, acting independently, will assign ratings of the quality of the proposed technical solutions to the work tasks specified in the RFP. Of these ratings the high and the low score will be discarded and the remaining scores averaged. The following point system is established for scoring the technical proposals: . . . Qualifications and Experience including rigorous testing of the system (10 [points]). . . Price Proposal Price analysis is conducted through the comparison of price quotations submitted. By submitting a proposal, Proposers agree to serve the seven (7) districts selected by the Department even if the total cost for the districts selected will exceed the amount of the Appropriation. Only proposals that are found to meet the mandatory minimum requirements and which receive an average rating of seventy (70) or more points for the Technical Proposal will have the cost proposal evaluated. The Department will determine if a cost proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of this RFP to permit a complete evaluation. Any cost proposal that is incomplete may be rejected by the Department. Cost analysis is conducted through the comparison of price quotations submitted. A total of 20 points is possible. The fractional value of points to be assigned will be rounded to two decimal points. The criteria for price evaluation shall be based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) x Price Points=Proposer's Awarded Points [Pages 32-33] The price proposal must be submitted on the form provided as Attachment '4'. [Page 29] ATTACHEMENT '4' VENDOR'S BID SHEET We propose to provide the services being solicited within the specifications of RFP 2007-01. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Request for Proposal, which has been reviewed and understood. It is also understood that the Proposer will serve the seven (7) districts selected by the Department even if the total cost for the districts selected will exceed the amount of the Appropriation. DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST____ PRICE PER STUDENT $ /per student [Page 38] NTI did not file a protest concerning any of the specifications of the RFP within 72 hours of the issuance of the RFP. Addendum No. 1 to the RFP was issued on or about September 8, 2006, to provide answers to questions submitted by vendors during a question and answer period. Addendum No. 1 was the only addendum to the RFP and provided an answer to a question submitted by Roam Secure, Inc. (Roam Secure) regarding pricing. The question and answer provided: Q. Our pricing is based on total number of users. Because there is a significant amount of up front work involved, i.e. server setup, network optimization, data import, registration customization, and training, it is not feasible for us to supply a solution based on a few users. As such we are hoping that [the Department] will allow us to provide a total price for this RFP based on unlimited number of users for the 7 districts. Would that be acceptable to [the Department]? A. This would be acceptable, as the RFP states the vendor will serve the entire population of the seven districts chosen by the Department of Education. The large district will have more than 150,000 students, the two medium districts will range between 50,000 students and 150,000 students and four small districts will include districts with student populations of up to 50,000. See page 29.5.0 Scope of Services in the RFP. Addendum No. 1 did not address how the Department was going to compare a total price with a per student price as set out in the original RFP. The RFP does not specify what process the Department would have used to determine whose cost proposal would be the lowest or how the Department would determine the number of cost points to be awarded when there is a mix of per student prices and total prices. The Department had not determined which school districts would participate in the pilot program prior to the submission of the proposals and, as of the date of the final hearing, it was still not determined which school districts would participate. The deadline for receipt of proposals in response to the RFP was September 15, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The Department received ten proposals in response to the RFP. The Department determined that six of the ten proposals submitted did not meet the mandatory requirements of the RFP. The Department's Selection Committee evaluated proposals submitted by NTI, US Netcom, TechRadium, and Roam Secure. Based on the RFP tabulation posted by the Department on September 29, 2006, NTI received the highest technical points of all the proposers. The technical points that were awarded by the Department's Selection Committee were as follows: NTI 89 points US Netcom 84.4 points TechRadium 80.6 points Roam Secure 67.4 Roam Secure's proposal was disqualified, and its cost proposal was not evaluated because it failed to receive an average rating of 70 or more points for its technical proposal as required by Section 6.1 of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, all proposers agreed to provide the services being procured through the RFP for a price of no more than $1,500,000 regardless of the districts selected by the Department or the number of students in such districts. TechRadium submitted a proposal to provide the requested services for $1.95 per student. US Netcom submitted a cost proposal of $3.00 per student and included a charge of $135.00/hr for [a]dditional customization [that] may be required to meet some of the application requirements." NTI submitted a cost proposal as follows: PRICE PER STUDENT Large District shall not exceed $2.60/per student Medium District shall not exceed $3.00/per student Small District shall not exceed $3.00/per student. SUPPORT FEE $1,000/per district $100/per site/per district The Department determined that NTI's cost proposal was non-compliant. The Department awarded TechRadium 20 cost points for a total score of 100.6 and awarded US Netcom 13 