The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4.; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the evidence admitted in the record at the final hearing, and the documents officially recognized, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 878903, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2025. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as the athletic director at Evans High School (Evans) in the Orange County School District (District). Respondent was first employed by the District from 2004 to 2008, when he worked at Evans as a basketball coach and physical education teacher. He was re-employed by the District from 2014 until late in the 2017-2018 school year. He worked at Freedom High School (Freedom) as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. He then was employed at Evans as athletic director for most of the 2017-2018 school year. He resigned on April 5, 2018, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the School Board of Orange County (School Board), which is the District's governing body. Rolando Bailey was the assistant principal at Evans when Respondent was first employed there, and Mr. Bailey was the principal at Freedom when Respondent worked there through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Bailey acknowledged "situations" during Respondent's earlier time at Evans and while at Freedom that involved "conflict" and "communications" issues with Respondent and required administrative intervention, but these problems were handled without involving the Employee Relations office (now called the Employee Standards office) to impose discipline. Mr. Bailey left Freedom to become principal at Evans beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. He thought Respondent would be a good candidate for the athletic director position at Evans, because Respondent was familiar with the community and Mr. Bailey thought he would be good at program building, which is what Mr. Bailey thought the athletic department needed. When Mr. Bailey made the move from Freedom to Evans, he brought not only Respondent with him, but also, at least 15 other administrators and teachers. This set a bit of an "us against them" tone between the existing faculty and staff at Evans and the Freedom transplants. Respondent and Mr. Bailey had a close working relationship. The perception among Evans personnel, based on observed interactions between Respondent and Mr. Bailey, was that they were also close personal friends. At the hearing, Mr. Bailey and Respondent both denied being close personal friends, but they were alumni of the same college, members of the same fraternity, and would frequently meet after regular school working hours. Mr. Bailey acknowledged these frequent meetings, although he said that they were work-related: "The role itself gave us the opportunity to talk outside of hours." (Tr. 200-01). These meetings did nothing to dispel the perception among Evans personnel that Mr. Bailey and Respondent were close personal friends. Evans presented challenges for Mr. Bailey as incoming principal. The school had not been performing well academically, with a "D" rating by the state, and he was intent on improving that performance. As for the athletic department, Mr. Bailey saw the need for "program building," noting that facilities were in disrepair and resources such as uniforms and equipment were scarce, resulting in a lack of school pride. Respondent's objective was to turn the Evans sports teams into winning programs. Respondent's charge was to "lead and direct" the athletic department and allow Mr. Bailey to focus on academics. However, Mr. Bailey made a commitment to the Evans coaches who were already in place when Mr. Bailey came over from Freedom. Mr. Bailey told the Evans coaches that the 2017- 2018 school year would be an evaluative year, and there would not be any changes made until after the end of the year. Mr. Bailey committed to personally participating in each coach's evaluation at year-end, along with Respondent, and Mr. Bailey would make the decision then regarding whether changes were needed to move in a different direction. Mr. Bailey was of the view that certain changes would be needed after the evaluative year. For example, he noted that several coaches held more than one head coaching position, which he generally disagreed with except for certain "related" sports, such as cross-country and track, which had separate seasons so one individual could be head coach of both. Mr. Bailey also was of the view that an individual should probably not serve as both a head coach and an administrative dean, although exceptions could be allowed and Mr. Bailey was willing to wait and see if individuals at Evans were handling it well.2 For the 2017-2018 "evaluative" school year, Mr. Bailey was willing— and had committed—to not make changes to conform the staffing to his views, and instead, to await year-end evaluations to make these decisions. Respondent expressed a different view, stating that if it had been up to him, he would have terminated all existing coaches when he started at Evans and he would have made them all reapply. But it was not up to Respondent, and Mr. Bailey's commitment stood. Respondent started working at Evans during the last few days of July 2017. He immediately implemented some changes in how the athletic 2 For example, Mr. Thompson was an administrative dean and head football coach at Evans for years before Mr. Bailey became principal and he remained in both positions after Mr. Bailey became principal. department was run. One change involved employing Ms. Woodard, who came over from Freedom with Mr. Bailey and the others, as assistant athletic director with the responsibility for inputting team roster information, including documenting compliant physicals and grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on the roster. This apparently had the effect of revealing students who were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.0 GPA. Previously, coaches were responsible for inputting their own team rosters. The claim asserted at hearing was that coaches were "padding" their rosters with disqualified students3 or inactive students.4 The motive suggested for "padding" a roster would be that for "minor" sports like cross-country, track, swimming, golf, and others, higher roster numbers could result in supplements being authorized for assistant coaching positions. A reduction in roster numbers could mean a reduction or loss of supplements, which could mean that assistant coaches would have to coach on a volunteer basis, or a head coach might have to do without, or without as many, assistant coaches. There was no competent credible evidence proving specific instances of wrongful or inappropriate roster padding.5 3 Respondent explained how students without qualifying GPAs might have been mistakenly listed on rosters showing qualifying GPAs. He acknowledged that coaches did not have access to detailed GPA data, and instead, might input a student's cumulative GPA as shown on the prior year's report card. However, that GPA might include grades for classes that were not eligible for purposes of meeting the minimum GPA required to participate in sports. 4 Ms. Bellamy, the girls' basketball head coach, said she discouraged "her" girls from going out for cross-country, because they "probably" would not be allowed to compete in meets. Her comments were more suggestive of a turf war than credible evidence of roster padding. 5 Several witnesses who were not at Evans until 2017-2018 offered their belief that roster padding occurred before the 2017-2018 school year. The credible testimony established only that when rosters were prepared or updated under Respondent's system beginning in August 2017, inputting updated GPAs resulted in some students being disqualified. Ms. Woodard, who implemented the new system, admitted she was not sure how many supplements were lost or in which sport. She thought cross-country may have lost supplements, but then said the sport previously had four or six supplements and that it had four supplements after she updated the rosters. Whitney Poole claimed that rosters had been padded the previous year, but she did not explain how she could have known that, since she was not at Evans before August 2017, and then was only a math teacher. She did not have any position in the athletic department before January 2018 when she became an assistant coach. In general, Ms. Poole was not a credible witness, and with one exception, her testimony was not credited. Sheree Carter Sheree Carter was a coach and administrative dean at Evans in 2017- 2018, when Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and others came to Evans from Freedom. She had been employed at Evans since 2012. She remains employed at Evans to this day. During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Carter held the following positions at Evans: administrative dean over attendance; head coach of girls' cross-country and girls' track; and assistant coach for girls' weightlifting. Ms. Carter was slated for those same positions headed into the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Carter took comfort from Mr. Bailey's assurance that no changes would be made until he made the decisions after personally participating in the year-end evaluations. Ms. Carter testified that she met Respondent at the end of July, during the two-week pre-planning period before classes started. Within a week or two after they met, Respondent started saying things to let her know that he was interested in her. He made her uncomfortable, and she rebuffed his advances. But rather than discouraging his comments, the intensity and frequency of Respondent's advances escalated. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent would walk by her office, which was at the back of the front office, and he would poke his head in to see if anyone else was with her. Respondent never came into her office if someone else was with her; he waited until she was alone, and then he would come in. His conversation opener was that he was recently divorced and was trying to get his feet wet getting back into the dating game. She responded by saying okay, cool, good luck with that. Respondent then started coming by Ms. Carter's office to ask if she wanted to grab lunch together or come eat lunch in his office. She declined each time he asked. After the rebuffed lunch offers, Respondent started asking Ms. Carter if she wanted to go to the movies with him or grab drinks after work. Again, she turned him down each time. Respondent's next approach was to let Ms. Carter know that he had a sofa in his office, followed by repeated invitations to Ms. Carter to hang out and chill with him on the sofa in his office. These invitations were conveyed with a personal, intimate air. Ms. Carter always turned down these advances and let Respondent know she was uncomfortable with what he was asking. Respondent approached Ms. Carter with these advances not only when she was alone in her office, but also, on the practice fields and in the hallways or courtyard, if she was alone. Respondent only approached Ms. Carter to make these advances when no one else was around.6 Ms. Carter described it as "creepy," like "in a stalking type of way. Like he would just wait for that right moment to approach you when you're by yourself and then throw these advances at me." (Tr. 74). Respondent's stalking-type behavior and frequent approaches affected Ms. Carter's ability to do her job. She delayed or avoided communicating with Respondent about coaching matters, despite needing to communicate with the athletic director. She would check hallways before freely moving around to make sure Respondent was not present, and she took to closing her office door to give the impression she was not there. Ms. Carter's testimony was credible and clear. Her demeanor was earnest and believable. In contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the advances claimed by Ms. Carter lacked credibility. Respondent was evasive. He frequently avoiding a direct answer to the question, as illustrated by the following: Q: And did you invite her to your office to chill? A: I was hardly ever in the office. I mean, so, it's very hard to chill in there. I was very, very on the go. I was very, very on the go. You know, Mr. Bailey was big on the look and appearance. So there was stuff always that needed to be done with the field and 6 Mr. Bailey testified that he never observed Respondent engage in sexual harassment, but conceded that sexual harassment is not normally something that he sees people doing out in the open. with the cosmetics. So I was hardly ever in the office. The only time I was in the office if I had to be [sic]. But I was hardly ever in the office, so I definitely couldn't be there just to chill because it was just too much work to do. (Tr. 324). * * * Q: Did you ever invite her to eat lunch in your office? A: I never ate lunch. It's hard for me to eat lunch because I had lunch duty and we had three lunches. So, when am I going to eat lunch when I'm constantly being fussed at by Mr. Bailey about not answering e-mails. Because I was never in my office so my e-mails were forwarded to Ms. Woodard so I didn't have to hear from him about why I don't answer e-mails. So I never ate lunch during the day. (Tr. 327). Respondent avoided answering the questions posed—whether he ever invited Ms. Carter to chill or eat lunch in his office. Respondent danced around the subject, never denying or refuting Ms. Carter's clear testimony that he had, in fact, invited her multiple times to eat lunch in his office and to chill on the sofa in his office, but she turned him down each time. Respondent did deny that he had asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies7 or out for drinks with him, but he offered weak explanations, which were not persuasive, for why he would not have extended these invitations. When asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies with him, he responded: "No. I was too busy to be trying to go to the movies and live in a whole different county and try to work. You know, Evans was an hour and 20 minutes away. Freedom was 38. So there's no time to go to the movies. Especially with a person you don't know, you know." (Tr. 325-26). And when 7 Ms. Poole, a witness for Respondent who generally went out of her way attempting to testify favorably for Respondent, said that she had been friendly with Ms. Carter at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Poole admitted that during this time, Ms. Carter told Ms. Poole that Respondent had asked her out to the movies. To that extent, Ms. Poole's testimony was credible, and it corroborated Ms. Carter's testimony. asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter out for a drink, he said: "No, because I don't drink. … I just never had a drink, never smoked. So I don't drink. And because I don't drink, I'm not going to invite somebody out to watch them drink. So." (Tr. 326-27). Respondent's testimony on these points was less credible than Ms. Carter's testimony, and her testimony is credited. Ms. Carter testified that her discomfort with Respondent's advances came to a head at a soccer game, when he approached her and once again asked her out for drinks, and she got upset. She said that she blew up, emphatically reiterating (punctuated with curse words) that she had told him before she was not interested and expressing her frustration that he had not yet accepted the message that she wanted him to stop making advances at her. This was on a weeknight during the week of December 4, 2017. On Friday, December 8, 2017, Respondent went to Ms. Carter's office and told her: (1) that she was immediately removed, mid-season, from the assistant coach position for weightlifting, though she could keep the supplement; (2) that they would be moving in a different direction and she would no longer be head coach for girls' cross-country (which had ended its season one month earlier); and (3) that they would evaluate her position as head coach for girl's track after the spring. Respondent told Ms. Carter that he and Mr. Bailey had made these decisions because Mr. Bailey did not want her coaching and serving as an administrative dean at the same time.8 Ms. Carter was very upset because she loves coaching. She broke down crying and was so distraught, she was unable to perform her job duties to supervise during either lunch periods that day. Ms. Carter believed that 8 Respondent admitted to delivering this news to Ms. Carter, although he said it was in a routine meeting in his office that he had scheduled to give Ms. Carter her end-of-season evaluation for coaching girls' cross-country (conflicting with Mr. Bailey's clear testimony that he always participated in evaluations, which were done at the end of the year). Curiously, Respondent testified that his evaluation had no meaning, and its only purpose was to give coaches something for possible future employers wanting to see evaluations. Respondent failed to explain, if the meeting was only to address a meaningless end-of-season evaluation for one sport, why he used the occasion to deliver meaningful consequences or why he addressed more than that one sport. Respondent took this action to retaliate against her because she had rebuffed his advances, particularly after her strong rebuke of him earlier that week. Up to this point, Ms. Carter had confided in two different colleagues regarding Respondent's advances and her discomfort with them, but she had not lodged a formal complaint against Respondent with Mr. Bailey. She was concerned that Mr. Bailey would take Respondent's side in a dispute because of their longstanding relationship and apparent close personal friendship. Previously, when she had confided in Mr. Thompson, he had told her she should talk to Respondent regarding her discomfort, but she had tried that repeatedly. When she confided again in Mr. Thompson upon being reduced to tears on December 8, 2017, this time he told her she should not be talking with colleagues rather than going through proper channels, and he urged her to file a complaint. Ms. Carter followed that advice, submitting a complaint in an email to Mr. Bailey, which she sent to him just after midnight, very early on Monday morning, December 11, 2017. She asked if she could meet with Mr. Bailey to discuss what Respondent had told her regarding her coaching responsibilities and her concern that Respondent had taken this action because she had turned down his advances. Directly contradicting Respondent's claim, Mr. Bailey testified that he did not make the decision to remove Ms. Carter from her coaching duties during the 2017-2018 school year, nor did he direct Respondent to tell Ms. Carter in December—in the middle of the "evaluative year"—that she could not remain as coach and administrative dean.9 Instead, as he had committed to do at the beginning of the year, Mr. Bailey waited until the end of the school year to have the conversation with Ms. Carter about changes going forward. At that time, he informed her that he did not want her to continue in the dual roles of coaching and administrative dean in the 2018- 9 When Mr. Bailey found out that Respondent had that conversation with Ms. Carter on December 8, 2017, he had a meeting with Respondent to find out why he did that. 2019 school year. Ms. Carter wanted to remain in coaching to continue building her programs. With Mr. Bailey's agreement, she gave up the administrative dean position and returned to classroom teaching the next school year so she could continue coaching. Mr. Bailey was a witness for Respondent and he attempted to be supportive of Respondent in his testimony. However, Mr. Bailey clearly and directly contradicted Respondent's claim that he had instructed Respondent to remove Ms. Carter from coaching on December 8, 2017. Mr. Bailey was surprised by Ms. Carter's email reporting that Respondent had done so and had attributed the decision to Mr. Bailey. After meeting with Ms. Carter, Mr. Bailey reported Ms. Carter's complaint to the Employee Relations office for investigation.10 In contrast to the "situations" involving Respondent when he was first at Evans and again while at Freedom, which were handled by administrative interventions without involving Employee Relations, this time Mr. Bailey found it necessary to involve Employee Relations. Jamila Mitchell Jamila Mitchell, Ph.D., also provided testimony regarding inappropriate statements and conduct by Respondent that made her feel very uncomfortable and that interfered with her doing her job. Dr. Mitchell has been working at Evans since 2014. Her doctorate degree is in computer science. She has been the computer science instructor at Evans and the sports media sponsor. She held those two positions during the 2017-2018 school year. She was not a coach or assistant coach. As sports media sponsor, Dr. Mitchell is involved in all sports-related media, including film, photography, social media, and the school's website. 