The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 654546, based upon the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Case No. 001- 1338-A, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: Respondent holds a Florida Educators Certificate (FEC), number 654546, in the area of Music. Respondent's FEC is valid through June 30, 2006. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a Music Education Teacher at Chiefland Elementary School in the Levy County School District. Additional Facts: Background Respondent served as a music teacher at Chiefland Elementary for 12 years. On January 17, 2001, while at school Respondent spoke to Johnny Turner, the guidance counselor at Chiefland Elementary. In this conversation Respondent commented that he had a problem with alcohol. Mr. Turner did not believe that Respondent was inebriated at that time. Mr. Turner did observe that Respondent was very hyper-active emotionally and verbally. On the evening of January 17, 2001, Respondent called Mr. Turner several times at Mr. Turner's home. From his remarks Mr. Turner believed that the Respondent was inebriated. Respondent's speech was slurred, Respondent was incoherent and repeated himself often. Respondent commented that he had a problem with alcohol and wanted help. Mr. Turner directed him to a rehabilitation program and to Alcoholics Anonymous. Mr. Turner also suggested that Respondent not try to come to school on the morning of January 18, 2001, and that they continue their conversation at some future date when Respondent was sober. Respondent asked Mr. Turner to give him a wakeup call at 5:00 a.m. on January 18, 2001. Mr. Turner made that call intending to remind Respondent to stay home that day but Respondent did not answer the phone. On January 18, 2001, around 8:15 a.m. Mr. Turner saw Respondent at the school outside the cafeteria. Respondent approached Mr. Turner and said good morning and placed a Catholic missal into Mr. Turner's hands. Respondent then went to this classroom. Respondent was observed by Mr. Turner walking across the courtyard and up the hall in a straight line without staggering. When Respondent greeted Mr. Turner on that morning the greeting was short by not slurred. Nothing in Respondent's conduct made Mr. Turner believe that Respondent should be reported as constituting a danger to himself or others at that time. Mr. Turner's impression of Respondent on January 18, 2001, was misplaced, for reasons that will be discussed. Respondent acknowledges that on the night of January 17, 2001, he had been drinking. He describes the amount that he drank as "a couple of drinks." David Beard, a friend of the Respondent, indicated that Respondent and Mr. Beard had a couple of drinks. They were drinking bourbon. In addition to the alcohol which Respondent consumed on the night of January 17, 2001, Respondent was also taking medication. That medication had been prescribed by Asa L. Godbey, Jr., M.D., a physician practicing outpatient psychiatry with adults. Dr. Godbey had first seen Respondent in 1997. Dr. Godbey diagnosed Respondent as having dysthymic disorder, a chronic non-psychotic depression. As of January 18, 2001, Dr. Godbey had prescribed Amitriptyline and Prozac, anti-depressant medications and Xanax, which is a benzodiazepine, used to help with anxiety when patients are depressed. Xanax is a non-depressant. In 1999 Dr. Godbey had prescribed Respondent Ritalin, a mild stimulant to address episodes of acute severe depression. Dr. Godbey was aware that Respondent had been treated for migraine headaches in the past by the use of small doses of narcotics. This refers to Tylenol No. 3 PRN. The record reveals that on January 17, 2001, and on the morning of January 18, 2001, Respondent took some medications prescribed for him. The exact medications taken on those dates is not clear from the record. In this connection, Dr. Godbey had told Respondent that he should not drink alcohol because he does not handle it well. As the doctor explained, alcohol by itself prevents deep sleep, a particular problem for people who are depressed. As Dr. Godbey explained, Respondent does not metabolize alcohol as well as some people. So it can be a real problem for him. As Dr. Godbey established, the mixing of alcoholic beverages and the drugs prescribed for Respondent is a problem. It worsens depression. Respondent's testimony that "he did not know to what extent" his use of alcohol presented a problem for him, given Dr. Godbey's advice against using alcohol, does not create forgiveness for his misconduct. The January 18, 2001 Incident at School: Linda Karol Yon is a speech language pathologist at Chiefland Elementary. This is a position that she has held for 27 years. Before the incident at issue Ms. Yon and Respondent would carpool from Gainesville to Chiefland on work days. Ms. Yon drove Respondent and herself to work on January 18, 2001. Ms. Yon drove Respondent and herself on the day in question because Respondent called her and said that he was not feeling really well. In particular Respondent told Ms. Yon that he had been out the night before with friends. He said that he had had a lot to drink. In essence, Respondent's description indicated he was hung over. On the morning of January 18, 2001, as they drove to school Respondent was very chatty. He was talking about the evening before when he celebrated the birthday of his friend. On January 18, 2001, Respondent conducted his 8:30 a.m. class, at Chiefland Elementary. Early in the morning on the date in question Respondent went to the office of the principal of Chiefland Elementary School, Michael Ice. While in the office Respondent handed Mr. Ice a piece of paper stating that the paper had been put in his mailbox and he believed it belonged to Mr. Ice. Respondent then left. The paper was a letter which had been written from Respondent to Mr. Ice requesting Mr. Ice to check into Respondent's user I.D. and password for the school computer system used to enter grades. The letter was from October 2000. Although Mr. Ice considered