The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a teacher certificate despite two convictions for driving under the influence, including one for manslaughter, and the failure to disclose on her application two teenaged offenses--one resulting in a petit theft conviction for shoplifting and one resulting in a dismissed charge for giving false information of an accident.
Findings Of Fact By application dated April 12, 1995, Petitioner applied for an Florida educator’s certificate from Respondent. By Notice of Reasons dated August 7, 1995, Respondent rejected the application. In the Notice of Reasons, Respondent stated that on July 7, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to petit theft in Lee County, for which she was sentenced to six months’ probation and $221.05 in fines and costs; on September 3, 1981, Petitioner pleaded no contest to a charge of giving false information of accident, as to which the court dismissed the charge; on July 16, 1987, Petitioner drove her vehicle while intoxicated and had an accident that killed her passenger, for which she was adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence and manslaughter and sentenced to three years in jail, 12 years’ probation, counseling, 50 hours of community service, limited driving privileges, and $250 in court costs; and Petitioner submitted an application for a Florida educator’s certificate notarized on August 12, 1994, and, in responding to a question as to convictions or no-contest pleas, disclosed the DUI/manslaughter conviction, but not the conviction for petit theft and no contest plea to giving false information of accident. With leave of the administrative law judge, Respondent amended the Notice of Reasons to add the additional reason that, on July 19, 1995, Petitioner operated a motor vehicle while under the influence. On December 13, 1995, she was convicted of her second offense of driving under the influence of alcohol and sentenced to 270 days in jail, a $1000 fine, permanent revocation of her driver’s license, one year’s probation, and $230 in court costs. The Notice of Reasons states that Section 231.17(1)(c)6 requires good moral character of holders of Florida educator’s certificates. Section 231.17(5)(a) authorizes Respondent to deny an application for an educator’s certificate if he possesses evidence that the applicant has committed an act for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke the certificate. The Notice of Reasons asserts that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c); a conviction of a criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(e); a violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Teaching Profession, as set forth in the Department of Education (DOE) rules; failure to maintain honesty in all of her professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a); submission of fraudulent information on documents in connection with professional activities, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h); and making fraudulent statements or failure to disclose a material fact on her application for a professional position, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(i). Petitioner admits all of the factual assertions in the Notice of Reasons through the manslaughter conviction for driving under the influence. As to the 1994 application, Petitioner admits the basic facts, but denies that the omissions constituted the submission of fraudulent information. The question to which Petitioner responded asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? . . . Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. Petitioner also denies all allegations contained in the Notice of Reasons that she acted fraudulently. As to the petit theft, Petitioner was 18 years old at the time and living at her parents’ home, when, in June 1980, she and a friend shoplifted an item at a local department store. Her parents picked her up from the store. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge. The court found her guilty and sentenced her to six months’ probation and $221.05 in fines and costs. Petitioner has never been involved in a similar incident. In September 1981, when 19 years old, Petitioner pleaded no contest to the charge of giving false information of accident, and the court dismissed the charge. The record does not disclose any details concerning this charge. When preparing the 1994 application, Petitioner neglected to mention the charges from when she was in her teens because she was preoccupied with the effect of the disclosure of the much more serious matter of the DUI--manslaughter. The conviction for shoplifting and the dismissal of a charge of giving false information of accident, to which Petitioner nonetheless had pleaded guilty, are not material omissions. The failure to include such items, without evidence of some fraudulent intent, does not establish a lack of integrity on Petitioner’s part. As to the driving under the influence/manslaughter conviction, Petitioner does not contest that she was at fault for causing the death of her passenger, who was her best friend, nor that Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Following the accident, Petitioner became involved in education efforts to prevent drunk driving, especially among younger drivers. She spoke to teenagers at various programs around Lee County and tried to increase public awareness of the devastation caused by drinking and driving. She gave up drinking for about five years. Petitioner successfully completed the Florida Teacher Certification Examination on January 22, 1994, and obtained her bachelor of arts from the University of South Florida College of Education on May 2, 1994. She completed her internship at Cape Elementary School in Lee County on May 2, 1994. From August 1994 to November 1995, Petitioner was employed at Gulf Elementary School as a specific learning disabilities (SLD) teacher under principal Martin Mesch. For the 1994-95 school year and two or three months of the 1995-96 school year, Petitioner demonstrated many of the attributes of a successful teacher. She projected a caring presence in the classroom while still maintaining a professional distance that allowed her to maintain order in the challenging setting of an SLD classroom. She volunteered for the Young Writers’ Program and went out of her way to reach out to children from poorer families. She was an active part of the school, where her two children also attended. Mr. Mesch opined that Petitioner’s past problems have not affected her ability to teach and would recommend to the School Board that she return to teach at his school. Aware of the details that contribute to effective teaching, Mr. Mesch immerses himself in the teaching that takes place at his school and appears to be a keen judge of teaching talent. In his opinion, Petitioner is an extraordinary teacher, whose problems, if known to parents and students, would not impair her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Mesch, who has served as principal or assistant principal at Gulf Elementary School for 15 years, also understands the community that his school serves. He is aware of local community values, and he emphasizes that good moral character and teacher effectiveness are based on the totality of the circumstances, not on isolated facts. Petitioner’s tenure at Mr. Mesch’s school ended when she resigned in November 1995 to begin serving her sentence due to the second DUI charge. She resigned at Mr. Mesch’s sensible suggestion, in order to spare the school, herself, and her children adverse publicity. She served more than 200 days in jail from December 1995 to July 1996. Petitioner disputes the underlying facts of the 1995 arrest and conviction for the second DUI offense. Although the law enforcement officer at the scene may have confused some of the details of the incident, Petitioner has not shown that she was not driving under the influence of alcohol and has not successfully mitigated the effects of the second conviction. Petitioner admits that she had consumed an alcoholic beverage a couple of hours prior to when she was stopped. Petitioner declined a breathalyzer test without a witness present, claiming that she did not trust the arresting officer or presumably the officer who would have administered the breathalyzer test. If she had not been drinking excessively, Petitioner made a bad choice when she declined to take the breathalyzer test. More likely, she made the bad choice a few minutes earlier when she decided to drive her car after drinking more than the single drink to which she admits. Since the 1995 arrest in July, Petitioner has abstained from the use of alcohol and enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous. Petitioner has continued with treatment, last having been treated by a therapist with Southwest Florida Addiction Services in December 1996, when she successfully completed its program. Petitioner suffers from the illnesses of alcohol abuse and bipolar disorder, but, provided she continues to receive counseling as needed, these conditions do not impair her effectiveness as a teacher. In his proposed recommended order, Respondent does not seek permanent denial of the application, but asks that the application be denied for a period of ten years. In her proposed recommended order, Petitioner asks for the immediate issuance of her educator’s certificate subject to restrictions, such as random testing, continued counseling, and probation. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Petitioner abused alcohol during the school day. The evidence conflicts as to whether she can ever regain her driving privileges; Petitioner testified that she believes that she can. The evidence does not suggest that Petitioner has lost her effectiveness in the classroom or that she has been guilty of moral turpitude in the omissions from the 1994 application or the two convictions for driving under the influence, including the first one for manslaughter. The main issue in this case is to determine the effect of two convictions for driving under the influence--eight years apart--where the first one resulted in the death of another person. It is difficult to reconcile Petitioner’s expressions of remorse and edification resulting from the first incident with the occurrence of the second incident, even if the second incident were no more than driving after consuming a single drink--though, more likely, it was more than one drink. On the other hand, Mr. Mesch is a strong witness on Petitioner’s behalf. He works daily in the elementary school setting where Petitioner would likely return to work, if she were to receive her educator’s certificate. And Mr. Mesch displays no reservations about returning Petitioner to the classroom. In effect, by not introducing expert testimony to counter Mr. Mesch’s testimony, Respondent relies solely on the inference that two convictions for driving under the influence--with the former conviction also involving manslaughter--ought to suffice to deny Petitioner her certificate for ten years.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order granting Petitioner an educator’s certificate, effective one year from the date that the final order becomes final and subject to the following restrictions: Petitioner shall never operate a motor vehicle on the campus of a primary or secondary private or public school in Florida, including in transporting her children to school; Petitioner, in her capacity as a teacher, shall never transport any schoolchildren, except her own children, to or from school or on any school trips; Petitioner shall obtain addiction and behavioral counseling, whenever and for as long as or as frequently determined by the counselor to be needed; and another conviction for driving under the influence shall result in the permanent revocation of her certificate. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John J. Chamblee, Jr. Law Offices of John J. Chamblee, Jr. 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Attorney Bruce P. Taylor 501 First Avenue North, Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Findings Of Fact Respondent Paul N. Fjell is a 45-year-old graduate of Eastern Illinois University. In 1970, he was employed as a teacher by Petitioner, the School Board of Dade County, Florida. He subsequently was placed on continuing contract and continued in his capacity as a teacher for Petitioner until December 5, 1990, when he was suspended from his employment and this termination proceeding was commenced. Respondent has a long history of alcohol abuse. Since 1984, Petitioner has encouraged Respondent to avail himself of the services offered by Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (hereinafter "EAP"). Respondent has been referred on a number of occasions to the EAP by his supervisors since his alcohol problem appeared to be a fitness-related problem. On April 25, 1986, Respondent was admitted to the Addiction Treatment Program at Mount Sinai Medical Center, where he remained hospitalized for 28 days. His admitting diagnosis was poly-drug dependency and alcoholism. Respondent had been referred to that program by Petitioner's EAP. During the 1988-1989 school year Respondent again came to the attention of the Office of Professional Standards when he was removed from his position at Horace Mann Middle School because of absences and a resulting referral to EAP. Respondent was next assigned to two Cope Centers (North and South). He was assigned to work one-half day at each Center as a Work Experience Coordinator. Respondent's duties were to teach a class of young, pregnant students, locate part-time jobs for them, and monitor them at their places of employment. A Work Experience Coordinator occupies a highly visible position since the Coordinator must visit businesses and other organizations in the community in order to locate jobs for students. After approximately two months, Respondent was removed from his position at both Centers because of his non- performance and because of complaints from students, staff, faculty, and a School Board member that Respondent had the odor of alcohol on his breath at work. Respondent was next assigned to the Office of Vocational, Adult, Community, and Career Education (hereinafter "OVACCE"). The offices of OVACCE are located in the School Board Administration Building; consequently, Respondent had little contact with students or the public. While he was assigned there, Respondent was repeatedly absent, did not produce any work that could be used, and his supervisor detected an alcohol odor about Respondent. As a result, prior to the end of the 1989-1990 school year, Respondent was removed from OVACCE and relocated to the Dorsey Skill Center for a few months to complete the school year. In August, 1990, Respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence, leaving the scene of an accident, and violation of driving restrictions. On August 15, 1990, a conference-for-the-record was held in Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (hereinafter "OPS"). At that time, Respondent's arrest record and employment history were reviewed, and he was given specific directives as to the procedures he must thereafter follow regarding absences. Respondent was then placed on alternate assignment pending court disposition of his DUI arrest. Respondent was temporarily placed in the Physical Education Department at the School Board Administration Building at the end of August, 1990. His duties were essentially clerical in nature: stuffing envelopes, collating documents, distributing mail, and re-arranging the mail boxes. Within five weeks, his supervisor requested that OPS remove Respondent from that work assignment. His supervisor complained that Respondent reported late for work, left early, took long breaks, and was frequently absent. He also complained that other workers in the area were becoming demoralized because Respondent did not carry his share of the work. On one occasion Respondent's supervisor thought he smelled alcohol on Respondent's breath. Several times during this period Respondent was observed taking his shoes and socks off and elevating his feet to relieve swollen joints. Even after being instructed to not remove his shoes and socks and elevate his feet while at work, Respondent did so again and was observed by the Deputy Superintendent. Respondent was next placed in Petitioner's Security Investigative Unit (hereinafter "SIU"), where he performed clerical chores. On November 2, 1990, Respondent reported to his work location in an impaired state. This was discovered when other employees at the work site noted that Respondent was talking to himself, his clothing was disheveled, his speech was slurred, he had bloodshot eyes which he was trying to conceal by wearing dark glasses, he kept repeating himself, the content of his speech was nonsensical, and he had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Later that morning, a blood specimen was drawn from Respondent, which upon analysis showed an ethanol content of at least 50 milligrams per deciliter. During October, 1990, it had been determined that further psychological evaluation of Respondent was medically indicated, and he was directed by OPS to submit to further evaluation. An appointment was scheduled for him by OPS. Respondent, however, rescheduled that appointment several times and never did submit for further evaluation. Respondent disregarded directives given to him by OPS on August 15, 1990, regarding absence and leave procedures. Between November 5 and 14, 1990, Respondent was absent from work and failed to contact OPS regarding his absences in accordance with the directives previously given to him. Respondent understood that he was to contact OPS. The reason that Respondent did not contact OPS when he failed to report to work between November 5 and 14 was as a result of his drinking and not as a result of any lack of understanding of the directives which he had been given. Petitioner's EAP has had 140 contacts directly with Respondent or with his medical providers in an attempt to assist Respondent in dealing with his fitness-related alcoholism. Respondent is generally non-compliant with the