10 Two separate investigations were initiated: the first addressed alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Respondent, pursuant to the District's responsibilities under civil rights laws as Ms. Carter's employer not to commit unlawful employment practices. When that investigation was completed with a finding of probable cause to believe there was sexual harassment, Mr. Ganio, then-manager of the District's Employee Relations office, completed an investigation into whether Respondent had engaged in misconduct, which would provide just cause for the School Board to take action against him as a District employee. Her responsibilities include managing sports-related website content and ensuring information is disseminated for all sports-related events. She must keep up with schedules, rosters, college recruiting activities, and events such as college scholarship signing days and awards banquets. Frequent communications with the Evans athletic director are essential to her job duties, at least by the time sports activities are in full swing after the first couple of weeks of each school year. Dr. Mitchell testified that beginning in September 2017, when her job required her to be in frequent communications with Respondent, he started saying and doing things that made Dr. Mitchell uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent referred to Dr. Mitchell as his "little Mexican." Dr. Mitchell is not Mexican. Respondent would say this when passing her in the hallway, if they were both at a game or event, or when he came to her classroom. Sometimes she was alone when he said this, but sometimes other people overheard what Respondent said. She was offended by Respondent's words, and also, uncomfortable having to explain to others who heard Respondent call her his little Mexican that she was not Mexican, but was biracial. Despite taking offense, she tried to ignore it or laugh it off. Respondent frequently came by Dr. Mitchell's classroom during her planning period when she was the only one there. At least initially, they would discuss sports media matters. But then the conversations would turn to Respondent telling Dr. Mitchell that he "liked the way her butt looked" in the pants she was wearing that day, or how whatever she was wearing accentuated some part of her body. She tried to change the subject back to work, but his comments made her feel weird and "creeped out." Respondent's frequent comments about her clothing and body impeded communications regarding sports media issues. Respondent's comments also caused Dr. Mitchell to stop wearing form-fitting clothing, pants that were a little bit tight, or shirts cut a little bit low.11 She began wearing loose clothing and when Respondent came by her classroom, she stayed seated behind her desk so he would not comment on "how her butt looked." Her discomfort and worries distracted from needed communications and interfered with getting the job done. It got to the point where Dr. Mitchell avoided communicating in person with Respondent, resorting to communicating by text or phone call. Dr. Mitchell described the "tipping point" for her was when she was walking through a courtyard to go to the front office and Respondent was coming out of the front office. Dr. Mitchell was wearing her hair down (loose), which she rarely did. When they passed in the courtyard, Respondent commented that he liked it when she wore her hair down because it gave him something to grab onto. There were other people in the courtyard—teachers and students—and Dr. Mitchell testified that she just prayed that nobody heard what Respondent said to her. She was highly embarrassed by what she reasonably interpreted as a sexual reference. Dr. Mitchell did not immediately complain about Respondent's inappropriate conduct, in part because she was embarrassed, but also, because she did not know to whom she could complain. She had seen how Mr. Bailey interacted with Respondent, and observed that they seemed to have a very friendly, personal relationship. She was concerned that if she said anything, it would be her job on the line. But when she was contacted by an investigator looking into Sheree Carter's complaint, who had been told that Respondent may have also harassed Dr. Mitchell, she spoke with the 11 Respondent suggested in his PRO that Dr. Mitchell should be faulted for her choice of attire in a school "full of hormonal high school students that most likely has a dress code, stated or implied, for teachers." (Resp. PRO at 28). No credible evidence supports a finding that Dr. Mitchell's attire was provocative, inappropriate, or contrary to any dress code, and none was cited. Respondent's argument is, in effect, that Dr. Mitchell "asked for it"—a classic means to deflect blame and excuse inappropriate sexual conduct, which is, or should be, a relic of the past. Respondent's veiled hint that Dr. Mitchell asked for it is tantamount to a concession that "it" occurred, necessitating an excuse for his behavior. There is no excuse. investigator and provided the same information about Respondent's offensive conduct to which she testified at the hearing. Dr. Mitchell was very credible and genuinely distraught as she described these uncomfortable encounters with Respondent. As with Ms. Carter's specific complaints, Respondent denied (or gave evasive, less-than-clear answers) that he said or did the things described by Dr. Mitchell.12 Respondent's testimony was not as credible as Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Dr. Mitchell's testimony is credited. Jessica Kendrick Jessica Kendrick was the head swim coach at Evans, coaching both the boys' and girls' swim teams, from 2013 through the 2018-2019 school year. Her testimony was fairly narrow in scope, but clear and to the point: when Respondent was the head of the athletics department in the 2017-2018 school year, he made her uncomfortable by standing very close whenever they talked with no one else nearby—that is, when there were no witnesses. Ms. Kendrick is five feet, eight inches in height. Respondent is six feet, one inch tall. He used his height advantage to intimidate Ms. Kendrick, making her feel like he was towering over her when he stood very close and looked down at her. Ms. Kendrick's vivid description was that Respondent would be standing so close to her that she could tell what he had for lunch. Ms. Kendrick's reaction to these close encounters was to back up to create space between Respondent and herself. But Respondent would quickly move forward to close the space she had created. She would inch back again; he would inch toward her to close the gap again. Respondent made Ms. Kendrick feel very uncomfortable. 12 In contrast, the investigative summary of the District's investigation into Ms. Carter's sexual harassment complaint reported that Respondent stated he "does not recall if he made inappropriate comments to [Dr.] Mitchell." (Pet. Ex. 14, Bates p. 35). Although statements of non-party witnesses reported in the investigative summary are hearsay, and thereby limited in use to supplementing or explaining competent evidence, Respondent's statements reported in the investigative summary that was offered against him are party admissions, excepted from hearsay, and admissible for all purposes. See § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Kendrick had been the head swim head coach at Evans for four years before Respondent became athletic director. He made her so uncomfortable when they spoke in person that she went out of her way to avoid him. She told the two assistant swim coaches, Mr. Rivers and Mr. Ross, about her discomfort with Respondent. She asked her assistants to take her place for in-person meetings or discussions with Respondent so she could avoid any more uncomfortable close encounters with Respondent. It affected her job; communications with the athletic director were necessary for her to function effectively as head coach. Ms. Kendrick testified that rather than having to interact with Respondent, if Respondent had continued on as athletic director at Evans, she would have given up the head coaching position. Instead, Respondent resigned, and Ms. Kendrick decided to remain head swim coach at Evans for the 2018-2019 school year. Respondent testified that he had no idea what Ms. Kendrick was talking about. Ms. Kendrick's testimony was more credible than Respondent's and is credited. At the hearing, Respondent made the blanket statement that all the witnesses testifying against him were lying. He claimed that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kendrick were lying to get back at him for changing the procedures to prevent roster padding and costing them coaching supplements.13 He claimed that their colleagues, in whom they had confided and