cost points for a total score of 97.4. At the final hearing, the Department represented that it now considered US Netcom's cost proposal as non-compliant, but, as of the date of the final hearing, the Department had not posted its intent to determine US Netcom's proposal non-compliant. In response to the RFP requirement that the proposers provide at least three references, "which demonstrate efforts comparable to the one described" in the RFP, TechRadium listed the Klein Independent School District, Northwest Indiana Educational Service Center, and Goose Creek CISD. The Klein Independent School District has a total population of less than 50,000 students. The software license agreement between TechRadium and the Klein Independent School district states that the authorized number of seats is 37,000.1 The Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District has a total student population of less than 25,000. The contract between TechRadium and Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District provides for 21,500 authorized seats. The contract between TechRadium and the Northwest Indiana Educational Service Center provides for 185 authorized seats, but TechRadium has provided services to approximately 90 individuals annually in the Northwest Indiana Educational Service Center. The Department reserved the right to contact the references listed in the proposals. None of the references of any of the proposers was contacted by Department during the evaluation process to verify the experience of the proposers with systems comparable to the one required by the RFP. The Department considered the listing of the references sufficient if the references included some school districts. On September 29, 2006, the Department posted its intent to award the contract arising out of the RFP to TechRadium. On October 4, 2006, NTI filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the Department's intent to award the contract to TechRadium. NTI filed its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on November 7, 2006. The protest was accompanied by a bond which satisfied the requirements of applicable statutes and the RFP. NTI is not contesting whether TechRadium has the infrastructure or capacity to fulfill the pilot program requested in the RFP. No funds allocated for School Safety/Emergency Preparedness in Specific Appropriation 116 were under contract on or before September 15, 2006. NTI was aware of Specific Appropriation 116 prior to the Department's issuance of the RFP. NTI did not object to the time limitations for opening bids or posting the rankings until it filed its formal written protest on October 13, 2006. NTI was aware of the time limitation of which it now complains more than 72 hours prior to the filing of its formal written protest. Prior to the issuance of the RFP, Michael Arnim, the Director of Sales at TechRadium, sent e-mails to school districts in Florida containing multiple untrue representations regarding the pilot project. Mr. Arnim had misunderstood some conversations he overheard at the TechRadium office in Texas and thought that TechRadium had been awarded the pilot project. He sent e-mails to some of the school districts stating that the Commissioner of Education could verify that TechRadium would be providing the notification systems for the pilot project and requesting the school districts to send letters of intent on the school districts' letterhead indicating the school districts wanted to participate. When the Department brought the e-mails to the attention of others at TechRadium, Mr. Arnim was reprimanded, and no further representations were made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the contract for an immediate response notification system pursuant to RFP 2006-01 to TechRadium. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 9th day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a teacher in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Florida's Commissioner of Education, was the state official responsible for the certification of teachers in this state. Respondent held and currently holds Florida Teaching certificate No. 086279 in the areas of reading and social science. This certificate , unless otherwise revoked for cause, will be valid through June 30, 2000. During the school years from 1990 to 1992, Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at the Lake Alfred Career Development Center operated by the Polk County School Board, having been hired into that position by the Center's Principal, Mr. Williams, in 1990. During the 1991-1992 school year, Respondent taught T.B., a minor female. During the same school year, 1991-1992, O.B., T.B.'s sister and a minor female, also was a student at the Center, and though not a pupil of the Respondent, served as a tutor to Respondent's class. Starting in January, 1992, Respondent gave O.B. small amounts of money for personal expenditures such as drinks and lunch. He also gave her items of clothing and a check to pay for a subscription for a magazine she wanted. During the period up to April, 1992, he gave her money for making the honor roll and other sums, up to $20.00 at a time, for spending money. These payments would be made every other week or so. In addition to giving O.B. money and gifts, shortly before the spring break he also gave her his home phone number and told her that if she needed anything she should call him and they would go shopping together. On April 22, 1992 O.B. had occasion to work, alone, in Respondent's office. At the time, she was reading newspaper articles into a tape recorder for him to use to help his students in their reading lessons. While she was there, Respondent came to the office several times to check on her, and on this day, she was wearing one of the outfits Respondent had bought for her. On one of these visits, Respondent sat down across from O.B. and placed his hands on her upper thighs. As he did this, he asked her if he could do something personal with her. O.B. asked Respondent