Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Daniel Z. Duncan, was a student at Hialeah Junior High School (HJHS) in Hialeah, Florida during school years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The school is under the jurisdiction of petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). During school year 1985-86, Daniel was a thirteen year old eighth grade student at HJHS. According to his grade reports, he received one B, one C, three D's and one F during the school year. Nonetheless, he was promoted to the ninth grade. The following school year, a deterioration in grades occurred. In fact, Daniel was absent at least twenty-one days between September 10 and November 3, 1986, and received F's in every course. During the fall of 1986 Daniel was involved in a series of disruptive incidents which culminated in a child study team's recommendation that he be transferred to an opportunity school. An opportunity school offers smaller classes for its students and has personnel who are specially trained to deal with students having behavioral or related academic problems in the regular school environment. The incidents which led to this recommendation are discussed below. On September 13, Daniel snatched a gold chain from another student while the two were in the second floor school restroom during class break. Daniel was charged with theft and was suspended from school for five days for this misconduct. On September 24, while on a five day suspension for misconduct, Daniel returned to the school campus. This was in violation of school rules which prohibit a suspended student from being on the school grounds. Despite having been told by a teacher to leave the premises, Daniel returned a second time later that day. He was cited for trespassing after his second Visit and received a two-day indoor suspension. On October 1, Daniel entered Judy Byrum's classroom and placed his books on his desk. He then left the classroom and never returned. After Daniel lied to her the next day about his whereabouts on October 1, Byrum referred Daniel to the assistant principal because of his absence. Daniel received an indoor suspension for this conduct. On October 3, Daniel and a fellow student were "horseplaying" in the school hallway. For this Daniel was cited for disruptive behavior and given a three-day-indoor suspension beginning on October 6. In view of his repetitive disruptive conduct, a school child study team was convened on October 3 to determine what action, if any, was required to deal with Daniel's problems. After reviewing his grades, attendance and behavior, a decision was made to recommend Daniel's transfer to an opportunity school. It was also recommended that he be given individual counseling and that weekly progress reports be compiled. Because of subsequent disruptive conduct which prompted his transfer a few weeks later, Daniel did not receive the recommended individual counseling at HJHS. On the morning of October 9 Daniel came to school wearing a baseball hat with the words "suck my dick" written on the hat. When his science teacher observed this, he instructed Daniel to give him the hat. Daniel refused and retreated to the school yard. Subsequent efforts by a security guard to retrieve the hat were unsuccessful, and it was finally necessary that an assistant principal escort Daniel to the principal's office. It should be noted that Daniel's refusal to obey the orders of the teacher and security guard was in the presence of other students, and had the effect of undermining his superiors' authority. After Daniel's mother was telephoned by the assistant principal regarding the incident, Daniel "bolted" out of the office and left the school premises. He was later given a five day suspension from school. A conference with Daniel's mother was held on October 10. At that time, all circumstances surrounding the "hat" incident were discussed, and other teachers were brought in to explain various problems they were having with her son. Daniel was transferred to Douglas MacArthur High School-North after the "hat" incident and has remained there since that time. His grades have improved, and he has apparently adjusted to that school environment. Daniel's mother testified that she was very concerned about her son's welfare. She felt that other alternatives existed besides transferring her son out of Hialeah Junior High School. However, she acknowledged that she had met in conference with school officials at least five or six times to discuss Daniel's disruptive behavior, and that her son's grades were very poor. She contended, however, that counseling might improve Daniel's behavior, and that HJHS had not made a serious effort to correct his behavior before the transfer decision was made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Daniel Z. Duncan be reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE and Ordered this 3rd day of February, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire Suite 205 8360 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33144 Ms. Minerva Duncan 2614 N.W. 65th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether petitioner's assignment of Antonio Doll to an alternative educational program is justified on grounds of his "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program?"
Findings Of Fact Antonio Doll's career at Norland Senior High School in Miami was not an unqualified success. On May 24, 1984, he was suspended for ten days after attempting to sell marijuana he had in his possession. About a month earlier, on April 25, 1984, his misconduct in the classroom had been called to the school administrator's attention, and had resulted in a parental conference with school authorities. On March 7, 1984, he was suspended for ten days because of vandalism. This came after parental conferences on January 30, 1984, occasioned by insubordination in the classroom, and on December 9, 1983, after classroom misconduct and an episode of truancy. Antonio Doll was referred to the school administrator seven times in eight months. As of January 25, 1984, his academic grades were worse than his conduct marks. He was failing five subjects and had a D in a sixth. Only in industrial arts was he doing better than D work.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assign Antonio Doll to the opportunity program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. and Mrs. Collier 2560 N.W. 161 Street Opa Locka, Florida 33055 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Educator's Certificate should be suspended..