who corroborated their testimony, were also lying. Respondent's attempted attacks on the credibility 13 Ironically, the suggestion that Ms. Carter was mad because she lost supplements as a result of the changed roster procedures was contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. As for her head coaching positions, Respondent testified that head coaches receive supplemental pay irrespective of roster numbers. Ms. Carter might have lost those supplements as a result of Respondent's unauthorized attempt to remove Ms. Carter from cross-country head coach and to threaten removal from track, had those actions stood, but they were reversed by Mr. Bailey. As for the supplement Ms. Carter received as assistant weightlifting coach, Respondent admitted that when he told Ms. Carter she was relieved of her assistant coaching duties mid-season, he told her she could retain the supplement. Respondent's actions had nothing to do with supplements or rosters; Respondent acted to retaliate against Ms. Carter for rebuffing his repeated advances. of the witnesses testifying against him were not persuasive and did not undermine their clear, credible testimony. Most notably, although Respondent claimed some witnesses had a motive to lie to get back at him because of lost coaching supplements, no such motive was or could be attributed to Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell was not a coach or an assistant coach. Respondent offered no cogent theory to explain why Dr. Mitchell would fabricate her testimony. Respondent's accusation that Dr. Mitchell's testimony was invented does not square with her display of emotions at the hearing. She was visibly shaken and crying when she described her embarrassment with Respondent's sexual innuendos, and when she explained why she did not complain about Respondent at the time. Ulunda Frazier The pattern of behavior evident from the complaints of Ms. Carter, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Kendrick is further buttressed, at least generally, by court records regarding Ulunda Frazier and Respondent. Ms. Frazier is a teacher. At the time pertinent to this case, she taught at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge), within the District. At the hearing, Respondent described Ms. Frazier as a longtime personal friend he has known for 15 or 16 years. He said Ms. Frazier used to babysit for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant and toddler. Respondent admitted that his personal relationship with Ms. Frazier had turned "toxic." He did not offer any details to explain in what way the relationship turned toxic. Instead, alluding to a close intimate relationship gone bad, he said only that his relationship with Ms. Frazier "had become toxic and out of control that was actually birthed out of both of our pains. We -- she was going through an ugly divorce and I was going through my treatments and stuff. And so the relationship had just got toxic and it had -- it was no longer a friendly environment." (Tr. 351). Court records in Frazier v. Crawford, Case No. 48-2018-DR-000923-O, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, were officially recognized. The records reflect that on January 24, 2018, Ms. Frazier filed a Petition for Injunction Against Stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, seeking to enjoin Respondent from stalking her. That same day, the court issued a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Stalking. On January 25, 2018, the Polk County Sheriff's Office served the Temporary Injunction, Ms. Frazier's Petition, and a Notice of Hearing on Respondent at his residence. The hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2018, and was held as noticed. Both Ms. Frazier and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (Stalking Injunction). Respondent received a copy by hand delivery in open court, as acknowledged by his signature on the Stalking Injunction. He is therefore "deemed to have knowledge of and to be bound by all matters occurring at the hearing and on the face of" the Stalking Injunction. (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 51-52). The Stalking Injunction contains the following finding: "After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent of Respondent, the Court finds, based on the specific facts of this case, that Petitioner is a victim of stalking."14 (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 47). On that basis, the Stalking Injunction ordered as follows: "Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of stalking against Petitioner, including stalking, cyberstalking, aggravated stalking, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act to do violence to Petitioner." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 50). The Stalking Injunction is in effect until February 26, 2021. 14 "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]" § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 784.0485 creates a cause of action for a person who is a victim of stalking to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Stalking Injunction "reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an athletic director because it limited his ability to travel to that school and perform his duties." The terms of the Stalking Injunction do not support this allegation. While the Stalking Injunction generally and broadly prohibited Respondent from having any contact with Ms. Frazier, including at Oak Ridge where she worked and at her residence (both of which were in Orlando), there is an express exception to the no-contact prohibition, as follows: "The Respondent may go to Oakridge [sic] High School only for a valid business reason. If any contact occurs, it shall be non-hostile contact." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 49). In several respects, however, the Stalking Injunction contradicts Respondent's testimony. Respondent denied that he would have made advances on Ms. Carter because he was married and had been married to the same woman since 2010. Yet his close personal relationship with Ms. Frazier predated his marriage by five or six years. Respondent testified that Ms. Frazier babysat for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant. The fact that Respondent got married to someone else five years later did not prevent Respondent from engaging in a first "friendly" and then "toxic" close relationship with Ms. Frazier, or from stalking Ms. Frazier before the Stalking Injunction was issued against him on February 6, 2018. Whatever the details may be regarding Respondent's stalking of Ms. Frazier, it is noteworthy that she lived and worked in Orlando. This belies Respondent's claim that he could not have harassed Ms. Carter with the repeated advances she described, because he would not have had time to go to the movies or out for drinks near where he worked in Orange County. He attempted to paint the picture that he spent every moment in Orange County working or commuting to and from his home in distant Polk County. The Stalking Injunction stands as evidence that, contrary to Respondent's claim, in addition to working at Evans and commuting to and from Polk County, Respondent found time to have a first friendly, then toxic relationship with Ms. Frazier and to stalk Ms. Frazier where she lived and worked in Orange County. Respondent's Separation from the District The investigation into Ms. Carter's complaint identified individuals who were potential witnesses with relevant information or possible victims. After conducting interviews, the District held a pre-determination meeting on March 7, 2018, to share with Respondent the information learned during the investigation and give him an opportunity to respond. Respondent appeared with a union representative, who instructed him not to respond. On March 27, 2018, Respondent was suspended from work with pay while the District completed its investigation. This "Relief of Duty" status is employed when warranted by the seriousness of the allegations. "Relief of Duty" included an immediate suspension of network access, including email. During the process of completing the investigation, the District discovered a new allegation of inappropriate conduct by Respondent. The District learned of Ms. Frazier's Petition and the resulting Stalking Injunction. It held a second pre-determination meeting on April 3, 2018, to inform Respondent that it had learned about the Stalking Injunction. Again, Respondent was given the chance to respond, but again, he refused to say anything on advice of his union representative. On the same day as the second pre-determination meeting, Barbara Jenkins, the District Superintendent, issued a memorandum to the School Board, transmitting a complaint charging Respondent with misconduct in office and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and recommending that Respondent be terminated from employment for the charged violations. Immediately after the complaint and recommendation for termination were released, Respondent negotiated and finalized a Settlement Agreement and General Release (Agreement) with the School Board. The Agreement expressly stated that it was not to be construed as an admission by Respondent or the District of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent was required to resign as of April 5, 2018, and to tender a written letter of resignation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent agreed "he will not reapply for or accept employment [at a District school] at any time in the future." Respondent also acknowledged that the District would be submitting its investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct to the Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, as required by section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In form and substance, the Agreement is a common vehicle utilized for resignation of an employee in lieu of the employee having to answer