the provision of the letter at that time as being "kind of strange," Mr. Ice called the school data center to inquire about the matters set forth in the correspondence. Mr. Ice was told that there was nothing wrong with the user I.D. and password. Under the circumstances Mr. Ice decided to go to Respondent's classroom to talk to Respondent about the letter. When Mr. Ice arrived at Respondent's classroom the students in attendance were getting ready to leave the music class. Their regular teacher was coming to pick them up. Once in the room Mr. Ice showed Respondent the letter and asked what it was about, any why was Respondent asking him to respond to something that was from earlier in the year. Respondent asked the principal to come from the classroom into Respondent's office which is connected to the classroom. Once in the office Respondent asked the principal to look at his desk. The principal complied. Then Respondent asked the principal to come out with Respondent into the classroom. Once they returned to the classroom Respondent put his hands up in the air and said "and this is my classroom." Mr. Ice observed the Respondent to be "a little giddy." Mr. Ice questioned the Respondent in more detail about the letter and asked Respondent to go back to the principal's office and talk about it. Then Respondent started telling the principal about Respondent's alarm clocks, that he had three alarm clocks that he was having problems with and that he was having a problem with an alarm system at his house. Respondent remarked about something with his telephones. Respondent was going on and on about those subjects. None of those topics was in relation to the reason for the principal's visit to Respondent's classroom. Those extraneous remarks were unsolicited. Mr. Ice considered that there was a problem with Respondent and realizing that another class would be coming into the music room within 5 to 10 minutes, he asked Respondent to stay in the principal's office while he arranged to contact the next teacher bringing students to the music room and instruct the teacher to not escort the students to Respondent's classroom. Respondent did not conduct his next class. Mr. Ice also believed that he needed to call the School District's Director of Personnel, Dr. Leila Pratt. Mr. Ice called Dr. Pratt and explained his perceptions of the problem with Respondent and she agreed to come to the school. The reason why Mr. Ice called Dr. Pratt was that he had smelled an odor on Respondent's breath, that Respondent had slurred speech and that Respondent was believed to be under the influence of drugs or overly medicated. Respondent came back to the principal's office. Once in the principal's office Mr. Ice asked Respondent to be seated and Respondent sat down while they waited for Dr. Pratt to arrive. Somewhere between half an hour and 45 minutes after Respondent arrived at Mr. Ice's office, Dr. Platt arrived at the school. In the interim, Mr. Ice asked Respondent if he was taking something or if he was on something. Respondent took a metal pill box and opened it up and showed its contents to Mr. Ice. Mr. Ice observed about half a dozen different kinds of pills in the box. Mr. Ice remembers the Respondent telling him that one pill was Ritalin and one was Phenergan, both items that had been prescribed for Respondent. Respondent did not specify among the pills that he showed Mr. Ice which pills he was taking. While waiting for Dr. Pratt to arrive Respondent began to get really sleepy. He would lean back. He would talk to the principal with his eyes closed and his speech became slower and sometimes slurred. Dr. Pratt arrived at the school around 10:30. After Dr. Pratt arrived Mr. Ice went with her to a separate room from Respondent to discuss the situation. Upon returning to the room where Respondent was, Dr. Pratt heard Respondent talking about his medication and about his alarm clocks. She observed his speech as very slow and deliberate, giving the appearance that Respondent was having difficulty concentrating and focusing on what he was saying. Dr. Pratt observed the pills laid out by Respondent. Dr. Pratt asked Respondent if he was seeing more than one physician, given the number of drugs that she observed. She wanted to know whether Respondent's physicians were aware of the drugs being prescribed by the other physician. Respondent was able to respond appropriately to questions asked but he interjected things that were irrelevant to the conversation. Dr. Pratt decided that she would call for a drug test of Respondent to determine his condition. She contacted a facility in Ocala, Florida, that was affiliated with the school district to have that group send someone over to administer a drug test to Respondent. Respondent had expressed the desire to go back to his classroom but Dr. Pratt and Mr. Ice did not feel that that was an appropriate choice. Respondent wanted to get his belongings. He left to accomplish that task. That moment was when the decision was made to have Respondent drug tested. The basis which Dr. Pratt had for having the test performed was her concern about his capability to teach that day based upon his slurred speech and difficulty concentrating. She believed that something he was taking had impaired his functioning. When the subject of the drug test was brought up with Respondent, at first he said that he would not take the test and that he would rather resign his position at the school. He was allowed to talk to the union representative outside the presence of the school administrators on the subject of the drug test. After that conversation he indicated his willingness to take the test. Eventually he refused, stating that to take the test was against his principles. The person to perform the drug test did not arrive until around 1 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Before the arrival Respondent appeared very sleepy and put his head down on the desk in the principal's office where he had returned. While Mr. Ice and Dr. Pratt continued to talk, Respondent would involve