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been in the education profession for 31 years. He holds a master’s degree in psychological counseling and a specialist certificate in educational leadership. He has taught, in chronological order, at Lake City Junior High School, Deland Senior High School, Edison Community College, and Cape Coral High School. He has served as an assistant principal at Cape Coral High School, Riverview High School, and Lehigh Senior High School, for a total of eight years. During his career in education, Respondent has not been disciplined and has generally received excellent evaluations. In August 1999, prior to the return of the students or faculty, Respondent was the assistant principal of curriculum at Lehigh Senior High School. This was a difficult period for the school district. It had spent more than it had received during the prior school year, and the superintendent, Dr. Bruce Harter, had had to recommend to the school board difficult cutbacks, including over 90 teaching positions. The school board had adopted these recommendations, and Dr. Harter had implemented them, starting the 1999-2000 school year. In mid August 1999, while working in the common area of the office in preparation for the return of the teachers to school, Respondent was talking with a couple of other school administrators while they were painting school colors in the office. In charge of preparing the master schedule of classes for the school, Respondent was especially upset at the teaching cutbacks. During a conversation among the three administrators, Respondent commented once or twice, “Who do you want to bet will shoot Dr. Harter?” The administrator who recounted this comment walked away to his office to terminate the conversation. He reported that Respondent was not ranting or raving when making the comment and that Respondent did not make these comments in a threatening manner. The administrator has known Respondent since 1988 and has never known him to be dangerous, threatening, or unprofessional. As all persons involved in this case were aware, this comment was especially distasteful because a distraught school teacher had murdered a superintendent a few years earlier. In a school district the size of Lee County, nearly everyone involved in this case had some personal involvement in the tragic loss of the superintendent. For instance, the administrator who recounted the conversation at the school office had known the teacher who had shot the superintendent. A day or two after the first comment, on August 19, 1999, Respondent attended a meeting at another school for the purpose of welcoming the new principals. Respondent was frustrated because he had applied over a dozen times in the past four years for the position of school principal, but had never even been interviewed. In the course of the presentation, a speaker said, “Let’s give Lynn Strong a round of applause.” Ms. Strong was in charge of personnel and had some involvement in the selection process for principals. In response to the speaker’s comment, Respondent muttered, “I’d rather give her a bullet.” This remark was heard only by two or three other administrators, also from Lehigh Senior High School, who were seated at the same table as Respondent. The administrators hearing Respondent’s remark were not so much alarmed, as they were concerned. The consensus among them was that someone should inform the principal of Respondent’s remarks, and the principal should talk to Respondent. On the same day as the latter statement, the principal visited Respondent in his office and told him that he had learned of these statements and that they were inappropriate. The principal warned Respondent that such statements could get him in a lot of trouble. Without denying having made the statements, Respondent said that he had not intended to act on them. Unsure what, if anything, to do next, the principal received a call from someone in the district office, who had heard about Respondent’s statements. Even though he had worked with Respondent for several years and had never known him to behave unprofessionally, the principal decided to report the threat to Ms. Strong and the superintendent. Ms. Strong became frightened by the report. She had known of the murder of the superintendent, as well as a murder of a teacher in the recent past. Ms. Strong stayed in her home all of the ensuing weekend, and her husband escorted her to work for a couple of weeks. She never contacted Respondent about the situation, largely because Ms. Strong’s professional responsibilities encompassed the investigation, but Respondent never contacted her and explained the situation to relieve her of her understandable anxiety. After an investigation, the school district removed Respondent from Lehigh Senior High School and suspended him with pay for nine weeks. After the completion of the suspension, the school district reassigned Respondent to a second-chance school, until his contract expired at the end of the school year. The next year, the principal of Fort Myers High School, who had known Respondent as an effective educational professional for many years, hired him as a teacher. Respondent’s work after the two incidents in August 1999 has earned him praise from his supervisors. The two comments made by Respondent were repulsive, especially given the tragic recent history of violence directed against Lee County education professionals. Assessed in the context of a long, effective career in education, these two incidents stand out as isolated and largely inexplicable. The only partial explanation appearing in the record was that Respondent had, in August 1997, completed counseling for the sudden death from an undetermined cause of his 22-year-old daughter, while she was attending the University of Florida. The question nevertheless remains why a mature professional educator, himself having recently undergone a tragic, recent loss, would choose to express his displeasure with policy and personnel decisions by oblique references to the death of the administrators making these policy and personnel decisions. Based on the prehearing stipulation, Petitioner abandoned its allegation that Respondent is guilty of a violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. In any event, Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is guilty of intimidating or harassing anyone. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude. Evaluated in the context of his long professional career in education, these lapses in judgment, although serious departures from good judgment, do not constitute moral turpitude, especially in view of the fact that no one hearing the remarks believed that Respondent intended to do violence to Dr. Harter or Ms. Strong. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. Absent the willingness of two administrators to work with Respondent following his August 1999 comments, this issue would be more difficult to resolve. However, these administrators have given Respondent the opportunity to demonstrate that he remains an effective educator and has lost none of his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. One’s sense of justice is not offended by Respondent’s removal from administrative duties, nor the likelihood that his resumption of administrative duties will, if ever, be long deferred; however, as a teacher, Respondent remains an effective and valuable employee of the school board, provided he guards carefully against a recurrence of this irresponsible behavior.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Florida Education Center, Room 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Department of Education Bureau of Educator Standards, Room 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William R. Scherer III Conrad & Scherer Post Office Box 14723 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Harry A. Blair Harry A. Blair, P.A. 2180 West First Street, Suite 401 Fort Myers, Florida 33901
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2007)1/, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate, numbered 1003139, covering the area of athletics coaching. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2008. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the certification and regulation of teachers, pursuant to Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as an in-school suspension teacher and a track coach at Hernando High School in the Hernando County School District. The allegations in this proceeding involve events that occurred during the 2007-2008 school year, and deal with three separate incidents: Respondent's conduct in connection to the prom; his actions toward M.G.; and his actions toward A.H. The Prom The prom for Hernando High School was held on or about April 5, 2008, at the Glen Lakes Country Club in Hernando County. Joy Nagy was a coordinator for the prom, and Vicelia Azzarelli was the administrator on duty. Teachers who desired to chaperone the prom signed up in advance. They were given specific responsibilities, including a schedule for monitoring students' behavior. Volunteers' duties did not include dancing with the students. Those teachers who were not volunteering but wanted to stop by and see the students dressed up in their prom attire were also expected to get prior authorization. According to Joy Nagy, Respondent neither signed up to volunteer nor sought permission to attend the prom. Respondent came to the prom with Mr. Mobley, a long-time substitute teacher. Both men were present for a short time, approximately twenty minutes. During their appearance at the prom, they were seen on the dance floor dancing with the students. Assistant Principal Azzarelli observed Respondent while he was at the prom, and he appeared to her to be under the influence of alcohol. He had the smell of alcohol on his person and on his breath, his eyes were dilated and his gait was unsteady. She and another administrator requested that Respondent and Mr. Mobley leave the dance, and they did so. After the prom, a group of students chose to continue celebrating, and rented rooms at a hotel in Clearwater Beach. Respondent and Mr. Mobley went to the hotel where the students were staying, and socialized with the students. The students were drinking alcohol at the hotel, and the presence of alcoholic beverages was evident. The next week, some students came forward asserting that Respondent and Mr. Mobley were partying with students in Clearwater Beach following the prom. During a subsequent investigation into the partying, Respondent admitted to Ms. Azzarelli that he went to Clearwater Beach after the prom, and had a couple of drinks at a club there. He also admitted that he went to the hotel room of some of the students. As a result of the investigation into the events surrounding the prom, school officials also received information regarding possible conduct by Respondent with respect to two female students at Hernando High School. M.G. M.G. is currently a student at Valencia Community College. At the time of the events in this case, she was a senior at Hernando High School, and was, along with a few other students, a manager for the track team. At some point during the 2007-2008 school year, M.G. was sent to the in-room suspension room for a dress code violation, because she was wearing a skirt that was too short. She was the last student to leave the room. As she was leaving the classroom, Respondent came up behind her and reached around, putting his hand underneath her skirt, over her underpants. M.G. immediately left the room. She did not report