to charges and face the prospect of termination. Respondent attempted to suggest that his resignation was purely voluntary, based on his decision that he did not want to work in a place where people would lie about him. His claim was not credible. Respondent fully understood when he took the position at Evans, along with at least 15 others brought over from Freedom by Mr. Bailey, that there would be an "us against them" air that he would have to overcome. Mr. Bailey attempted to set the stage for developing good relationships with existing Evans coaches and other staff, by deeming the first year an "evaluative year" in which there would not be any position changes until the evaluative year was discussed with Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and the coach at the end of the year. Respondent knew that Evans had challenging problems to overcome, with scarce resources in terms of facilities, equipment, and uniforms, and that he was expected to build winning programs and instill school pride. He knew he was expected to put in place the systems, policies, and procedures that would allow for program building, and he was well aware that his changes would be unpopular with some. It defies logic and credibility for Respondent to suggest that he chose to walk away from his commitment before completing one school year only because existing Evans coaches and assistant coaches were lying about him. Mr. Bailey acknowledged that, as principal, he was compelled to let the investigation process be carried out. As he put it: "[W]hat I performed is my role as a principal. That when there's conduct that's unbecoming of an employee, or an employee feeling as if they have been, in this case, harassed, I'm going to follow the guidance that has been presented to me in my role as the leader of the school." (Tr. 209). He acknowledged that at the culmination of that process, when it was reported to him, he followed the guidance that he was supposed to follow, and as a result, Respondent was no longer at his school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of three years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of three years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, which should include a requirement that Respondent take two college level courses, one in professional ethics for educators and one related to women's rights in the workplace; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2021. Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based on my obersvation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the briefs which were filed post- hearing, the following relevant facts are found. Ernest B. Brown is the holder of Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 167290, covering administration and supervision, elementary education and junior college which by its term is valid until June 30, 1985. Ernest Brown, Respondent, has been employed in the public schools of Pinellas County as fifth grade teacher at Gulf Beaches Elementary School since August, 1975, and was on continuing contract during the 1976-77 school year. He resigned effective May 31, 1977 after inquiries were raised concerning his personal conduct with a female fifth grade student (Michelle Stewart). Thereafter the Department of Education received a report from the Pinellas County School officials on or about June 1, 1977 indicating that Respondent had been charged with lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a female child under the age of 14 and handling and fondling a female child under the age of 14 years. Pursuant thereto and following an inquiry by the staff of the Professional Practices Council, on July 18, 1977, said Council issued a report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council whereupon the Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exist to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. By letter dated July 27, 1977, the Commissioner found probable cause and directed the filing of the instant petition herein. Michelle Stewart, eleven years old and presently a fifth grade student at Gulf Beaches Elementary School, was a student of Respondent while she completed here third grade instruction. Ms. Stewart was approximately three weeks late reporting for classes during her third grade school year. After being in school for approximately two weeks, she sought assistance from Respondent regarding problems she was having with her math. At that time, there were approximately three or four other students also seeking assistance from the Respondent. Respondent asked Michelle to sit in a chair behind his desk where she waited until the other students had received their assistance. According to Ms. Stewart, Respondent asked to touch her pants in the crotch section. Ms. Steward was shocked but did not protest when the Respondent touched her in the seat of her pants for approximately one minute. On another occasion, Respondent was invited to attend a birthday party given at Michelle's house by her. Respondent was reluctant to attend inasmuch as he did not have a gift to give her. He reluctantly agreed to attend based on the enticement of Ms. Stewart, her mother, and several other students who attended the party. When persuaded to attend the party, Respondent agreed only to come if Ms. Stewarts mother permitted him to take Ms. Stewart shopping for some clothing within the next few days. As best as can be determined from the record, it appears that the birthday party was during the early part of May, 1977. Within a few days, Respondent arranged to take Ms. Stewart shopping by obtaining permission from her mother. However, as the facts were later brought out, it appears that Respondent obtained permission from Ms. Stewart's mother by telling her that he wanted Ms. Stewart to assist him in arranging some books on his book shelves, and Ms. Stewarts mother agreed with the condition that Ms. Stewart be brought back home before six oclock. Ms. Stewart testified that she was picked up by Respondent and taken to his home where they were alone. Immediately after entering Respondents house, he asked here if she was hungry and whether or not she would like to fix herself a sandwich and watched TV for a few minutes. Thereafter Respondent took some pictures of here with his Polaroid camera. Respondent later offered her some clothing and brought them out telling her that she could try the dresses on in his presence. Ms. Stewart undressed in Respondent's presence and when she finished trying on her dresses that he had purchased, Respondent went to the bathroom and undressed, entering his living room area with only his shirt on. During this time Ms. Stewart was undressed and Respondent asked her to lie down on the floor where he had placed a towel and had relocated an electric fan positioned so that it would blow down on them. She testified that he laid on top of her for approximately ten minutes stroking and kissing her. After this incident was over (approximately ten minutes) Respondent pleaded with Ms. Stewart to refrain from telling anyone about the incident to which she agreed. However she testified that she did tell some of her friends about the incident. Ms. Stewart testified that during the next school year she opted to be in another teacher's classroom and Respondent rebelled by talking to her and here mother in an attempt to get her to change her mind. She refused to do so because she wanted to be in the class with a neighbor and her boyfriend. During the school year Ms. Stewart recalled that she and approximately two other students were taken to several extracurricular activities by Respondent after school hours, including the circus, lipizian stallions, and Holiday on Ice. Detective William Creekbaum presently employed as a real estate salesman, was formerly employed as a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department was assigned to investigate complaints regarding incidents that the Respondent had allegedly been engaged with several minor students including Michelle Stewart. Detective Creekbaum was assigned to investigate the case on or about May 19, 1977 at which time, and during the course of his investigation, he interviewed approximately ten minor female students. On May 31, 1977, he decided that he should contact the Respondent and make certain inquiries of him, which he did at the school. He visited the school and asked the Respondent to come with him down to the police station for some questions. The Respondent drove his car down to police headquarters and a statement was given to Detective Creekbaum. Prior therto, Respondnent was apprised of his rights per Miranda. Detective Creekbaum explained to Respondent the necessity of his being truthful during his investigation, although he stressed the fact that he made no promises that the matter would be handled internally". He testified, and the statements bear out the fact that the Respondent was, in fact, advised that the investigation was criminal in nature. Initially, during the interview, Respondent denied the material allegations of the charges that he had fondled Michelle Stewart, however, upon repeated questioning by Detective Creekbaum, Respondent admitted that he had fondled Michelle Steward as charged. Although Respondent's position on this admission is that he only told Detective Creekbaum that he had fondled Michelle Stewart because he "thought that was what he wanted to hear and further he was led to believe that nothing would come of it". After the admissions by Respondent, Detective Creekbaum advised Respondent that he was under arrest where he was taken to the booking section of the police department. Immediately thereafter, Douglas McBriarty, an employee of the personnel department for the Pinellas County school system and charged with resolving teacher problems, visited Respondent at the jail where Respondent also admitted to the charge of fondling Michelle Stewart. Dr. McBriarty advised Respondent that it would be the Board's recommendation to immediately suspend him pending a decision on the merits and further action by the board to seek revocation of his (Respondent's) teaching certificate by the Professional Practices Council. Respondent asked if he had any options whereupon Dr. McBriarty told him that he could resign. At that point, the Respondent resigned effective May 31, 1977. The Respondent took the stand and testified that he was misled by Detective Creekbaum into thinking that nothing would come of the incident and that while he denied initially fondling Ms. Stewart, he only changed his story to an admission because he was of the opinion that that was what Detective Creekbaum wanted. He also testified that he was of the opinion that nothing would come of the incident as related by Detective Creekbaum. 