himself in the conversation by discussing matters that were not relevant to the conversation. Believing that Respondent was uncomfortable sitting in the principal's office, Mr. Ice asked the Respondent if he would rather go to Ms. Yon's classroom. Ms. Yon has a small classroom and a private office adjacent to the classroom. Respondent agreed to go to Ms. Yon's room. He was escorted to that room. Respondent left Ms. Yon's office and went to the classroom of Mary Kay Warner, a third grade teacher. Ms. Warner has taught elementary education at Chiefland Elementary for about 18 years. Ms. Warner encountered Respondent in the hall around 12:30 p.m. After a few casual remarks Ms. Warner invited Respondent to come to her room and watch a science demonstration. While in the hall Ms. Warner describes Respondent's demeanor as being "rather sad." She assumed that he was "down in the dumps." Once in Ms. Warner's room Respondent sat down at a table and the science demonstration commenced with the students. Respondent began to say things and ask questions and to participate in the demonstration. Respondent encouraged Ms. Warner to call on a particular student and then asked some questions about some of the statements Ms. Warner made during the demonstration. Respondent commented that it was hot in the room. Respondent asked some questions about a mistake Ms. Warner made concerning telephone wires as contrasted with electrical wires. Ms. Warner had not anticipated Respondent being part of the science demonstration. When Respondent would interrupt the presentation Ms. Warner tried to go along with what he interjected to make the lesson appear normal for the children. It was not normal. At some point Ms. Warner began to notice that Respondent "was not himself." She was concerned that Respondent might be embarrassed in front of the students and she did not wish the children to know that Respondent was experiencing problems. In addition to commenting about its being hot in the room and asking Ms. Warner if she thought it was hot in the room, Respondent sat in her chair and rolled the chair across the room. Having become concerned about Respondent's conduct, Ms. Warner left the room and contacted a teacher next door. She asked that teacher to have an administrator intervene in a manner that would not involve Ms. Warner asking Respondent to leave the room and be overheard by the students. Ms. Warner made this arrangement out of concern that she did not know how Respondent would act if she asked him to leave the room. Ms. Warner took the children to the playground, telling them they were going to recess. It was not the normal time for recess. Although this departed from the normal routine the children did not seem to realize that there was a problem with Respondent. Respondent left Ms. Warner's class after the children had departed. Later in the day Respondent spoke to Ms. Warner and said, "Did you narc on me? Somebody narced on me." Mr. Ice is the administrator that went to Ms. Warner's classroom to escort Respondent from the room. He observed Respondent sitting at Ms. Warner's desk looking very tired, his eyes opening and closing. Mr. Ice told Respondent that they needed to go back to the principal's office and they did. When Mr. Ice and Respondent returned to the principal's office, Mr. Ice expressed the opinion that Respondent would not be capable of teaching his classes at that juncture. That opinion is accepted. As a consequence another portion of Respondent's class schedule for the day was cancelled. After returning to the office the person to administer the drug test arrived. In that context Dr. Pratt explained the school district's policy that if Respondent did not take the blood test to detect drugs, his refusal would be considered as an indication of a positive result in the test. Ultimately when Respondent declined the drug test, Mr. Ice told Respondent that given his condition Respondent was going to have to leave the school campus. Arrangements were made with Ms. Yon to take Respondent home. Respondent initially agreed to leave the campus with Ms. Yon. Respondent went to the door of the principal's office after Ms. Yon left to go to her car. Respondent bumped into a metal folding chair at the door, sat down in it and said that leaving was against his principles and he was not going to leave. He repeated those remarks. He was kind of slow-moving at that point in time and a little bit defiant. Respondent kept drinking water as he had been and commented that his throat was very, very dry. He had taken off his shoes as he was sitting there. He moved from the metal chair back to a small table in the principal's office and sat down at that location. Others pleaded with Respondent to leave, to just go home with Linda, referring to Ms. Yon. Respondent kept saying "No," it was against his principles. Having refused to take the drug test, having refused to go home with Ms. Yon, Mr. Ice told Respondent that he was going to have to call the city police and have the police remove Respondent from the campus. Dr. Pratt agreed with this choice. Respondent still would not cooperate. Mr. Ice called the Chiefland Police Department and Officer Russ Hamm was dispatched to the school. A conversation ensued between Mr. Ice and Officer Hamm in which it was agreed that Officer Hamm would try to persuade Respondent to leave. Officer Hamm made a considerable effort to persuade Respondent to leave the campus. There was a concern that Respondent be gone from the campus before the school ended to avoid students seeing Respondent in his state. Finally when it was decided that Respondent would have to be physically removed, he did not cooperate with that choice either. Officer Hamm told the Respondent that he was under arrest and that he was going to be placed in handcuffs. Respondent said no, that he did not have to comply. While Officer Hamm was putting the handcuffs on Respondent, the Respondent did not cooperate and had to be wrestled to the ground. In effect one handcuff was placed on Respondent and Officer Hamm had