the incident to anyone initially, because there were no witnesses to the conduct and she did not think anyone would believe her. She thought that by staying out of in-school suspension and working with the other track managers, she would not be in a position where the situation could be repeated. However, there was a subsequent occasion where M.G. was taking inventory of the uniforms for the track team. She was again alone with Respondent, and he again came up behind her and touched her in the crotch area, over her clothes. On this occasion, M.G. was wearing capris pants. She left the room and, as before, did not tell anyone because she did not want to be in a position where she reported the behavior and no one believed her. She only came forward after hearing about another incident involving Respondent's alleged conduct with a female student.3/ A.H. A.H. was also a student at Hernando High School at the time of the events in question. She graduated in 2009, and is now a student at Pasco-Hernando Community College. There was an occasion during the 2007-2008 school year when A.H. was alone with Respondent in the portable where he taught. Respondent kissed her, and she tried to walk out. He grabbed her arm, pulled her back to him and kissed her again. Respondent also sent A.H. inappropriate text messages. For example, he would text her that he did not want to have sex with her because he knew she was a virgin, but that "I'll go down on you and show you a good time." Like M.G., A.H. did not want to tell anyone about the incident with Respondent because she did not want anyone to know about it. When questioned initially by school officials, she denied it for the same reason. Both girls were interviewed by Detective Morrell of the Hernando County Sheriff's Office during her investigation stemming from the conduct related to prom. The information given during the investigation by Detective Morrell and the information provided during the hearing was consistent. Unfortunately for both girls, after the conduct was investigated, there was significant publicity regarding the incidents. Information was published in both the print and electronic media. Consistent with her fears, M.G. was subjected to ridicule and the publicity related to the investigation made it difficult for her to finish her senior year. Neither girl wanted to press charges as a result of Respondent's conduct, because they did not want to have to deal with the publicity associated with criminal charges. Neither girl wanted to testify in this proceeding. However, both girls were candid and credible, despite their obvious reluctance to appear. On or about May 5, 2008, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his position with the school district.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and permanently revoking his teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Except for the matters at issue, the Petitioner is full qualified for licensure as an agent and to obtain an agency license. The Petitioner served twenty (20) years in the US Army, retiring as a sergeant-major in 1973. His last ten (10) years in service were involved directly with work which the agency concedes is the equivalent of the work done by an employment clerk. The Petitioner, since retiring from the US Army, has been employed as a teacher/career counselor in the Detroit school system at the high school level. There he instructed high school ROTC six (6) to seven (7) hours per week. The remainder of his time was spent in counseling and duties associated with administration of the ROTC department of which he was head. The Petitioner has counseled more than 200 students regarding careers to include helping them fill out applications, helping to place them in programs, and encouraging them to develop job skills. He held this position until applying for this license. The petitioner also served for more than three (3) years immediately preceding his application on the Harper Woods School Board. As a member of the school board he had to approve the hiring, firing and granting of tenure to school board employees, and review negotiated contracts for employees of the school board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Ralph E. Young for an employment agency/agent license be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ralph E. Young 2117 South East Erwin Road Port St. Lucie, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and how, Respondent should be disciplined for failing to take appropriate action regarding a middle school student who brought a knife to school.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1063574 and is licensed in the fields of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student Education. She began teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School in Lee County in September 2011, after the start of the 2011-2012 school year. During instruction in her fourth period class on February 13, 2012, Respondent heard a student ask another student, who was an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student with emotional issues, "was that a knife?" The ESE student responded, "Drama!" When Respondent looked up, she saw the ESE student place something in her lap, out of Respondent's view. Respondent did not see what it was but saw a flash of silver or metal. The class started to "act up," and Respondent decided to diffuse the incident and quiet the class by telling the ESE student to "put it away." The ESE student then put the object in her backpack. When the class ended, Respondent approached the ESE student and asked if she had a knife. The student denied it. Respondent told the student, if she had a knife, that would be unacceptable, but Respondent did not pursue the matter any further at the time and allowed the student to leave for her next class. During Respondent's eighth period class, the last period of the day, Respondent asked her student-aide, who also was a student in her fourth period class, about the incident during fourth period. The student-aide told Respondent