recommendations made to him by professionals for dealing with his alcohol problem. Recommendations for long-term residential treatment have been ignored. Although Respondent has voluntarily admitted himself for treatment in hospital mental health units, his stays there are short and do not appear to be assisting him in dealing with his long-term alcohol problem. Although Respondent is currently attending daily AA meetings, his attendance may be related as much to his pending traffic charges and this termination proceeding as to any commitment on his part to finally resolve his alcohol problem. When Respondent was a patient at Mount Sinai, once he was detoxified, he exhibited no personality disorder or psychiatric condition. His problem was alcoholism and poly-drug dependency; his behavior was secondary to that problem. Based upon protocols established by the American Society of Addiction Medicine, a physician cannot, with certainty, diagnose a mental condition while the patient is still under the influence of alcohol or other mind-altering drugs. Although Respondent has been receiving treatment from a psychiatrist on an irregular basis over the last few years, that physician's opinion that Respondent suffers from a manic depressive disorder requiring the administration of anti-depressant medication is rejected. That physician has not had the benefit of seeing Respondent on a regular basis. It is uncertain whether that physician has had the benefit of treating Respondent in a detoxified state since approximately 1985. Although it is believed that Respondent has been in a detoxified state during certain time periods since 1985, there is no assurance that the recovery program Respondent has created for himself is working. Respondent received acceptable annual evaluations for the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 school years and was recommended for reemployment at the conclusion of each of those school years. Each year's annual evaluation was based upon one classroom observation only. Although fitness-related issues such as active alcoholism appear to be included within Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, on Petitioner's annual evaluation form, principals completing annual evaluations of teachers are prohibited from considering fitness-related issues. By union contract, only the Office of Professional Standards can deal with issues relating to a teacher's fitness for duty. Over the years, Respondent's drinking problem has become known to more and more students, staff, medical professionals, and members of the community. His failure to ultimately resolve his alcohol problem has achieved some degree of notoriety.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent's suspension as of December 5, 1990, was proper and dismissing Respondent from his employment as a teacher for the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of May, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10 13-15, and 17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 12, and 16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-7, and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 8, and 11 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10 and 12-14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. transmitting transcript, together with Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1-14 and Respondent's exhibits numbered 1-4. COPIES FURNISHED: Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Honorable Betty Castor, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Findings regarding general matters The Respondent, Ernest Scott, d/b/a Sonny's Stardust Lounge and Restaurant, is the holder of a special alcoholic beverage license for premises located at 5181 N.W. 9th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. His current license number is 16-00368SRX. The type of license held by the Respondent is a special license authorized by Chapter 61-579, Laws of Florida. The Respondent purchased the licensed premises as a going business in 1983. At that time the business had a similar license, which license was transferred to the Respondent when the Respondent purchased the business. Findings regarding sales to minors On December 15, 1989, Respondent's employee, Lillian C. Pender, unlawfully sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of twenty-one years. The beverage sold was a 12-ounce can of Budweiser beer. The minor to whom the sale was made was Jerry Wieczorek, age 16, date of birth April 11, 1973. 2/ On January 12, 1990, the Respondent, Ernest Scott, unlawfully sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of twenty-one years. The beverage sold was a 12-ounce can of Budweiser beer. The minor to whom the sale was made was Seth Ross, age 18, date of birth August 22, 1971. At the time of the alcoholic beverage sale on January 12, 1990, Seth Ross was engaged as an under age "Investigative Aide." His primary function in that capacity was to attempt, under the watchful eyes of the Division's Investigators, to purchase alcoholic beverages from various premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. When his efforts were successful, the Division Investigators would arrest the person who sold the alcoholic beverage to the Investigative Aide and would issue a notice to the licensee. All Investigative Aides, including Seth Ross, were instructed not to make any false statements about their age, not to use any false identification documents, and to answer truthfully any questions regarding their age that might be asked by the person from whom they were attempting to buy alcoholic beverages. Shortly after 8:00 p.m. on the evening of January 12, 1990, Seth Roth entered the licensed premises and walked up to the bar. The Respondent, Ernest Scott, was on duty behind the bar. Ross asked the Respondent for a Budweiser and in response the Respondent asked Ross for identification. Ross handed the Respondent a valid Florida driver license that contained Ross' correct date of birth, namely August 22, 1971. The Respondent looked at the driver license and then said to Ross, "This makes you twenty." Ross replied, "No, it makes me eighteen." The Respondent said something to the effect that that was "good enough," and sold a Budweiser beer to Ross. Ross paid for the beer and then walked over to where two Division Investigators were sitting and delivered the beer to them. 3/ Findings regarding seating accommodations The furniture inventory at the time of Respondent's purchase of the licensed premises included the following: 49 four seat tables, 5 two seat tables, and 206 chairs. Except as specifically noted in the findings which follow, that original inventory of furniture has been continuously located on the licensed premises. Since the purchase of the licensed premises the Respondent has added some furniture to the licensed premises, including at least 5 small chairs and one large table. On December 18, 1989, Investigator R. W. Dees went to the licensed premises, contacted the Respondent, and conducted an inspection of the licensed premises. On the basis of the inspection, Investigator Dees concluded that the licensed premises were not being maintained in compliance with Chapter 61-579, Laws of Florida, and he issued a notice to that effect to the Respondent. 4/ The notice constituted a warning to the Respondent, as well as specific instructions regarding what the Respondent was required to do to be in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 61-579, Laws of Florida. At the time of the inspection on December 18, 1989, the Division's policy with regard to first offenses regarding the accommodations required by special acts like Chapter 61-578, Laws of Florida, was to issue a warning and to allow the licensee ten days within which to take the necessary corrective action. On the basis of the record in this case it cannot be said with certainty how many patrons could be served full course meals with the accommodations on the licensed premises at the time of the inspection on December 18, 1989. 5/ However, by the next day the Respondent had taken steps to remedy any deficiencies in that regard, and on December 19, 1989, there were sufficient tables and chairs on the licensed premises to serve at least two hundred patrons at tables. On January 12, 1990, Investigators Krauss and Dees conducted another inspection of the Respondent's licensed premises. At the time of the inspection on January 12, 1990, there were a sufficient number of tables and chairs on the licensed premises for service of at least two hundred patrons. 6/