what that was, to which question Respondent told her not to ask questions but just say either yes or no. O.B, did not respond but remained silent. At this point, Respondent lifted O.B.'s skirt. He then told her to stand up while he remained seated. When she stood, Respondent reached over and pulled out on the top of O.B.'s panties. Petitioner asserts that by doing so he was able to see her vagina but this is unlikely. Because he did not pull her panties down and she was standing up, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to see her vagina from that angle. Regardless, he told O.B. she was beautiful, pulled her close to him, held her and kissed her between the breasts. In his affidavit, Respondent contends it was impossible for him to do this as well because of the differences in their height and the fact that he was seated at the time, but it is found that he did. At this point, Respondent stood up and told O.B. to open her mouth. When she complied, Respondent tried to kiss her, but she pulled away. With that, Respondent remarked that she "was not ready for that yet" and then left the office. O.B. then went quickly to the girls' bathroom and locked herself in. While there, she heard Respondent, or someone, walk by outside the bathroom several times. When she felt ready, O.B. left the bathroom and went to one of the classrooms down the hall where her friend, H.H. was in class. Still upset and crying from her encounter with the Respondent, O.B. got H.H. out of class and told her what had happened. While the girls were talking in the hallway, T.B. came by and noticing that O.B. was crying and upset, asked what was wrong. O.B. didn't want to say, but T.B. insisted, threatening to tell their mother if O.B. did not tell her story. After this, O.B., T.B. and H.H. went back to Respondent's office so that O.B. could get her coat and books. While they were in Respondent's office O.B. told T.B. what had happened. While this was going on, Respondent came into the office several times. On one visit he noticed the girls were looking at a magazine and he asked them if they saw anything they liked. When they pointed out several bathing suits, he circled those they had shown him and left, taking the magazine with him. While he was in the office with the two girls, Respondent asked T.B. if O.B. was OK. He later saw them again and asked them both if everything was OK. He also admonished them not to say anything to anyone about O.B.'s claim. Before they left school for home that day, Respondent again told T.B. to take care of O.B., stating that O.B. had something for her. The girls then left the area but returned shortly thereafter to find out what Respondent had meant by his last comment. At that point, Respondent indicated he had forgotten, and gave O.B. a $10.00 bill. Before leaving school that day, Respondent also told O.B. that he had behaved badly with her, claiming he had behaved like a "jackass". He said he had not meant to do it and that it would not happen again. He promised that if O.B. would not tell anyone about what he had done, he would give her money, clothes or whatever she wanted. O.B. went home with H.H. right after school, not getting to her own home until about 7:30 PM. When she got there she told her mother what had happened between Respondent and her that day. Mrs. B. immediately called the Polk County Sheriff's Department and advised them of the incident. The Sheriff's Department notified the Lake Alfred Police Department. At approximately 8:15 PM on April 22, 1992, Detective Bradley of the Lake Alfred Police Department came to O.B.'s home in response to the notification and spoke with O.B. Later that same evening, he advised Respondent of the charges against him. O.B. did not go to school on April 23, 1992 because she was too upset and almost didn't go on April 24, 1992. However, Detective Bradley asked that O.B., T.B. and H.H. come to his office to make statements concerning the incident, which they did. Thereafter, he notified the Polk County School Board of the allegations and charges against Respondent as well as the State Attorney's office from whom he sought and received permission to set up a monitored phone conversation between T.B. and the Respondent. On April 24, 1992, T.B. telephoned Respondent at school from the Lake Alfred Police Department and talked with him about the incident. In the telephone conversation, which was monitored and tape recorded by Detective Bradley, T.B. advised Respondent that H.H. was very upset over what O.B. had told her regarding the incident between him and O.B. and wondered if he would be willing to give her something to keep quiet about it. Respondent wanted to talk with H.H. about it and solicited from T.B. a telephone number at which he could call H.H. and talk with her. After taking statements from the three girls and after taping the telephone conversation T.B. had with Respondent, Bradley went to Lake Alfred Career Development Center where he talked with Mr. Williams, the principal, who called Respondent to the office. Upon being introduced to Respondent, Bradley immediately read and advised him of his rights against self incrimination. Respondent elected to remain silent at that time and seek counsel prior to being interviewed. Bradley asked no further questions and advised Respondent of the allegations and charges against him. At that time, in the presence of Detective Bradley, Respondent informed Principal Williams that he wanted to keep the matter private and would resign immediately. Respondent was suspended with pay effective April 24, 1995, and on May 5, 1992, submitted his formal letter of resignation and retirement from employment with the Polk County School System, to be effective June 11, 1992. Several days after Respondent submitted his letter, on May 13, 1992, he was informed that his suspension would be continued without pay pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. However, when Respondent's employment contract came up for renewal after the expiration of the 1991-1992 school year, it was not renewed. By letter dated June 12, 1992, the Superintendent of Schools for Polk County advised Respondent he would be permitted to resign and retire and would be paid for any accrued leave. On or about July 30, 1992, Respondent was arrested on a charge of Lewd and Lascivious Acts on a Child Under 16 Years of Age and of Tampering with a Victim or Witness relating to the allegations herein. Thereafter, on June 24, 1993, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Acts in Circuit Court. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on 4 years probation with conditions of probation attached. Included within these conditions was that Respondent not have unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 18. The charge of Tampering with a Victim or a Witness was dismissed. It is improper conduct for a teacher to give money or gifts to a student of that teacher within the Polk County School District. It is also inappropriate activity and misconduct for a teacher to touch a student in the manner in which Respondent touched O.B.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Edward McDonald's, teaching certificate in Florida be permanently revoked. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward McDonald 7203 North 40th Street Tampa, Florida 33604-4501 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards Administrator Professional Practices Services 152 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department 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 Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has held a teaching certificate issued by the State of Florida, valid through June 30, 2002. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a language arts (English) teacher, assigned to Lake Stevens Middle School and subsequently assigned to her own home as an alternate work site. On May 4, 1995, Lucille Collins, an assistant principal at Lake Stevens, conducted a conference with a student, that student’s parent, and Respondent. During the conference, Respondent became enraged and began shouting at Collins. Collins terminated the conference and attempted to return to her office. Respondent followed her, continuing to shout as the two proceeded toward Collins’ office. The student and the parent witnessed Respondent's behavior. On February 8, 1996, Assistant Principal Collins convened a conference with Respondent and Dorothy Johnson, the principal’s secretary, to address conflicts between Respondent and Johnson. Toward the end of the meeting, Respondent became agitated. She began shouting at Collins and trying to provoke another argument with Johnson. On May 2, 1996, Respondent entered the teachers’ workroom and started yelling at Collins. Collins directed Respondent to stop and to come meet with her privately, but Respondent refused twice to meet with Collins. Respondent remained “out of control” and continued yelling as she moved through the office and out into the hall near the cafeteria. On May 15, 1996, Collins conducted a TADS observation of Respondent. A TADS observation is an extended and formal observation of a teacher in a classroom to determine if the teacher possesses the minimum competencies required of a classroom teacher. The trained observer is required to assess six categories that must be deemed satisfactory in order for the teacher to receive an acceptable evaluation. The teacher undergoing the TADS observation is required to submit to the observer lesson plans, student folders, and the grade book. On that day Respondent was unable to produce a lesson plan or grade book. Respondent was given five days to produce the required materials. As of May 20 Respondent had not complied. However, she did eventually comply, and the TADS observation showing Respondent was deficient was then voided. On October 2, 1996, Dr. James Monroe, Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards for the Miami- Dade School Board, directed Respondent to attend a conference- for-the-record on October 7. The purpose of the conference was to address an act of battery by Respondent and her fitness for future employment. Respondent attended the meeting. At the meeting, she was referred to Dr. Michael Hendrickson for a psychological evaluation. Respondent went to Hendrickson who opined that Respondent was able to return to her teaching duties, with the following recommendations: (1) that Respondent seek help through the School Board’s Employee Assistance Program; (2) that Respondent undergo a neurological examination to rule out any neurological problems; and (3) that Respondent undergo psychotherapy once a week for a year. Based upon that evaluation, Respondent was permitted to return to her classroom. Shortly thereafter, an event known as “Back to School Night” was held at Lake Stevens. During that evening, teachers at Lake Stevens are required to be present in their classrooms to meet with parents. Respondent did not attend and did not advise the administrators at the school that she would not attend. Several parents complained to the principal and to Assistant Principal Collins that Respondent was not in attendance and that they were concerned because they had not received progress reports from Respondent and did not know if their children were passing or failing in Respondent’s class. Due to the parents’ concerns, the principal instructed Collins to conduct another TADS observation of Respondent. On October 22, 1996, Collins conducted another TADS observation of Respondent. She observed that Respondent's grade book had no recorded grades for periods five and six. She noted that the student folders contained no graded assignments. Respondent could not produce any graded tests, quizzes, weekly exams, unit tests, or progress checks. Respondent had not completed organizing the students' class work, homework, or folders in any observable fashion. In addition, Respondent's lesson plans were incomplete. On October 30, 1996, Collins reviewed with Respondent her written