1/ Without question, the Respondent enjoys a good reputation in the community and by his fellow peers at the school. He is regarded as a very good instructor who goes over and above his call of duty with respect to his classroom duties. Witnesses Nancy H. Akins and Catherine Smith, both instuctors in the Pinellas County school system, testified of their familiarity with the Respondents professional life and both gave him high marks. As stated, the Respondent denied the material allegations of the charging allegations in this case. Presently he is project director for the Tampa sickle cell disease project. In addition to denying the allegations of the complaint herein he testified that he was "set up" by Detective Creekbaum. He voiced his opinion that he felt that if he were cooperative and stated what Detective Creekbaum wanted him to say that he would go free. The undersigned has examined the record to see whether or not any misrepresentations or other statements were made to prompt Respondent to admit to the fondling of Michelle Stewart and the record is barren in this regard. Based thereon, I shall recommend that the allegations contained in the petition filed herein be sustained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of Respondent, Ernest B. Brown, be suspended for a period of two years. ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
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
The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Petitioners' complaints constitute a basis for discipline against Respondent's Florida teacher's certificate pursuant to section 231.28, Florida Statutes (1984 supp.), and for the suspension or dismissal of Respondent from employment with the school Board pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (1984 supp.)?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed as a teacher by the Florida Department of Department of Education. He holds Florida Education Certificate Number 486520 (this fact was admitted in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation). The Respondent is employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract of employment (this fact was admitted in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation). The Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate qualifies him to teach "quantity food" at the Vocational-Technical level. Respondent was employed by the School Board to teach culinary arts at the Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute. The average age of students taught by Respondent was 25 to 30 years. During the 4 years the Respondent has been employed with the School Board he has received satisfactory and above satisfactory evaluations. The following facts have all be admitted in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation. In 1972, in the State of Vermont, the Respondent pled no contest to possession of 2.2 grams of hashish. In 1976, in the State of Pennsylvania, the Respondent was arrested for disorderly conduct. Adjudication is unknown. In 1976, in the State of Florida, the Respondent was arrested for possession of less than 4 grams of marijuana and driving while intoxicated. Respondent pled no contest. In 1977, in the State of Florida, the Respondent was arrested for possession of more than 4 grams of marijuana, resisting arrest with violence and assault on a police officer. Adjudication was withheld. Detective William Donal Gates, Jr., Tampa Police Department, participated in Respondent's arrest in 1977. Detective Gates identified the Respondent as the individual he arrested. Detective Gates also testified that the Respondent engaged in a physical altercation with one of the arresting officers. The record in these cases fully supports the facts admitted in the Pre- Hearing Stipulation. The record also supports the admission of the Respondent in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation that he did not disclose his criminal record when applying for a Florida Teacher's Certificate or employment with the School Board. In applying for a Florida Teacher's Certificate and employment with the School Board, the Respondent failed to disclose any of his convictions and arrests listed above except his arrest for DWI; the arrest for DWI was reported on a Personal Data Sheet Post Employment Information form. On September 11, 1980, the Respondent certified as true his response to questions he answered on an Application for Teacher's Certificate filed with the State of Florida. The Respondent acknowledged on the Application that he understood the following: Florida Statutes provide for the revocation of teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. On the September 11, 1980 Application the Respondent answered "no" to the following question: Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations? Despite the Respondent's acknowledgement on the Application, Respondent's answer to this question was clearly untrue. Respondent also untruthfully answered the same question on an Application for Teacher's Certificate and Reapplications for Temporary Certificate signed by the Respondent on May 13, 1981, April 13, 1982, and April 7, 1983. On each of these forms there was a statement to the effect that the Respondent, by signing his name thereto, acknowledged his answers were true and correct. There was also a statement on these forms that informed the Respondent that he could lose his teaching certificate if he obtained it through fraudulent means. The Respondent acknowledged this statement. On September 24, 1980, the Respondent signed an application for employment as a teacher with the School Board, and his signature appeared under the following language on the application form: [I]f employed by the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida [I] do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida. I further certify that all information given on this application is true to the best of my knowledge. Despite this statement, the Respondent answered "No" to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor (other than minor traffic violations), a felony, or any other offense involving moral turpitude? The Respondent also answered this question negatively on an application for part-time employment filed with the School Board. Finally, on December 2, 1980, the Respondent was asked the following two questions on a Personal Data Sheet Post Employment Information form: Have you ever been arrested? YES( ) NO( ) If yes, please list all arrests by date, location, and charges. Have you ever been convicted? YES( ) NO( ) If yes, please list convictions by date, and location. In response to the first question, Respondent answered by placing an "X" after "YES and listed "D.W.I." Respondent also placed an "X" after "NO" in response to the second question. These responses were certified as true by the Respondent. Respondent admitted in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation and at the hearing that he failed to report his arrests and convictions when he applied for a Teacher's Certificate and for employment with the School Board. At the final hearing, the Respondent indicated that he did not disclose his arrests and convictions because he believed that his criminal record had been sealed. According to the Respondent, the attorney who represented him when he was arrested in 1977 told him that he would arrange to have the Respondent's criminal record sealed if he would cooperate with the authorities. His attorney also told him that the authorities had agreed to drop the charges against him if he would cooperate. The Respondent did in fact cooperate and the charges against him were dropped. The Respondent indicated that he believed his record had been sealed since the charges were dropped. There is no evidence, however, that the Respondent's attorney told him that the authorities had agreed that they would have his records sealed or that they had in fact been sealed, only that his attorney said he would have them sealed. The Respondent, when first confronted with his prior arrests and convictions by Ms. Nancy Zambito, School Board Director of Personnel Services, in July of 1984, did not tell Ms. Zambito or Mr. Warren Laux, principal of Pinellas Vocational Technical Institute, who was also present, that he had not divulged his criminal record because he believed his record had been sealed. Instead, the Respondent gave other reasons for not answering the questions correctly including his concern that he would not be hired by the School Board if he told the truth. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the Respondent intentionally misrepresented his criminal history because he believed he would not be employed by the School Board or granted a Florida Teacher's Certificate if he divulged his criminal record. Dr. Ronald Stone, the Executive Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources for the School Board, testified that, based upon the arrests and convictions of Respondent and his failure to disclose his record, the Respondent would not be granted a Florida Teacher's Certificate and should be dismissed from employment with the School Board. Dr. Stone also testified that the School Board's policy as to the treatment of persons who disclose criminal offenses on their applications is to determine whether the crime involved was serious enough to render an applicant unsuitable to teach. Based upon the nature of Respondent's offenses, Dr. Stone indicated that the Respondent was unsuitable for employment as a teacher. Ms. Zambito also testified that the appropriate sanction in these cases would be revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate and dismissal from employment with the School Board. Both Dr. Stone and Ms. Zambito based their opinion on their conclusion that the Respondent's actions violated the public trust and because of the negative effect on students, regardless of their age, of a teacher with the Respondent's background.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of "immorality" under Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), and "gross immorality" under Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of "misconduct in office" in violation of Section 231.36(36)(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984) Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of obtaining his teaching certificate by fraudulent means in violation of Section 231.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of an act involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of having been convicted of a crime in violation of Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1984) Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board in violation of Section 231.28(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.). It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be dismissed from his employment with the School Board and his continuing employment contract be cancelled. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate be permanently revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Usher Brown, Esquire Associate School Board Attorney 1960 E. Druid Road P.O. Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33513 Robert McKee, Esquire KELLY & McKEE, P.A. 401 S. Albany Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1980, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the areas of biology, chemistry, and general science. Petitioner had been certified by the State of Florida from August 20, 1974, through 1979 in these subjects. Petitioner allowed his prior certificate to lapse in 1979 as he was not sure he wanted to continue to be a teacher. At the time he allowed his certificate to lapse, he was involved in a drug problem, which drug problem resulted in the three arrests at issue herein. Petitioner was arrested in 1977, in 1978, and in 1979 for possession of controlled substances. Each of the arrests resulted in the withholding of adjudication. None of the arrests involved the sale of drugs, and Petitioner has never sold drugs. Petitioner has not used drugs since January of 1979, the date of his last arrest, and the drug used that date was a drug prescribed for him by a doctor. Prior to this application, Petitioner had reapplied for his teaching certificate. That application was denied since Petitioner was on probation from his arrests. Petitioner has completed all of his probationary periods. During the last year and a half, Petitioner has been teaching at the Miami Shores Preparatory School. He was hired to start a science department and has been teaching seventh and eighth grade life science, ninth and tenth grade biology, eleventh and twelfth grade honors biology, and eleventh and twelfth grade honors chemistry. He is also the swimming coach and serves as a counselor for seventh and eighth graders. Since he has been teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a student has written an essay about him in describing the characteristics of an ideal teacher for a literary contest. The students at Miami Shores have dedicated the school yearbook to him. He has started a program at that school for students with drug problems by enlisting the aid of persons in the drug program which he himself successfully completed. Petitioner has had no difficulty in his present teaching position. However, in order for him to continue teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a Florida teaching certificate is required. He is supported in his application for a teaching certificate by the principal of that school as well as by some of the other teachers, students, and parents of students at that school. Petitioner meets all requirements for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate, and the only basis for Respondent's denial of his application involves his three arrests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered approving Petitioner's application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate, providing that Petitioner be issued a Teacher's Certificate on a probationary basis for a period of five years, and further providing that such certificate be automatically revoked if Petitioner be arrested for possession of any controlled substance during his five-year probationary period. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Roberts, Miller, Baggett, LaFace, Richard & Wiser Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(c)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, testimony, and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 834897, covering the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”), and varying exceptionalities, which is valid through June 30, 2023. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (“ESE”) teacher at Wyomina Park Elementary School (“WPES”) in the Marion County School District (“MCSD”). Ms. Miller has served as an elementary education teacher since the 2000-01 school year. Thus, she has a 20-year career with MCSD. From 2008 to 2018, Respondent taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at Reddick Collier Elementary (“Reddick Collier”’). Since she holds certification in ESE, she also taught ESE inclusion students in her general education classrooms. However, she has never taught a classroom of only ESE students. In 2018, Respondent’s value-added model (commonly referred to as VAM) scores rendered her ineligible to continue teaching at Reddick Collier because it was one of the District’s lowest performing schools. As a result, she was involuntarily transferred to WPES. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent was initially assigned to teach students with academic issues, not behavioral issues. The initial assignment was consistent with her experience and previous work with ESE inclusion students. Respondent had maintained certification in ESE so that she could better serve academically low-performing ESE students in a general education inclusion environment. While Respondent had training in an inclusion environment, she did not have training or certification in Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) or Crisis Prevention Intervention de-escalation techniques for use with students with behavioral issues. Ms. Baxley believed that Respondent had been trained to work with children with behavioral issues. After the initial assignment, students were reassigned between Ms. Miller and Patricia Poag. Respondent became responsible for only students with behavioral issues. Some of the students assigned to Respondent had extensive behavioral issues to the extent they required medication treatment. Respondent’s new assignment was a kindergarten through second grade self-contained ESE class of 12 to 13 students. Generally, a self- contained ESE classroom is a group environment with students who have special needs. Respondent’s students required increased supervision, structure, visuals, and very specific direct instruction. Respondent, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Poag testified that the classroom assignment was very “challenging, overwhelming, and distressing.” The new classroom structure included six or seven more students than previously assigned. Respondent had one paraprofessional to assist with supervision of the students. Respondent requested additional staff support, but never received it. In addition to learning to navigate the struggles with the student’s behavioral issues, Respondent was struggling with paperwork. Respondent made the effort to get help with completing necessary documents and learning how to complete IEP’s and behavior plans. She had no experience in completing these documents, or in working with “severe maladaptive behaviors” before being assigned to WPES. Allegations Involving Classroom Management As an ESE instructor, Ms. Miller’s primary responsibility was to ensure compliance with services or accommodations required for ESE students assigned to her classroom. Gina Gazzaniga is the MCSD ESE specialist. Her primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with services/accommodations required for all ESE students. Ms. Gazzaniga visited Respondent’s classroom. While in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Gazzaniga observed students run on tables, throw items, and elope from the classroom unsupervised. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that while students were engaged in this conduct, Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Gazzaniga also testified that when students eloped from the classroom, they would typically go to the Guidance office or the Dean’s office. Ms. Gazzaniga had the Behavior Team (behavior tech, behavior specialist and analyst, and school academic coaches) assist with structure and behavior/classroom management strategies in Respondent’s classroom. The team implemented procedures to help prevent students from eloping. However, Respondent would change the practices the behavior team implemented. Respondent testified that some of the practices put into place were not effective. For example, when tables were lowered, the students increased their jumping from table to table. In addition, the assistance button was not within the reach of the teachers in the classroom. Ms. Gazzaniga’s overall assessment was that she saw “limited improvement, or refusal to follow taught strategies.” Other members of the WPES administration expressed concerns about Respondent’s classroom management. While visiting Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley, along with Kendra Hamby, saw student W.H. pulling the hair of M.D. W.H., a male student, dragged M.D., a female student, by her hair as she screamed. Ms. Baxley testified that she heard Respondent say “stop.” Ms. Baxley then approached the students and removed W.H.’s hand from M.D. so that he would “stop pulling M.D. around like a caveman on the floor.” Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did not intervene to help M.D., but rather “she just stood there.” Ms. Hamby testified that “Ms. Miller was standing there, not intervening, not saying or doing anything. So that was extremely concerning.” On another occasion, while in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley saw students hitting each other with containers. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did nothing to intervene. Respondent testified that she approached the students and instructed them to return the containers. Jennifer Foster was a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom. On one occasion two students were running around the room, fighting, and chasing each other. Ms. Foster tried to “get in the middle to separate them and they both ran behind the big solid wooden table.” When Ms. Foster went in front of the table in an effort to separate them, the two students picked up the table and tossed it over on the side. Ms. Foster was able to move one foot out of the way, but the table landed on her other foot. Ms. Foster testified “I eventually got up and hobbled over to push the panic button and asked for assistance.” Her foot was injured as a result of the incident involving the students. Ms. Foster indicated that Respondent did not assist her. Allegations Involving Failure to Supervise Students In addition to concerns about classroom management, the Administrative Complaint alleged Respondent failed to supervise students. One of those incidents involved K.C. K.C. was one of Respondent’s kindergarten students. He is an ESE student with a medical condition. On September 6, 2018, a teacher informed Assistant Principal Troy Sanford that Respondent’s student, K.C., was found standing at the exit door of a hallway that opens to the playground. Mr. Sanford saw K.C. approaching the exit doors to the playground alone at 11:24 a.m. K.C. stood there alone until 11:29 a.m., at which time the teacher spoke to K.C. After consulting with another teacher, Ms. Hawthorne, about where K.C. belonged, the teacher took him to Respondent’s classroom. Respondent denied allowing K.C. to stand alone in the hallway for several minutes. She testified that while standing at her classroom door, awaiting the arrival of students coming from the restroom, K.C. began to walk from Ms. Davis toward her. This was customary for her students if children needed additional time in the restroom. As K.C. got close to Respondent, L.G.R. began climbing on the top shelf of a bookcase in the classroom. Since their routine was for the students to come into the classroom, she assumed K.C. would follow the customary practice and enter the classroom. Respondent testified that she made a judgment call to turn her attention to L.G.R. to ensure his safety and prevent harm to him. Instead of entering the classroom, K.C. walked down the hallway. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions were reasonable. A second incident involved a different student. Two first-grade teachers, Nancy P. Neal and Ireina Hawthorne, were outside on the playground with their students. When recess was over, they were gathering their students and doing a head count to go back inside to their classrooms when they noticed there was “an extra child” in line. The student did not belong in their classroom. The student was nonverbal so they could not determine to which classroom he belonged. Ms. Hawthorne assumed that he belonged in Respondent’s class and took the student to Respondent’s classroom. When Ms. Hawthorne took the student to Respondent’s classroom, Respondent “ushered him into the classroom.” Respondent testified that she was in the hallway, counting her students before going to her classroom. She explained that she had a substitute paraprofessional, Ms. Foster, who did not know all of her students. In addition, this was the first time she had Ms. Foster serve as a substitute. To help remedy the issue regarding the student left outside, Respondent asked her assigned paraprofessional not to take breaks or lunch during recess. Whether Respondent was in her classroom (as stated by Ms. Hawthorne) or in the hallway, the student was left outside without her supervision, which could be harmful to the student’s safety. A third incident related to supervision involved student L.G.R. On October 19, 2019, L.G.R. entered Ms. Gazzaniga’s office and hid under a table. The evidence offered at hearing demonstrated that when the student eloped from the classroom, Respondent immediately followed the student into the guidance office. However, she did not see the L.G.R., so she continued to search for him. A minute or so later, Ms. Gazzaniga saw Respondent walk down the hallway towards the main office. Respondent later learned the student was in the guidance office at the time she initially searched that location. However, Ms. Gazzaniga did not alert Respondent that L.G.R. was in her office. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that she “kept an eye on him while he was there.” After a short time, Ms. Gazzaniga went over to L.G.R. and spoke to him. He came from under the table and went to the doorway of the office. At the same time, Respondent was walking back down the hallway and saw L.G.R. and took him back to her classroom. The credible evidence demonstrates that Respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the student by searching for him immediately after his elopement from the room. DP-3 Assessment On September 10, 2018, Ms. Scott gave Respondent a Developmental Profile Third Edition (“DP-3”) to complete for student A.M.S. Students who are developmentally delayed must have a DP-3 completed for re-evaluation to determine what ESE services need to be continued. A DP-3 is an assessment tool used to evaluate nonverbal or low achieving students that have not reached the cognitive level to take an IQ test. MCSD uses the DP-3 to assess the student’s level of achievement. The DP-3 assesses five areas of development, including the child’s cognitive functioning, physical development, communication skills, social, emotional, and adaptive skills. The assessment is completed by completing a series of questions on whether a student can or cannot perform a particular task. Respondent returned the DP-3 to Ms. Scott on September 25, 2018. Respondent circled items indicating a “yes” response. During the hearing, however, Respondent acknowledged the student would not be capable of performing the tasks. In addition, Ms. Scott did not believe A.M.S. could perform the skills for which Respondent answered yes. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, some of the responses Respondent provided on the DP-3 were inaccurate. Performance Assessments Throughout her career, Respondent had been assessed as progressing or effective related to instructional practice as an educator. For the 2018 informal classroom teacher instructional assessment performed by Ms. Baxley, Ms. Cino, and Mr. Sanford, Ms. Miller was assessed as unsatisfactory in multiple areas.1 However, in the areas of criticism, it was also noted that Ms. Miller was engaged in instruction of students. Interestingly, she was criticized for a child wandering to her desk, and then, criticized for leaving the group of students she was working with to redirect the wandering student. In another instance, the observers were critical of a Positive Behavioral Interventions Support plan but Ms. Miller was never trained in the area of behavioral management. For the 2019 informal classroom teacher evaluation, Ms. Miller was assessed effective in each category, including areas where she was assessed unsatisfactory in 2018. Disciplinary Action at WPES For the first time in her career, Respondent received disciplinary action while working at WPES. On or about September 10, 2018, Respondent was issued an oral reprimand for purported failure to supervise the students assigned to her. On or about September 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for misconduct for purported falsification of documents. On or about October 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for alleged failure to supervise a student assigned to her. On or about November 26, 2018, Respondent was issued Step One progressive discipline for substandard performance due to behavioral concerns in her classroom and failure to report grades. On or about December 11, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Two verbal reprimand regarding substandard performance. 1 In 2018, Ms. Miller was assessed unsatisfactory in the following areas: 2b. establishing a culture for learning, managing student behavior; 3b. using questioning and discussion techniques; and 3c. engaging students in learning. On or about December 18, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Three progressive discipline written reprimand regarding substandard performance. Respondent’s educator certificate has no prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that: Respondent violated the statues and rules as referenced above; Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2021. Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