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that there has been no violation of Chapter 61-579, Laws of Florida, and dismissing the charges set forth in the second and fourth paragraphs of the Notice To Show Cause; Concluding that the Respondent did violate Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, by reason of the sale, by the Respondent's employee, of an alcoholic beverage to a minor, as charged in the first paragraph of the Notice To Show Cause; Concluding that the Respondent did violate Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, by reason of the sale, by the Respondent, of an alcoholic beverage to a minor, as charged in the third paragraph of the Notice To Show Cause; and Imposing a penalty consisting of a fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the violation described in subparagraph (b) of this recommendation and an additional fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the violation described in subparagraph (c) of this recommendation. RECOMMENDED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of September, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1990.
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should revoke or suspend the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate, or impose any other penalty provided by law, for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 5, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 326738, covering the areas of History, Political Science, and Economics, which was valid through June 30, 1994. Respondent's teaching certificate has not been renewed for failure to complete three additional course credits. On or about November 1989, Respondent was reported to Professional Practices Services (PPS) for failure to maintain honesty. The basis for the report was that on a teacher in-service day, Respondent did not report to work, but had a co-worker sign in for him. As a result of this report, the Pinellas County School District suspended the Respondent for three (3) days without pay. On or about August 21, 1990, Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Department of Education that extended through the end of the 1990-1991 school year. The Deferred Prosecution Agreement included in its terms the requirements that the Respondent: violate no criminal laws and shall fully comply with all district school board regula- tions, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, F.A.C.; perform assigned duties and responsibilities in a professional manner and which is satisfactory to the county school board and in compliance with the rules of the Florida Department of Education; and satisfactorily complete a workshop/inservice training course or college level course in developing positive relationships with others. On July 24, 1991, then Commissioner of Education, Betty Castor, revoked the Respondent's Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Department of Education and filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. On June 30, 1992, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) issued a Final Order regarding the July 24, 1991 Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. On or about August 12, 1992, Karen Wilde, Executive Director of the EPC, notified the Respondent of the terms of the Respondent's probation as provided by the June 30, 1992 EPC Final Order. On May 4, 1992, Betty Castor, Commissioner of Education filed a second Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. The second Administrative Complaint referenced the first pending Administrative Complaint entered against the Respondent and further alleged that the Respondent had engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct. The second Administrative Complaint also alleged that on or about October 25, 1991, the Pinellas County School Board suspended the Respondent with pay and recommended that the Respondent be terminated. On August 18, 1992, the Respondent entered into a Settlement Agreement with the EPC whereby the Respondent elected not to contest the allegations set forth in the May 4, 1992 Administrative Complaint. This agreement required the Respondent among other things to: submit to an evaluation by licensed psychiatrist mutually acceptable to the EPC and the Respondent within sixty (60) days of the date of this agreement. submit to an evaluation by a licensed physician other than [Respondent's] regular physician. This exam must include a medical review to determine the cumulative effects of medication which has been prescribed to [the Respondent], and to determine whether any medications or combinations thereof with each other or with alcohol may contribute to the behaviors which are the basis of the Adminis- trative Complaint. On November 6, 1992, the Education Practices Commission issued a Final Order with regard to the Second Administrative Complaint. The November 6, 1992 Final Order incorporated the terms of the August 18, 1992 Settlement Agreement. On or about December 11, 1992, Karen Wilde, Executive Director of the EPC, notified the Respondent of the terms that the Respondent agreed to in his Settlement Agreement. On or about March 10, 1993, Karen Wilde again notified the Respondent of the requirements of the Respondent's Settlement Agreement and the Respondent's non-compliance with terms of that latest settlement agreement. The Respondent has not complied with the terms of the Final Order of November 6, 1992 which incorporated the Settlement Agreement insofar as the evaluations from a physician and from a psychiatrist have not been submitted. On or about April 1, 1993 Karen Wilde notified the Respondent that the Respondent was being reported to the PPS for non-compliance with the terms of the Final Order of November 6, 1992. On June 30, 1993, the PPS initiated an action against the Respondent for violation of the Respondent's EPC probation. Respondent has taught school for over twenty years. On September 7, 1992, Respondent seriously injured his back in the course of his employment as a result of intervening to prevent a fight between two students. Respondent's injury required him to undergo surgery to repair a herniated disc, and resulted in a 9 percent permanent partial impairment rating to the body as a whole. During this time Respondent was on prescribed pain medication. Respondent filed a worker's compensation claim which was settled by the Pinellas County School Board. The settlement stipulated that Respondent would resign his employment with the Pinellas County School Board, and further provided that the School Board has no objection to deletion of paragraph 8(f) and 8(g) of the settlement agreement. On August 18, 1993, the Respondent resigned his teaching position with the Pinellas County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Respondent be barred from reapplying for a teaching certificate for a period of one (1) year from the final disposition by the Education Practices Commission; That prior to reapplication the Respondent be required to provide the certificates that were required by Paragraph 5 and 6, and shall comply with Paragraphs 8(f) and 8(g), all of the Final Order entered by the Education Practices Commission on November 6, 1992; That upon reemployment in the teaching profession that he be placed on a term of probation of three years on the terms outlined in Paragraphs 7, 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 8(e), and 9, all of the Final Order entered by the Education Practices Commission on November 6, 1992; and That an administrative fine of $500.00 be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner within the first twelve months of the probationary period. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of March, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 16th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the Findings of Fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-10. Adopted. 11. Adopted in part. 12.-18. Adopted. Incorporated in paragraph 18. 20.-22. Adopted. Respondent's Proposed Order Adopted in part. Reject as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan L. Bond, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 David L. Smith 2521 Oak Leaf Lane Condo D Clearwater, Florida 34623 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against the Respondent for sexual misconduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 686332, covering the area of emotionally handicapped education, which was valid through June 30, 2002. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Bayonet Point Middle School in Pacso County School District. A.Y. was an emotionally handicapped student who had been a student of the Respondent in the 1999-2000 school year. Between June and December 2000, when A.Y. was 13 years old, the Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with A.Y. This relationship included kissing, fondling, and on more than one occasion the Respondent's digital penetration of A.Y.'s vagina. On or about December 15, 2000, the Respondent was observed meeting A.Y. at a library when she got into his car and drove away. He later claimed he was counseling her. The Respondent was charged with two counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a minor as a result of his behavior with A.Y. On November 26, 2001, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both counts. The Respondent was adjudicated guilty on both counts, and sentenced to eight years in prison, followed by seven years of probation, concurrently on each charge. James Davis, the Director of Human Resources for the School Board of Pasco County where the Respondent taught, testified. Mr. Davis was a certified teacher with many years of experience and testified about professional standards and the impact of the Respondent's acts upon the school system. For a teacher to enter into a sexual relationship with a student, especially a young, emotionally handicapped student, is very harmful to the student emotionally and academically. A.Y. became defensive, and then felt guilty that she had caused the Respondent to get into trouble. Furthermore, such conduct destroys the faith the parents and other community members have in the educational system. There were articles in the newspaper about the situation which were adverse to the educational environment. The parents of A.Y. were very angry about the acts committed by the Respondent. The Respondent, when questioned by administrative staff for the Pasco School District, admitted he made an error in meeting A.Y., but denied any other inappropriate conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered permanently denying the Respondent a teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 James C. Howard Gulf Correctional Institution 500 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 34655 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Richard Witherspoon (Witherspoon), is an employee of the Broward County School Board, holding a professional services contract, and is currently employed as a teacher at Broward Estates Elementary School. On November 30, 1994, the Fort Lauderdale Police Narcotics Unit was conducting an undercover drug operation at 2146 N.W. 7th Court in Fort Lauderdale. As part of the operation, Detective Clay Barrett posed as a drug dealer. Witherspoon approached Detective Barrett and asked him for a dime bag of marijuana. Witherspoon gave the officer money and received a bag of marijuana. Detective Barrett then signaled to other officers, who came and took Witherspoon into custody. Witherspoon was handcuffed and taken to the police department's processing room, where he was photographed. Witherspoon told the police that he was a school teacher. An information was filed against Witherspoon, charging him with the purchase of a controlled substance. In lieu of standing trial, Witherspoon agreed to enter a drug intervention program through the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. As a prerequisite to become eligible for the drug intervention program, Witherspoon admitted to the presence of the drug. There were newspaper articles concerning the arrest of Witherspoon for purchasing marijuana, stating that Witherspoon was a schoolteacher. Witherspoon completed the pretrial intervention drug program. On January 30, 1996, the criminal case involving the purchase of a controlled substance was dismissed. Prior to his arrest, Witherspoon's teaching performance at Broward Estates Elementary School had been satisfactory and there had been no complaints concerning his teaching ability. After the arrest and resulting newspaper articles, there were still no complaints concerning Witherspoon's teaching performance but parents did express their disappointment in him because of his arrest. In 1989, Witherspoon was employed with the Dade County School Board as a teacher at Avocado Elementary School. On May 12, 1989, in Jefferson County, Alabama, he was arrested and charged with five counts of negotiating a worthless instrument. Witherspoon entered a bonding agreement for his release before trial. He failed to appear at trial and defaulted on his bonding agreement. Witherspoon was taken into custody at Avocado Elementary School and transported to Alabama to stand trial. He pled guilty to all five counts and was sentenced to a six month prison term, one year of probation, and charged with court costs and restitution. On October 30, 1989, Witherspoon resigned from employment with the Dade County Schools. In his letter of resignation, Witherspoon requested the Dade County Schools to send any correspondence to him at his sister's address. In July, 1990, the Florida Education Practices Commission filed an administrative complaint against Witherspoon based on the Alabama charges, seeking action against Witherspoon's teacher's certificate. Attempts to serve the complaint by mail and hand delivery were unsuccessful. Notice of the complaint was published in a Dade County newspaper on November 13, 19, 16, and December 3, 1990. A notice of the hearing on the administrative compliant was sent to Witherspoon by restricted delivery on January 14, 1991, but was returned to the Education Practices Commission because Witherspoon had moved and left no forwarding address. On February 1, 1991, the Education Practices Commission reviewed the case record. By Final Order of the Florida Education Practices Commission dated February 27, 1991, Witherspoon was found guilty of gross immorality, moral turpitude, and personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Dade County School Board. Witherspoon's teaching certificate was suspended for a period of six months commencing on March 8, 1991. Witherspoon was issued a written reprimand and was required to serve three years probation, with conditions to be met upon his reemployment as a teacher. Copies of the Final Order were sent to Witherspoon by regular and certified mail, but were returned to the Education Practices Commission, marked "Moved, Not Forwardable." Witherspoon applied for employment as a teacher with the Broward County School Board on June 18, 1991. He answered "no" on his application in response to the following question: "Have you ever had your teaching certificate from any state suspended or revoked?" At the time that he applied for employment, he did not know that his teaching certificate had been suspended. Witherspoon first learned that his certificate had been suspended during a conversation with an employee of the Education Practices Commission on November 7, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5767 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Sentences 1-7 are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: The first two sentences are accepted. The remainder is accepted in substance to the extent that factually he was suspended but rejected to the extent that it implies that Witherspoon knew he was suspended at the time he made the application and that he knowingly falsified his application. Paragraph 10: Rejected as constituting argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remaining is accepted insubstance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 3: The first sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that there had been no problems with Witherspoon's teaching performance prior to the newspaper articles appearing concerning his arrest. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 4: The first sentence is accepted to the extent that that is what the Petitioner charged. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant since the Final Order came from the Education Practices Commission not from the Dade County School Board. Paragraphs 5-8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire Whitelock Soloff, Rodriguez and Williams, P.A. One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 601 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Richard Witherspoon Post Office Box 1795 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Frank R. Petruzielo, Supertintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
Findings Of Fact Based on the Respondent's admissions in the Election of Rights form and on the exhibits and testimony received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 554716 covering the subject of Spanish, issued September 29, 1986, and valid through June 30, 1991. At all times material hereto, the Respondent taught in the Hillsborough County, Florida, school district at Middleton Junior High School. On or about March 23, 1981, the Respondent was arrested by the Lumberton, North Carolina, Police Department and charged with forgery. On or about June 6, 1984, the Respondent submitted an Application for a Teaching Position to the Hillsborough County (Florida) Public Schools in which she certified that she had never been arrested for a criminal offense. On or about June 28, 1984, June 27, 1985, and July 23, 1985, the Respondent submitted applications for teacher's certificates to the Department of Education of the State of Florida in which she certified that she neither had been convicted, nor had adjudication withheld, of a criminal offense. On or about December 10, 1986, the Respondent was arrested by the Tampa (Florida) Police Department and charged with grand theft and uttering a forged instrument. On or about May 28, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty before the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, to one count of grand theft in violation of Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and 18 counts of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. Said court thereupon adjudicated the Respondent guilty of said felonies and sentenced her to six months community control and four and one-half years probation. On or about February 23, 1988, the Respondent was arrested by the University of South Florida Police Department, Tampa, Florida, and charged with four counts of uttering a forged instrument. In or about May, 1988, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty by the Circuit Court of having violated the terms of her probation in violation of Section 948.06, Florida Statutes, and she was sentenced to three years in prison.