evaluation of Respondent's performance during the TADS observation. The written report noted Respondent's deficiencies and directed Respondent to comply with a prescription plan. Respondent was given specific deadlines, as follows: submit five sample graded tests and five writing portfolios to Collins by October 31; submit a complete and up- to-date grade book to Collins by November 1; complete all student folders and portfolios and have them available for review by November 1; read relevant portions of the TADS Prescription Manual by November 12, and submit activities for review and discussion with her department chairperson by November 12. Respondent acknowledged receipt of these directives by signing the TADS report on October 30. Respondent failed to comply with those directives and has never complied with them. Collins reported to Principal Willie B. Turner Respondent's failure to comply with her directives. On December 11, 1996, Principal Turner sent Respondent a memorandum directing her to report for a conference-for-the- record to be held in his office on December 16. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Respondent's non-compliance with the TADS prescription plan. On December 12 Respondent approached Principal Turner while he was on bus duty in front of Lake Stevens Middle School. Turner invited Respondent to speak to him after he was finished. Respondent came to his office and began "venting" at Turner, screaming at him and using "choice words." Turner told Respondent to leave his office, but she refused. Other staff members who were attracted by Respondent's screaming attempted to remove Respondent from Turner's office. With the help of the school's resource office, they were eventually able to do so. Immediately after the December 12 incident in Turner's office, Respondent was removed from Lake Stevens Middle School and assigned to work at her home. The conference originally scheduled to be held at Lake Stevens was re-scheduled to be held at the Office of Professional Standards on December 16. At the meeting, which Respondent attended, she was directed by Dr. James Monroe to contact the Employee Assistance Program immediately, undergo the required neurological evaluation, and attend the required psychotherapy once a week for a year. On or about January 9, 1997, Respondent contacted the Employee Assistance Program but declined to participate. On January 31, 1997, Dr. Monroe sent Respondent a memorandum in which he noted that she had not complied with his three prior directives. Respondent was given five additional days to comply and was informed that her continued failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination. Respondent attended a follow-up visit with Dr. Hendrickson on March 6, 1997. Following this visit, Hendrickson advised Dr. Monroe in writing that Respondent should undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess her behavior and aggressive outbursts. Upon receiving Hendrickson's report, Dr. Monroe scheduled a meeting with Respondent for March 25. Respondent acknowledged receipt of that notice on March 19. Respondent attended the March 25 meeting. By that time, she had complied with the requirement that she undergo a neurological examination. At the meeting, she presented to Dr. Monroe a letter from a Dr. Cheryl Nowell indicating that Respondent had commenced psychotherapy on January 21, 1997. At that time, however, Respondent had still not undergone a psychiatric evaluation. On April 8, 1997, Dr. Monroe sent Respondent a memorandum summarizing the March 25 meeting. He again directed Respondent to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, gave Respondent five days to comply, and advised Respondent that her failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination. Dr. Monroe transmitted the information furnished by Respondent at the March 25 meeting to Dr. Hendrickson for review. After reviewing the information, Dr. Hendrickson wrote to Dr. Monroe that he believed that Respondent still needed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Monroe subsequently advised Respondent of that continuing requirement. Respondent did not undergo a psychiatric evaluation. On April 29, 1997, Dr. Monroe notified Respondent that she was to report for a conference at the Office of Professional Standards on May 1. Respondent signed the notice on April 29. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Respondent's continued refusal to comply with prior directives. On April 30, 1997, Respondent contacted Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Professional Standards. Respondent, through her union representative, advised Annunziata that Respondent would not attend the meeting unless she was escorted by an uniformed Metro-Dade County deputy or City of Miami police officer. Respondent stated her reason to be that she was in fear of her life due to what she perceived to be threats from Dr. James Monroe. Dr. Annunziata investigated Respondent's assertion and found it to be without merit. Her union representatives at every prior meeting with Dr. Monroe had accompanied Respondent, and Dr. Monroe had not physically threatened Respondent. Respondent failed to appear for the May 1 meeting. At her request, the meeting was re-scheduled for May 2. Respondent continued to insist a deputy sheriff or police officer accompany her. On May 2, Dr. Annunziata notified Respondent's union representative in writing that Respondent's demand for an uniformed law enforcement officer would not be met, that Respondent must decide if she would attend the meeting or not, and that Respondent's failure to attend the meeting would be considered gross insubordination. Respondent failed to attend the meeting. On that day Principal Turner recommended that the Miami-Dade County School Board terminate Respondent from further employment. Dr. Monroe decided to give Respondent one more chance. He re-scheduled the meeting for May 13, 1997, sent Respondent a written notice, and read the notice to Respondent