that it was a knife, like a small steak knife, and that the ESE student had been licking it. After speaking with her student-aide, Respondent sent the school's ESE director, who also was the ESE student's caseworker, an electronic message simply asking to discuss the student with her when she had a moment. No details about the incident were included in the message out of Respondent's concern that it would be a public record. Respondent did not receive a response by the end of the school day. The ESE director received the message after hours. The next morning, Respondent saw the ESE director at a teacher's meeting and explained the previous day's incident. The ESE director was concerned about the delay in doing anything else about it and immediately went to the school principal, who was in the cafeteria, as were several other students, including Respondent's ESE student. The principal immediately went to the student and asked if she had a knife. The student admitted she did and thought it was no big deal since Respondent did nothing about it the day before. The student later stated that she was depressed and was considering cutting herself with the knife. Respondent now understands that she did not take the appropriate action on February 13, 2012. However, she contends that there are mitigating factors to consider, and any discipline should be constructive (such as, additional training), not punitive. Respondent attempts to defend herself to an extent by saying she did not actually see the knife during fourth period. However, it is clear that Respondent heard students asking about a knife, and saw something silver or metallic that could have been a knife, and was aware of the student's emotional issues. In light of those circumstances, Respondent should not have been satisfied with the student's denial that she had a knife; she should have involved the school's administrators and resource officer at that point. When she learned during eighth period that the student in fact had a knife, she should not have been satisfied with an unacknowledged electronic message to the ESE director. Respondent also attempts to deflect some blame onto the school for not making sure she knew what to do about incidents like the one that confronted her on February 13, 2012. It may well be true, as she testified, that Respondent did not get a copy of the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students, normally distributed to teachers at the beginning of the school year, which identifies a kitchen knife as a weapon and prohibits it. Petitioner attempted to impeach Respondent's denial of receipt of the document by citing a handful of student discipline referrals by Respondent that use incident types taken from that document. One incident type, albeit not used by Respondent in any of her referrals, was possession of weapons; however, the form does not define weapons. Respondent testified convincingly that she used the forms without reference to the source document. Nonetheless, she knew it would be unacceptable for a student to have a knife at school. When Respondent started teaching at the school, she was offered an opportunity to take the APPLES program for new teachers, which provides information and training on codes of conduct, including provisions to protect the safety of students and faculty. Respondent opted out, stating that she took the APPLES program during her previous employment in Collier County. While perhaps not handed to Respondent when she started teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School, the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students was easily accessible from Respondent's school computer via a program called SharePoint that was a link on the home page. Respondent denies ever accessing the material from her computer. However, Respondent prepared a professional development plan shortly after she started teaching at the school in October 2011. It included a plan to train on how to download documents from SharePoint, but Respondent had not yet followed through on that plan by the time of the incident. Information also was available to Respondent in the form of an Agenda book that she was given. The Agenda book contained the school's rules, including one prohibiting weapons as nuisances and providing that they would be confiscated. It is not clear whether any of the information provided or available to Respondent would have told her what to do in circumstances where she suspected, but was not certain, that a student had a knife, and the student denied it. Based on the facts of this case, additional training is appropriate and actually is desired by Respondent. On the other hand, Respondent would rather not be reprimanded, submit to supervised probation, and pay a $500 fine and pay costs, as Petitioner proposes. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, Petitioner's proposal would be harsh, not constructive, and possibly demoralizing. The evidence is clear that Respondent will follow the rules she is given and take appropriate action in a situation if she knows what is expected of her. A repeat of the failure to act appropriately in a situation similar to the incident on February 13, 2012, is not likely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission find Respondent guilty of violating rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issue a letter of reprimand, and place her on a short term of probation conditioned on the completion of appropriate additional training. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Richard A. Cohan, was employed by the Dade County School Board as a classroom teacher continuously from the time of his initial hiring in August 1970 until November 19, 1986, when he was suspended by Petitioner. During Respondent's employment with the Dade County School Board, he has taught at Shenendoah Junior High School, Booker T. Washington Junior High School, Kinloch Park Junior High School, Kensington Park Elementary School and Miami Edison Senior High School. Respondent was employed as a continuing contract teacher at Miami Edison Senior High School at all times relevant to the alleged misconduct herein. 