to wrestle the other arm around and get the second arm handcuffed. This took place over a minute or two. Officer Hamm had spent 10 to 15 minutes trying to persuade Respondent to leave before making the arrest for trespassing. Once outside, Respondent refused to get into the patrol car. This prompted Officer Hamm to use a taser gun which gained Respondent's cooperation. Officer Hamm tried for several minutes to persuade Respondent to get into the patrol car before using the taser gun. In that time Officer Hamm told Respondent that school was about to let out and there was no reason to excite everyone and have all the kids seeing Respondent in handcuffs given that he was a teacher. Respondent was then taken from the campus in the police car. He departed around 2:00 p.m. Had Respondent cooperated with the officer, he would have been placed in the patrol car and driven from the campus before the bell rang concluding the school day. The consequence of Respondent's acts, not cooperating in the attempt by Officer Hamm and the school administrators to escort him out the back door before the school day ended and into the police car, and away from the school, was that the students were able to see Respondent being placed in the police car. Mr. Ice observed that Respondent was able to comprehend the nature of the discussions on the date in question concerning the questions and answers related to Respondent's state. To that extent Respondent was coherent. Mr. Ice expressed the opinion that Respondent, based upon his observation, was unable to perform his functions as a School Board employee on that day and that he was incapacitated to the extent of being incapable of doing his job and should not have been in the presence of children. That opinion is accepted. Mr. Ice received questions from teachers and staff members about the incident but not from parents. The record does not reveal that the questions related to Respondent's future effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Ice expressed the opinion that Respondent's behavior created a condition that would be harmful to the students' learning at Chiefland Elementary. Specifically, Mr. Ice expressed the opinion that a teacher under the influence of something in front of children undermines what is trying to be accomplished in their education. That opinion is accepted. Dr. Pratt did not have any contact from parents concerning the incident nor from teachers or staff. Persons at the school district office were aware of the incident. Dr. Pratt expressed the opinion that Respondent lost his effectiveness as a teacher, given that the community in which Respondent taught was small in size. Dr. Pratt points out that several teachers were involved in this incident and the kids were being dismissed from the school at the time that Respondent was being placed in the police car. Mr. Ice when asked whether Respondent would be an effective teacher after the incident on January 18, 2001, testified "I don't know. I don't know if he could." By contrast Mr. Ice executed a form involving prospective employment provided by the School Board of Alachua County dated April 18, 2001, speaking of Respondent's excellence as a teacher. Respondent was no longer employed at Chiefland Elementary following the January 18, 2001 incident. In explaining the reference provided to Alachua County, Mr. Ice indicated that he did not want to see Respondent's life ruined and considered the items in the personal reference form to be related to Respondent's abilities in the classroom. Mr. Ice would not wish to have Respondent return to Chiefland Elementary, given the assumed knowledge of the community about the events of January 18, 2001. Mr. Ice is not certain if the conduct displayed by Respondent on January 18, 2001, would happen again. Generally speaking, Mr. Ice has expressed the opinion that if the circumstances evidenced on the date in question could be addressed, Mr. Ice feels that Respondent could be an effective teacher elsewhere. Respondent admits that he had taken prescribed medication the same day he drank alcohol. That date was January 17, 2001. He took medication the next morning. He did not specify the medication by name that he took on those dates. Respondent's claim that he "blacked out" and that he is not certain what happened after the principal visited his classroom is not believed. The facts that Respondent does remember and testified about beyond the encounter early in the morning in his classroom with Mr. Ice belie that claim. In particular, Respondent's rather detailed explanation of what transpired in Ms. Warner's classroom in which he acknowledges participating in the lesson, raising his hand, rolling in the chair across the classroom, telling Ms. Warner to call upon a certain student and the students being removed from the classroom confirm his awareness of later events in the day. The remarks attributable to Dr. Godbey in his sworn statement concerning the adverse effect which the medication prescribed would have on Respondent in combination with alcohol, particularly their influence on Respondent's conduct are matters of conjecture. He made assumptions about the combination of drugs and when they were taken through an hypothesis, that is not precisely grounded on facts established in the record. Even if one accepts that the medications and alcohol led Respondent to act in the manner found in the facts, it does not excuse his conduct. Respondent determined to take the medications in a combination that is not clear from the record and to mix them with alcohol, when he had been specifically warned by Dr. Godbey that he should not drink alcohol, which when mixed with the anti-depressant drugs prescribed creates a problem. Dr. Godbey goes so far in his treatment summary as to explain the January 18, 2001 incident by report to the doctor from another source (presumably the North Florida Regional Medical Center) as a psychotic episode. At the same time Dr. Godbey acknowledges that the exact cause of the psychotic episode has remained uncertain. Nothing