Recommendation Based on all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations described in the foregoing conclusions of law and permanently revoking the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2993 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings submitted by all parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. (The evidence in support of these proposed findings does not even reach the level of competent substantial evidence.) Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant in view of the lack of proof regarding paragraph 9. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted in substance, with some incorrect details modified. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Accepted. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings proposed by Respondent (None.) COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemary E. Armstrong and Catherine Peek McEwen 401 South Florida Avenue Post Office Box 3273 Tampa, Florida 33601-3273 Iris Locklear Zapata Florida Correctional Institution Post Office Box 147 Lowell, Florida 32663 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about August 2, 1977, in Duval County, Florida, did expose his sexual organs by masturbation inside a pornographic booth in the presence of a plain clothes city vice detective at a Jacksonville movie theater, and further, whether or not Ossie L. Gardner plead guilty to the lesser charge of "indecent exposure" and was fined 550.00 plus court costs, all in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example to students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about June 29, 1967, in Leon County, Florida, did solicit for a lewd and lascivious act by an offer to commit and engage in lewdness, to wit, fellatio with an employee of the Tallahassee Police Department, in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example for students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's Certificate filed by the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, against Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into several stipulations. The first of those stipulations was that the statements in the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's, Certificate found under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are agreed to and established as facts in this cause; therefore, with the recitation of those facts in the following quotation, those facts under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are hereby established. "JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS" "OSSIE L. GARDNER is the holder of Post-Graduate, Rank II Florida teaching certificate number 181441, covering Math, Emotionally Disturbed and Junior College, which is valid until June 30, 1993." "OSSIE L. GARDNER has been employed as a math/science teacher at the Juvenile Shelter in Jacksonville, Florida. He holds a tenure contract in Duval County where he continues to teach at this time. The Professional Practices Council received a report from Buford H. Galloway, Director of Evaluation and Development, indicating that OSSIE L. GARDNER was charged with Exposure of Sexual Organs by Masturbation on August 2, 1977. Pursuant to this report and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, staff of the Department of Education conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on February 13, 1978 made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that OSSIE L. GARDNER is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause on February 13, 1978, and directed the filing of this petition. The Petitioner has authority under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education to file this Petition. The State Board of Education has authority under action 231.28, Florida Statutes to revoke the teaching certificate of OSSIE L. GARDNER." At the commencement of the hearing, the parties further agreed to stipulate to the introduction of certain items of evidence without the necessity for authentication of those documents. Finally, the parties agreed to stipulate to the introduction of the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden, as a late-filed exhibit, to be used by the undersigned in the same way as the testimony offered in the course of the hearing. The facts in the case revealed that on August 2, 1977, between 3:30 and 4:00 P.M., Officer J. W. Lockley of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Duval County, Florida, was making a routine check of the J & K Adult Theater in the 400 block of Main Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This theater contains material of sexual content. Among other features of the theater are certain booths located behind a curtained area, which is separated from the other part of the establishment. Those booths have coin-operated projectors which allow for the display of preselected film clips which have been obtained from the proprietor. The booths are approximately four feet by seven or eight feet in dimension and the patron may stand up or in some cases may sit down in the booths. The booths have a further feature which is a door which has instructions that it must be closed during the course of the film being shown. On the date in question, Officer Lockley went into the area of the theater which contains the booths and observed the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, in Booth No. 8. At that time, the door to the booth was open and Gardner was observed with his sexual organs exposed, and was observed stroking his exposed penis with his hand in an upward and downward motion. A film was playing in the booth, being projected on a small screen. The film depicted sexual activity between male participants, specifically fellatio. Officer Lockley passed up the aisle from where he had observed this activity on the part of the Respondent and then returned to the area of the booth in which Mr. Gardner was located. At that point, Gardner continued to stroke his penis and to look and obtain eye contact with Lockley and then to look down at his penis. Lockley subsequently arrested Gardner for exposure of sexual organs, in violation of Section 80003, Florida Statutes. Gardner later plead guilty to a municipal ordinance violation of indecent exposure, City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. 330.124. For this violation, Gardner was given a judgment and sentence of a $50.00 fine plus $2.00 court costs. In the course of the arrest, the Respondent indicated to Officer Lockley that he had bean arrested for similar conduct before in a matter in Tallahassee, Florida. This incident pertained to a situation which occurred in the Greyhound Bus Station in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 29, 1967. At that time, C. A. McMahan, an employee of the State Prison Camp, Division of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, was working as an agent with the Tallahassee Police Department to assist in the investigation of vice activities. In particular, McMahan was assisting in the investigation of alleged homosexual activities in the men's restroom of the Greyhound Bus Station. On the date in question at around 10:00 P.M., McMahan went into the men's restroom and entered one of the closed-in stalls in which a commode was located; Gardner went to one of the urinals in the bathroom facility. Before entering the stall, McMahan observed Gardner masturbating at the urinal. McMahan then closed the door to the stall and was seated in the area of the commode when Gardner moved into the area next to McMahan's stall and continued to masturbate as observed through a hole in the wall between the stall in which McMahan was located and the area where Gardner was positioned. After a period of three or four minutes, Gardner stuck his penis through a hole in the partition wall into the area where McMahan was located. At that point, McMahan left to tell Captain Burl S. Peacock of the Tallahassee Police Department, Tallahassee, Florida, of his observation. Both of these individuals went back into the restroom, at which point Gardner was arrested. Gardner, after being advised of his constitutional right to remain silent, admitted that he had gone to the restroom with the thought that he could get some "sexual relief", and further admitted putting his penis through the hole in the partition for the purpose of getting that "sexual relief." Gardner also admitted to Peacock that he had been involved in homosexual activities as early as the age of 18 and had performed sodomy on one occasion and had been a passive partner in homosexual activities at other times. Subsequent to the June 29, 1967, arrest, Gardner received psychiatric attention for his problem. For the incidents related in the matters of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, the Respondent has been charged with violations of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code; in that his conduct is alleged to be inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience; not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. A review of those stated sections of the Florida Statutes and the The Florida Administrative Code reveals that any substantive allegations cognizable through this complaint are found in provision of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, only. Therefore, no further reference will be made to Section 6A- 4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code. Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "(2) EXAMPLE FOR PUPILS.--Labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the principles of truth, honesty and pat- riotism and the practice of every Christian virtue." The conduct which has been established in the facts pertaining to the incidents of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure of the Respondent's sexual organs and the surrounding activities in those incidents, is conduct which shows that the Respondent is not laboring faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their deportment and morals' in violation of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes. No other violation of that provision has been established. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, together with the preamble to the overall Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "231.28 Suspension or revocation of certificates. The Department of Education shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying him the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (6); to revoke the teach- ing certificate of any person, thereby denying him the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to provisions of subsection (6); or to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person, provided: (1) It can be shown that such person obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means, or has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system, or to teach in or to operate a private school, or has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, or has had his certificate revoked in another state, or has been convicted of a mis- demeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, or upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seri- ously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, or has otherwise violated the provisions of law, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate, or has refused to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education or the school board in the district in which he is employed." Again, the acts of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure by the Respondent of his sexual organs and the facts therein, show that the Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. The only other possible violation under Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, which might be argued is the allegation of possible conduct which seriously reduces the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board. The sole testimony offered in the course of the hearing which would address that substantive accusation would be that testimony found in the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden. A review of that testimony indicates that the opinion of the principal of the school in which the Respondent teaches, to wit, the school No. 182, Juvenile Shelter School, is to the effect that the facts in these cases are not known to other persons in the school. Consequently, there is no testimony to indicate that there would be any loss of effectiveness if Mr. Gardner continued to teach. No other violations were alleged or proven.
Recommendation In the course of the hearing, matters in mitigation and aggravation were considered. In that presentation, it was demonstrated that the Respondent is a teacher with an outstanding background, as revealed by his personnel file, which is the Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It was also established that the Respondent is a man of distinguished service to his country through service in the United States Army, as established in the Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 7. Further, it was established that absent these incidents alluded to in the course of this Recommended Order, the Respondent has not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Petitioner on any other occasion. Nonetheless, in consideration of the nature of his profession, it is recommended that the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, have his Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 181441 REVOKED for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Mail: 530 Carlton Building 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida Charles E. Grabill, Jr., Esquire 168 Blanding Boulevard, Suite 2 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Mr. M. Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practice Commission should grant Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed February 22, 1995, Petitioner requested an initial two-year nonrenewal temporary teaching certificate and a two-year part-time coaching certificate. The application discloses that Petitioner was born July 24, 1960. A question on the form asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic accident (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. The additional information requested on the form, if the "yes" box is checked, provides spaces for the following information: "city where arrested," "State," "Charge(s)," and "Disposition(s)." In response to this question, Petitioner checked the "yes" box and filled in the three spaces provided. Petitioner disclosed that, in East Williston, New York, in 1978, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." (This would mean driver's license because Petitioner answered in the negative the next question on the form, which asks whether he had ever had a teaching certificate revoked or otherwise disciplined in another state.) Petitioner also disclosed that, in Roslyn, New York, in 1979, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." Last, Petitioner disclosed that, in Mineola, New York, in 1986, he was charged with "Disorderly-Conduct" and the disposition was "Plead Guilty/Paid Fine [and] Placed on Probation." On a separate sheet of paper attached to the February 22 application and entitled "Arrest/Revocation Record," Petitioner disclosed: In addition to the records I have provided you, I was arrested several other times around the year 1980, and I don't recall the exact dates and dispositions--they were misdemeanors for disorderly conduct, and the charges were either dismissed or reduced and a fine paid. In signing the application, which is acknowledged by a notary, Petitioner attests that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed March 11, 1994, Petitioner requested only a two-year part-time coaching certificate. This application is identical to the first except in the disclosure of convictions. In the March 11 application, Petitioner disclosed the East Williston and Roslyn offenses, although the years changed to 1979 and 1980, respectively. Instead of a Mineola offense in 1986, Petitioner listed an Old Westbury offense in 1986. The Old Westbury offense was also for disorderly conduct and the disposition was a guilty plea and payment of fine, although the probation was omitted. Petitioner did not disclose on a separate sheet or otherwise the additional material disclosed on the separate sheet attached to the February 22 application. Petitioner has passed the relevant portions of the examination required of teachers and has met the conditions for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate except for issues in connection with his criminal history. By letter dated February 23, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application for a Florida teaching certificate had been denied. The letter refers to an accompanying Notice of Reasons. The Notice of Reasons recites that Petitioner filed an application for a Florida teaching certificate in March 1994. The Notice of Reasons notes that Petitioner disclosed only three of ten criminal convictions and concludes that the nondisclosures and convictions themselves constitute violations of the statutes and rules cited in the Preliminary Statement above. On February 19, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, driving under the influence, and operating a vehicle without a license. This and all other arrests took place in Nassau County, New York. On May 10, 1979, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charges of disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $500 fine, alcohol rehabilitation, and restriction of his driver's license to business and school. On September 27, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and two counts of criminal mischief. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, a reduced charge of two counts of disorderly conduct. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $75 restitution payment or 10 days in jail and conditionally discharged him. On November 25, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and driving under the influence. The former charge was dismissed. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, driving under the influence. The court sentenced him to a $200 fine and revocation of his driver's license. On January 12, 1982, Petitioner was arrested and charged with assault. On April 12, 1982, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of harassment. The court deferred disposition and conditionally discharged Petitioner pending payment of $32 restitution. On May 19, 1984, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. On April 1, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charge of attempted criminal mischief. The court unconditionally discharged him. On May 26, 1985, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief and resisting arrest. On June 12, 1986, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the charges. The court sentenced Petitioner to three years' probation. On November 5, 1986, Petitioner was arrested and charged with harassment and resisting arrest. On December 1, 1987, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, both charges. The court conditionally released Petitioner. Petitioner is recovering from dependencies on alcohol and drugs. In 1987, he entered a rehabilitation clinic on Pine Island where he underwent a month's treatment. He then entered a halfway house in Ft. Myers for three months. He regularly attends Alcoholic Anonymous meetings and obtains counseling. Prior to obtaining treatment, Petitioner attended St. Johns University and the Berklee College of Music, evidently without obtaining any degrees. Since treatment, Petitioner obtained in 1989 an Associate Arts degree from Edison Community College in Ft. Myers and in 1992 a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Emerson College in Boston with a major in acting and a minor in literature. While in Boston pursuing the BFA degree, Petitioner taught writing to gifted high school students and voluntarily performed for high school students plays that Petitioner had written and produced. He also tutored inner city students in reading. In April 1994, Petitioner obtained a statement of eligibility from Respondent. This allowed him to teach for up to two years, during which time he had to apply for a temporary nonrenewable teaching certificate. In August 1994, Petitioner was employed to teach seventh grade social studies and reading at Cypress Lake Middle School in Lee County. After a month, he was transferred to the special education department where he taught students in the middle-school drop-out prevention program. While at the school, Petitioner served as an assistant coach on the girls' basketball team and the boys' baseball team. The principal of the school terminated Petitioner's contract February 21, 1995, evidently when he learned that Respondent would be denying him a Florida teaching certificate. Petitioner has since been employed as a teacher by a private school in Lee County. Petitioner relied on advice from a well-meaning friend when he filed a second application a couple of weeks after filing the first application. The friend had told Petitioner that he could apply for a coaching certificate without applying on the same application for a two-year temporary teaching certificate. The innocent filing of two separate applications generated confusion for both Petitioner and Respondent. When denying Petitioner's request for a teaching certificate, Respondent inadvertently omitted mention of the first application. Similarly, when filing the second application, Petitioner inadvertently failed to include the separate sheet that he included with the first application. However, Respondent already had the separate sheet from the first application. It would be as disingenuous for Respondent to claim lack of knowledge, as to the second application, of the disclosures contained on the separate sheet attached to the first application as it would be for Petitioner to claim that the denial of the second application is not also intended to be a denial of the first application. The adequacy of the disclosures on the separate sheet is a separate matter. The two applications refer to two of the three 1979 arrests and report sentences of revocation of driver's license. The three 1979 arrests actually resulted in convictions for disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol (February 1979 arrest), disorderly conduct (September 1979 arrest), and driving under the influence (November 1979 arrest). The actual sentences were, respectively: $500 fine, driving restrictions, and alcohol rehabilitation; $75 restitution; and license revocation and $200 fine. The first two disclosures do a fair job of revealing Petitioner's first three convictions, especially given the fact that they took place 15 years ago when Petitioner was 18 and 19 years old. Obviously, one arrest/conviction is missing, but it appears that the court disposed of the second and third arrests at the same time and possibly in a consolidate proceeding. This may account for Petitioner's recollection that the second and third arrests were a single case. Also, the separate sheet addresses omissions. The dates are a little off, but the first arrest was early in 1979, and the consolidated disposition of the second and third arrests was in 1980. As reported by Petitioner, the charges are roughly correct, and the dispositions suggest the seriousness of the offenses. It is hard to tell which conviction the third reported arrest signifies. After the three 1979 arrests, there were four more convictions for which Petitioner had to account. To his credit, Petitioner identified 1986 as the year of the arrest, so as not to suggest that his criminal problems were further behind him than they really were. Although none of the actual arrests or convictions is for disorderly conduct, which is what Petitioner reported on the application forms, all four of the convictions could be fairly described as disorderly conduct. The reported and actual dispositions do not preclude the possibility that Petitioner was identifying any of the four arrests. Thus, Petitioner was probably disclosing the November 1986 arrest on the application forms, and he did a reasonably complete job of doing so. The disclosure question is therefore whether the separate sheet adequately accounts for the convictions arising out of the 1982, 1984, and 1985 arrests. These arrests took place "around the year 1980," as Petitioner reported on the separate sheet. "Disorderly conduct," as stated on the separate sheet, roughly describes the nature of the offenses, although less so the nature of the arrests, which is what Petitioner claims on the separate sheet to be describing. In fact, Petitioner paid restitution of $32 once, was unconditionally discharged once, and was placed on probation once. The reported fine in each case serves as reasonable disclosure, at least where no jail time is involved. On balance, Petitioner's disclosures did more than place Respondent on inquiry notice. The disclosures were reasonably accurate and detailed. They gave a fair picture of the kind of trouble that Petitioner got into at that point in his life. Respondent's case is based on Petitioner's unfitness to teach based on his alleged dishonesty in the application process and his past criminal behavior. Once the question of dishonesty in the application process is resolved in favor of Petitioner, the remaining focus is on his behavior 9-15 years ago when he was 18-26 years old. The number of arrests and convictions is troubling. But the dispositions do not suggest offenses of extreme gravity. Petitioner is now 35 years old. He has rehabilitated himself in terms of intoxicants, as well as educationally. For many years, he has demonstrated a clear commitment to teaching and evidently is skilled in the profession. He has served his communities well and seeks to continue to do so as a teacher in Florida. Given the nature of the offenses, their age, and the age of Petitioner at the time he committed the offenses, there is no basis in the record to find that Petitioner is morally unfit to teach.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Education Practice Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner's February 1994 application for a Florida teaching and coaching certificate. ENTERED on October 6, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 6, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-18: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19-22: adopted or adopted in substance. 23-27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Attorney Jerry L. Lovelace 909 SE 47th Terrace, Suite 201 Cape Coral, FL 33904 Ronald G. Stowers Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