1984-85 School Year Respondent's performance as a classroom teacher was satisfactory until the 1984-85 school year when he was absent 41 days from school. Frederick Sturgeon, Principal of Miami Edison Senior High School, made a notation concerning the absences on the Respondent's 1984/85 annual evaluation. 1985-86 School Year The Respondent's absenteeism continued into the 1985-86 school year. On November 5, 1985, Sturgeon held a conference for the record with Respondent because he had been absent 27.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Sturgeon was also concerned because Respondent failed to follow established school procedures when reporting his absences. During the 1985-86 school year, teachers who anticipated an absence were required to call a specific telephone number at the school and leave a taped message. The school secretary could check the messages during the night and arrange for any needed substitutes. The Respondent, however, usually called the school on the morning of the day he was absent. Thus, the school would have very little time in which to secure a substitute teacher who was specifically suited to teach the subject matter of the Respondent's classes. At the November 5, 1985 conference, Respondent was given specific instructions by Sturgeon to: Report any future absences to Assistant Principal Weiner personally and to discontinue calling the tape recording machine to report absences; Ensure that weekly lesson plans were available so that a substitute teacher would be able to continue with the lesson for that day; and Have on file with the school three days of "emergency lesson plans" dealing with general academic skills. On February 28, 1986, Sturgeon held another conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had been absent 5 times since the November 5, 1985 conference. On three of the days, Respondent did not call to report his intended absence. Sturgeon reiterated the same directives given Respondent during the November 5, 1985 conference. As of April 24, 1986, Respondent had been absent 58.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Because Respondent's absence pattern made it difficult to schedule a face to face conference, Sturgeon wrote a letter to Respondent expressing his concern over the high number of absences and the fact that from March 18, 1986 through April 24, 1986, there were 26 days during which the Respondent had not furnished lesson plans for his classes. Sturgeon again reiterated the directives of the November 5, 1985 conference. On May 12, 1986, a conference for the record was held with Respondent at the school board's Office of Professional Standards. Present at the conference were Assistant Principal Weiner, the Respondent, Dr. Gil (a coordinator in the office), and a union representative. The conference was held to discuss Respondent's performance assessment and future employment with the school board. The Respondent indicated his absences during the year were due to his grandmother's illness, the fact that he was not functioning well and the fact that he was taking medication for an upper respiratory illness. At the May 12, 1986 conference, the Respondent was directed to call Ms. Weinter directly to report any absences and to return his grade book to the school by May 13, 1986. Dr. Gil also determined that Respondent should be evaluated by a physician and an appointment was scheduled for the Respondent with Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist. The Respondent first saw Dr. Rousseau on May 15, 1986. On May 20, 1986, the Respondent had still not furnished the grade book to the school. Ms. Weiner directed Respondent, by way of a memorandum, to produce the grade book as previously requested. On May 30, 1986, Sturgeon completed an annual evaluation in reference to Respondent's teaching performance. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in the category of professional responsibility. On June 4, 1986, Sturgeon discussed with Respondent his most recent absences (May 29th to June 3rd) and the fact that he had not called Ms. Weiner to report them, had not provided lesson plans for two of the days and had still not provided the grade book to the school. The Respondent stated that he would comply with the directives in the future and provide his grade book to the school. Respondent was absent from June 6, 1986 until June 19, 1986. By letter dated June 11, 1986, Sturgeon requested that Respondent provide final examinations for his students and again directed that Respondent furnish the school with his grade book. On June 19, 1986, Sturgeon held a conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had not provided final examinations for his classes (one of the other teachers had to prepare the final exams), had not produced the grade book and had not provided lesson plans for use during his absences. The Respondent indicated to Sturgeon that on occasions, he attempted to contact Ms. Weiner but was unable to get through to her and at other times he forgot to contact her. The Respondent also informed Sturgeon that he was having a personal problem that he could not share with the school, and that the personal problem was having such an effect on him that he didn't feel that he could comply with the directives. On July 17, 1987, a conference was held at the school board's Office of Professional Standards, between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to review Respondent's performance over the previous school year. In Sturgeon's opinion, the Respondent's students had not been graded properly during nearly the entire year, final exams had to be administered which did not adequately assess the students' progress and the students had not reached the course objectives. At this time, the Respondent was a little more specific about the problem that he had mentioned to Sturgeon earlier and stated that he was having a mental problem and that he had experienced a series of traumatic experiences which had affected his ability to attend school. At the conclusion of the July 17, 1987 conference Sturgeon decided to recommend a short term of suspension, a medical examination and a period of controlled monitoring during the next school year. The recommendation was approved by the school board and Respondent was suspended for ten work days beginning the 1986-87 school year and was placed on probation for a 45 day monitoring period. The Respondent did not contest the suspension. 