in the diagnosis within the treatment summary by Dr. Godbey or other remarks attributable to the doctor reveals that Respondent's illness is such that it compelled him to act in the manner evidenced on January 18, 2001. On the topic of alcohol, in receiving advise from Dr. Godbey, whether Respondent was told merely not to drink because he does not handle alcohol well, or was told not to drink in combination with medication he was taking, is not important. What matters is that Respondent of his own volition chose to drink the alcohol and combine it with medication leading to the results that have been explained in which his conduct on January 18, 2001, was reprehensible and inexcusable. Mr. Doyle remains in treatment by Dr. Godbey. He is presently taking psychotropic medication that does not appear to interfere with his cognitive functions, nor present an impediment to his ability to teach. As of February 17, 2003, Respondent was still being treated by Dr. Godbey through individual psychotherapy in addition to the prescription of psychotropic medications. From another perspective Respondent was taken to the North Florida Regional Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida, following the episode in question. The impression of that facility was that the Respondent evidenced acute altered mental status with psychosis and acute polysubstance abuse. A urine toxicology screen performed during his stay at that facility revealed Respondent was positive for amphetamines, positive for benzodiazepines, positive for opiates, and positive for tricyclics. Leaving the Scene of an Accident Without Injuries Respondent was charged in the County Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit for Alachua County, Florida, Case No. 98-02397-TC-A, State of Florida vs. Troy Kevin Doyle. The offense charged was leaving the scene of an accident without injuries in violation of Section 316.061, Florida Statutes. The offense occurred on July 4, 1998, in Alachua County, Florida. On October 1, 1998, Respondent pled nolo contendre to the offense in open court. In that plea, which the Court found to be freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered, a stipulation was reached by the parties acknowledging damage to property other than to Respondent's vehicle. It was explained and Respondent acknowledged that the maximum sentence in the case was sixty days in jail, as well as a $500.00 fine. When the matter was concluded, Respondent did not have any questions or any statement in opposition to the plea which was arranged in his presence. Neither did his attorney. The judge found Respondent guilty and withheld the adjudication and placed Respondent on court-supervised probation for a period of six months. There was no requirement to report during the probationary period. Respondent was also ordered to pay court costs in the amount of $244.00. Respondent was required to complete 20 hours of community service and provide proof of that service. Subsequently, Respondent completed an application for renewal of his professional Florida Educator's Certificate. That application for renewal was made on October 19, 2000. The signature on the application was notarized. It stated a reminder to Respondent of the consequences if he did not make certain that the matters contained in the application were true, correct, and complete and the consequences if Respondent was not forthcoming in his answers to the questions within the application, wherein the application form stated, "I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of an Educator's Certificate if evidence and proof are established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." Within the application was a question which stated: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, had adjudication withheld, entered a pretrial diversion program, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation)? Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of a certificate. 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. Report any record other than SEALED or EXPUNGED records in this section. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent had been found guilty and had adjudication withheld following a plea of nolo contendre to the offense involving Section 316.061, Florida Statutes, he did not acknowledge the plea and provide further information. The offences related to Section 316.061, Florida Statutes, are misdemeanors of the second degree, crimes punishable as provided in Section 775.02 or 775.03, Florida Statutes. Respondent, in his testimony, indicated that no one told him what was meant in the application to renew his teaching certificate concerning the question pertaining to criminal offenses where it exempted the reporting of minor traffic violations. It was not necessary that the application further define "minor traffic violation." It suffices that Respondent appeared in the County Court for Alachua County, Florida, in a criminal case and entered a plea of nolo contendre to an offense involving a misdemeanor of the second degree. Nothing in that process would reasonably lead Respondent to conclude anything other than the fact that the case before the court was more serious than a minor traffic violation. When Respondent answered the question in the application in the negative, he failed to answer the question candidly. He did this in a setting in which he knew or should have known that adverse consequences would pertain for providing a negative response to the question. If Respondent was unsure what was meant by the question which refers to a minor traffic violation being exempt from disclosure, he should have inquired as to the meaning. The hearing record does not reveal that he made inquiry to clarify the meaning of that term before completing the application. Prior Performance When classroom teacher evaluations were performed on March 17, 1998, and March 30, 1999, Respondent was found to meet proficiency or above the expected level of performance. In the school year 1999/2000, optional performance appraisal form dated May 12, 2000, Respondent had been rated as having exemplary overall performance.