over the telephone. Respondent was advised that her failure to attend the re-scheduled meeting would result in termination of her employment. Despite having notice, Respondent did not attend the May 13 meeting as she had failed to attend the May 1 and 2 meetings. On June 13, 1997, Respondent received an overall unacceptable TADS evaluation for the 1996-97 school year. She achieved an unacceptable rating in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibilities. Respondent's continuing failure to attend the conferences scheduled by Dr. Monroe constitutes gross insubordination. Further, Respondent's failure to comply with the reasonable TADS prescriptive plan given her to overcome her classroom deficiencies constitutes gross insubordination. Respondent's failure, in conjunction with her TADS observation, to have records of students' grades, graded assignments, graded exams, lesson plans, and student writing portfolios constitutes incompetence. Respondent received an unacceptable evaluation based upon her classroom performance on October 26, 1996. She achieved two subsequent unacceptable evaluations for professional responsibility for her continuing failure to comply with directives given to her, not for conduct in her classroom. Finally, she achieved an unacceptable annual evaluation. In light of Respondent's long-standing history of aggressive behavior, the Miami-Dade County School Board's requirement that she submit to a psychiatric examination was reasonable. Respondent's failure to comply with that directive was unreasonable and further constitutes gross insubordination.
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 Administrative Complaint filed against her and permanently revoking her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Wiley Horton, Esquire Pennington Law firm Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Helen B. Williams Post Office Box 551894 Carol City, Florida 33055-0894
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment as an educational paraprofessional, based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the facts stipulated by the parties, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. The School Board is located at 2055 Central Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida 33901. The School Board's Florida Administrative Code identification code is 6GX-36. The School Board has the authority to terminate and/or suspend educational support personnel without pay and benefits pursuant to Subsections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.40(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005).1 Respondent has been employed by the School Board since August 27, 1998, with the exception of a break in service during the period from February 24, 1999, through September 27, 2000. Currently, Respondent is employed as an educational paraprofessional at Alternative Learning Center ("ALC") High School. He was previously employed as a bus attendant. Respondent has always received satisfactory performance assessments and has never before been the subject of discipline by the School Board. Respondent's current home address is 3971 Wheaton Court, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. Respondent is an "educational support employee," as defined by Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and is a member of the support personnel bargaining unit ("SPALC") that is covered by a collective bargaining agreement between SPALC and the School Board. The standard for discipline of support personnel is "just cause" pursuant to Article 7 of the SPALC Agreement. On or about August 12, 2005, David LaRosa, the principal of ALC High School, contacted Gregory Adkins, executive director of Human Resources and Employee Relations, to report two recent conversations regarding Respondent. Both conversations concerned alleged inappropriate interaction by Respondent with two female students. On the basis of the information reported to Mr. LaRosa, an investigation into the matter was conducted. During the course of the investigation, the District became aware that Respondent had fathered a child and that the child's mother was a senior at Cypress Lake High School at the time the child was conceived. The child was born on December 10, 2002. Respondent denied knowing that the mother was a student when they met at a Dr. Martin Luther King celebration in January 2002, or when they met again on February 14, 2002. The mother of the child turned 18 on February 14, 2002. Respondent was 23 years old at the time.2 On September 7, 2005, the School Board determined that probable cause existed to impose disciplinary action against Respondent for engaging in a sexual relationship with a student. Also, on September 7, 2005, a certified letter was sent to Respondent, advising him of the probable cause determination and that a recommendation would be made to the superintendent that Respondent be terminated. The School Board did not, during the time in question, have a policy or regulation specifically prohibiting a sexual relationship between an employee and a student. The School Board provided no notice to employees that a sexual relationship with a student could result in disciplinary action. No evidence was presented that Respondent's alleged misconduct had any adverse impact on the School Board or on Respondent's work performance. Respondent continued to work for the School Board for more than two and a half years after his child's birth without incident and with satisfactory performance evaluations. Respondent's child was born ten months after the mother's eighteenth birthday, meaning there is no evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual relations with the mother when she was a minor. No evidence was presented to contradict Respondent's claim that he was unaware that the woman was a high school student at the time they had sexual relations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding him back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2006.