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds Respondent in violation of Count 1, and Counts 3 through 6; dismisses Count 2; and revokes Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Since April 19, 1991, Respondent has held Florida teaching certificate 637552, which covers the areas of business education (grades 6 through 12) and physical education (grades 6 through 12). The certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, including January 4, 1992, employed as a teacher by the Broward County School Board. On January 4, 1992, while operating her motor vehicle, Respondent was involved in an incident which led to her arrest and to the filing of an information against her in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 92-2200CF10A. The information contained the following allegations, all of which were true: MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that [P]AULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January, A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully commit an assault upon Lieutenant Tom McKane, a duly qualified and legally authorized officer of the City of Sunrise, knowing at the time that he was a law enforcement officer, with a deadly weapon, to wit: an automobile, while he was in the lawful performance of his duties, without intent to kill, by striking the police car being drive[n] by Lieutenant Tom McKane with [s]aid automobile thereby placing Lieutenant Tom McKane in fear of imminent violence, contrary to F.S. 784.021 and 784.07(2)(c), COUNT II AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully commit an assault upon Lieutenant John George, a duly qualified and legally authorized officer of the Town of Davie, knowing at the time that he was a law enforcement officer, with a deadly weapon, to wit: an automobile, while he was in the lawful performance of his duties, without intent to kill, by driving said automobile toward the police car being driven by Lieutenant John George thereby placing John George in fear of imminent violence, contrary to F.S. 784.021 and 784.07(2)(c), COUNT III AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully commit an assault upon Sergeant Gary Silvestri, a duly qualified and legally authorized officer of the Town of Davie, knowing at the time that he was a law enforcement officer, with a deadly weapon, to wit: an automobile, while he was in the lawful performance of his duties, without intent to kill, by driving said automobile toward the police car being driven by Sergeant Gary Silvestri thereby placing Sergeant Gary Silvestri in fear of imminent violence, contrary to F.S. 784.021 and 784.07(2)(c), COUNT IV AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, willfully and maliciously injure the property of another, to wit: a police car, property of City of Sunrise, by striking said police car with another automobile, the damage to the said property so injured being greater than two hundred dollars ($200.00) but less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), contrary to F.S. 806.13(1) and F.S. 806.13(2), COUNT V AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, while being the operator of a motor vehicle upon a street or highway, and having knowledge that she had been directed to stop the said motor vehicle by a duly authorized police officer, did unlawfully and willfully refuse or fail to stop in compliance with the said directive, contrary to F.S. 316.1935, COUNT VI AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there operate a motor vehicle in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property in that said Defendant did drive at a high rate of speed disregarding a number of traffic control devices, contrary to F.S. 316.192. The incident was the subject of newspaper article published in the Metro Section of the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel on January 9, 1992. Because of the publicity surrounding the incident, Respondent was asked to transfer from the school at which she had been teaching before the incident (Western High School) to another school (Pines Middle School). Respondent agreed to the transfer, which was thereafter effectuated. She has remained on the instructional staff at Pines Middle School since the transfer. On August 8, 1994, after having discussed the matter with her attorney, Respondent entered a guilty plea to each of the counts of the information that had been filed against her in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 92- 2200CF10A. Court records reflect that the plea was entered in Respondent's "best interest." 1/ Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the crimes alleged in Counts IV through VI of the information and sentenced to time served (three days in jail) for having committed these crimes. With respect to the crimes alleged in Counts I through III of the information, adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on two years probation. To date, Respondent has conducted herself in accordance with the terms and condition of her probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of subsection (1) of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining her for having committed these violations by suspending her teaching certificate for a period of 60 days and placing her on probation, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission may deem appropriate, for a period of one year following the end of the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of December, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 11th day of December, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(h), and 6B-4.009(2), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ruffin holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 893557 for teaching mathematics. His certificate is valid through June 30, 2010. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Ruffin was employed as a mathematics teacher at Dixie Hollands High School (Dixie Hollands) in the Pinellas County School District. During 2003, T.C. was an eleventh-grade student at Dixie Hollands. Mr. Ruffin tutored T.C. in mathematics over the summer of 2002 to prepare her for the Florida Achievement Test (FCAT). During the following school year, Mr. Ruffin developed a mentoring relationship with T.C., and T.C. became Mr. Ruffin's teaching assistant. Mr. Ruffin provided his cellular telephone number to all of his students, including T.C., in case they needed to contact him. On or about May 3, 2003, Mr. Ruffin was in his classroom with two other students during lunchtime. T.C. entered the room to speak to Mr. Ruffin because she was upset and sought advice. The other two students eventually left, and T.C. and Mr. Ruffin were in the room alone. T.C. shut the door, which contained a window covered by paper. School policy required that the doors remain locked, but propped open. After she shut the door, T.C. sat at the teaching assistant's desk, but soon started to cry and sat on Mr. Ruffin's lap. Mr. Ruffin and T.C. then hugged, and Respondent patted T.C. on her back. Both T.C. and Mr. Ruffin maintain that no other touching occurred during this incident and that T.C. was not on Mr. Ruffin's lap for more than 30 seconds. During the time period when T.C. was in the classroom with Mr. Ruffin, other students were looking into the classroom through a hole in the paper on the window. The hole in the paper was small, which allowed only one student at a time to look into the classroom through the hole. Approximately seven to nine students observed T.C. and Mr. Ruffin. The school has video cameras in the hallways, which recorded the students looking into the classroom for a period of several minutes. While observing from the hallway, the students witnessed T.C. sitting on Mr. Ruffin's lap behind the desk for several minutes. One student claimed she saw Mr. Ruffin rubbing T.C.'s leg; however, the student's testimony was not distinctly remembered and it was not precise and explicit. The students also saw T.C. going through some pictures from Mr. Ruffin's wallet. Mr. Ruffin acknowledged at the final hearing, that T.C. came around to his desk, sat on his knees, put her arm around his neck, and initiated a hug. He patted her on her back. At the final hearing, T.C. also acknowledged that she sat on Mr. Ruffin's knee and that he hugged her. T.C. denied that there was any inappropriate touching by Mr. Ruffin. One student, P.H., observed the encounter through the window. P.H. confronted T.C. about the incident and told T.C. that she could have gotten into trouble. T.C. told Respondent about the confrontation with P.H. P.H. then reported the incident to the School Resource Officer, Deputy Todd Pierce. Following the reporting of the events, Michael Bessette of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards investigated the incident. When Mr. Bessette spoke with Mr. Ruffin, Mr. Ruffin claimed that he did not have any other contact with T.C. after the incident and did not know whether or not the other students had confronted T.C. about it. Mr. Bessette then reported the incident to the principal, and the school district began an investigation. After speaking with all of the witnesses, T.C., and Mr. Ruffin, the School Board concluded that Mr. Ruffin acted inappropriately when he allowed T.C. to sit on his lap. Respondent's proper course of conduct when T.C. sat on his lap would have been to stand up and politely push T.C. away from him. Following the investigation, Mr. Ruffin signed a Stipulation Agreement with the school district where he agreed to a transfer to another school, a suspension without pay for 20 days, a retention of his annual contract for an additional year, and the designation of an "at will employee" for the 2004- 2005 school year. By signing the agreement, Mr. Ruffin also conceded that he was aware that his actions violated the Code of Ethics and the Principals of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Mr. Ruffin was transferred to Lakewood High School, where he is currently employed as a teacher. Mr. Ruffin has not been the subject of any other disciplinary proceedings since the incident giving rise to these allegations, and is an effective teacher at Lakewood High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Walter Ruffin violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a); suspending his teaching certificate for 30 days; and placing him on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Caren Christine Olsen (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued April 20, 2010, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as the Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education, is responsible to investigate and prosecute complaints against persons who hold a Florida Educational Certificate who are alleged to have violated the provisions of law related to the education profession in the State of Florida. See §§ 1012.79 and 1012.795, Fla. Stat. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 999159, covering mathematics, which was valid through June 30, 2010. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed at Freedom High School in Orange County, Florida. As a secondary teacher, Respondent was required to complete ESOL training. In order to meet the ESOL requirement, on or about January 14, 2008, Respondent enrolled in an ESOL class taught by Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs was a district compliance specialist who was fully approved to teach the ESOL class. He required that participants in the ESOL course attend all of the class sessions. The ESOL class requirements were: attendance at the 14 sessions, pre- and post-curriculum tests, completion of a portfolio of the course, and completion of a final evaluation of the course. Although enrolled in Mr. Biggs’ class, Respondent did not attend all of the class sessions. According to Mr. Biggs, Respondent left the class after the tenth session and did not return. In addition to missing the last sessions, Respondent did not turn in the portfolio or complete the evaluation of the course. Although Respondent maintained she had completed the portfolio, Mr. Biggs did not have record of such completion. In April 2009, Respondent was required to present a certificate that verified she had completed the aforementioned ESOL class. Although Respondent presented a certificate of completion for the ESOL course to school personnel, record of the credit for such completion could not be located. Eventually, it was discovered that Respondent did not have credit for the class because she had not completed the class and had not been given a certificate of completion by the instructor (Mr. Biggs). Thus, the issue of how Respondent could present a certificate of completion when none had been issued was raised by Orange County School District personnel. In fact, the certificate presented by Respondent lacked the Orange County Public School logo. In follow-up to this discovery, Respondent’s principal initiated a formal investigation to resolve the matter. When it was determined that Respondent could not produce a valid certificate of completion for the ESOL course, Respondent’s employment with the Orange County School District was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner and the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order that suspends Respondent's teaching certificate for a period not to exceed one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Todd P. Resavage, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster and Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Caren Christine Olsen 2429 Shelby Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a classroom teacher, committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has held Florida teaching certificate 497810 issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of journalism. This certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. Respondent was 36 years old at the time of the formal hearing and had been a teacher for 14 years, 13 of which were in the Dade County School District. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Palmetto Middle School, one of the schools in the Dade County School District. D. K. is a female who was fifteen years old at the time of the formal hearing. During the 1992-93 school year, D. K. was a student in Respondent's homeroom and in his honors history class. D. K. is a good student who made primarily As or Bs. At different times during January 1993, Respondent made certain comments to D. K. The conflicts in the evidence as to what was said are resolved by finding that in the presence of other students in the room Respondent made the following comments to D. K. told her that she was a nice, sweet, good-looking girl; told her that someday she will make someone a wonderful wife; told her that if he were younger he would marry her; asked her how many children she wanted; told her that he was going to law school, and that when he finished, that they could get married; told her that he had two children and that if they married she would be the stepmother of his two children; told her that her parents would not approve of her dating such an older man. D. K. felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by Respondent's comments. D. K. told her mother about the comments as they occurred. D. K.'s mother believed that Respondent's comments were inappropriate, but she did not think Respondent was trying to establish an inappropriate relationship with D. K. D. K. testified that when Respondent told her that she would make someone a good wife he was talking in general terms and not insinuating that he wanted to marry her himself. On February 19, 1993, Respondent was absent from his classroom. Some of the students began to look into his desk. One student, a male who had previously teased D. K. about other matters, found a picture of D. K. taped to the pullout writing tablet of Respondent's desk. D. K. was teased by some of the students in the class and she was embarrassed. D. K. told her mother about the students finding her picture in Respondent's desk the day the incident occurred. The following day, D. K. and her mother reported the incident with the picture and the comments that had been made to the assistant principal of Palmetto Middle School. D. K. was immediately transferred out of Respondent's homeroom and assigned to a different history class. On or about June 2, 1993, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the principal of Palmetto Middle School because of his conduct with D. K. Respondent testified, credibly, that D. K. had been teased by certain of the male students and that her self-esteem had suffered. He testified that he made these comments to D. K. only because he was trying to make D. K. feel good about herself and to have greater self-esteem. D. K. gave Respondent the picture of herself that was found taped to the sliding writing tablet. Respondent taped the picture to the writing tablet because he felt that the sliding writing tablet would be a good place to put the photograph and he taped it so it would not fall off. He was not trying to embarrass D. K. by placing the picture on the writing tablet. Respondent never propositioned D. K., he never asked her out on a date, and he never attempted to make inappropriate contact with her. Respondent was not trying to flirt with D. K. or make inappropriate sexual advances towards her. Respondent's comments were inappropriate. These comments did not impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which dismisses the administrative complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7717 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 and 4 were admitted by Respondent in response to Petitioner's request for admissions, but are rejected as findings of fact as being irrelevant to the issues. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 11 and 12 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 411 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