1986-87 School Year The Respondent returned to work from his suspension on September 16, 1987. Classes for the new school year had already commenced. Prior to returning to work, Respondent had gone to school and was given a teacher handbook in biology by Ms. Weiner. Respondent prepared lesson plans and tests based on the teacher handbook he had been given. When Respondent returned to school, he was given a new teacher handbook for biology. Respondent had to re-do all of his lesson plans and tests. In addition, he discovered that none of his classes had been issued textbooks. Respondent also received a folder filled with five classes worth of work for the proceeding 15 days which was assigned by the substitute teacher. On September 29, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class. Respondent was rated "acceptable" in five categories but "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This rating was based on the fact that there was no work done by the students contained in the student folders, his grade book contained only one entry grade per student for only one week and students were allowed to grade other students' essay-type examinations. Weiner gave Respondent a prescription for improving his deficiencies which included the directive that he conduct at least two formal assessments of student progress per week and maintain student folders to keep evaluative items. During October 1986, the Respondent was absent 15 days. Most of the absences were due to a severe intestinal flu which Respondent contracted. The Respondent failed to report his absences directly to Ms. Weiner as previously directed. On some occasions, the Respondent attempted to call Ms. Weiner, but could not get through to her on the telephone. When Respondent was unable to contact Ms. Weiner he would sometimes call the answer phone and leave a recorded message. On October 27, 1986, a conference for the record was held at the Office of Professional Standards between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Ms. Weiner's observation of Respondent, his continued failure to contact Ms. Weiner directly regarding absences and his failure to file emergency plans. On November 3, 1986, Sturgeon conducted an observation of the Respondent's classroom. Sturgeon rated the Respondent "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This unacceptable rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not have any student folders and had not assigned any homework. School policy required that teachers assigns homework at least twice a week. Respondent was also rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility. On November 14, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class and rated him "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. The Respondent had no student folders, did not conduct at least two formative assessments of the students per week and there were no summative assessments of the student's progress. The Respondent admitted that he did not have formal folders and that his evaluation techniques were deficient. The Respondent stated that he was unable to employ the student assessment procedures recommended given by Ms. Weiner during the first few months of the 1986-87 school year because he was in the process of "catching up" after his return from suspension and was unable to do all of those things in such a short period of time. In addition, Respondent was hindered in his attempt to catch up because he was unable to have a lot of needed items copied because at times the machines were broken and at other times teachers with current items requiring reproduction were given priority. On November 19, 1986, Petitioner suspended Respondent from his position at Miami Edison Senior High School. Beginning in the 1984-85 school year and continuing through to the 1986-87 school year, Respondent suffered from a dysthymiac disorder referred to as neurotic depression. Respondent's condition was first diagnosed by Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist, on May 15, 1986. At the insistence of Dr. Gil, Respondent went to Dr. Rousseau's office for an examination. Dr. Rousseau was chosen from a list provided to Respondent by Dr. Gil. Dr. Gil personally made the appointment for Respondent to see Dr. Rousseau. Respondent at first did not realize or believe that he was suffering from a mental illness and initially resisted the treatment provided by Dr. Rousseau. However, Dr. Rousseau was able to establish a psychotherapeutic relationship with the Respondent after a short period of time. After the doctor-patient relationship was established, Respondent decided to continue seeing Dr. Rousseau and kept weekly appointments from June, 1986 until November, 1986. Respondent was treated with individual psychotherapy and antidepressant medication. In November of 1986, Respondent stopped seeing D. Rousseau because Respondent moved to Atlanta, Georgia, shortly after being suspended. Neurotic depression is a serious mental illness of a cyclical nature which may be physically disabling while the afflicted person is in a pathological state of depression. The symptoms of a neurotic depression include extreme sadness, apathy, lack of motivation, inability to concentrate, psychomotor retardation, insomnia and loss of appetite. Respondent's periods of pathological depression were characterized by feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and an apathy toward outside activities, including his employment. During Respondent's depressive states he would isolate himself at home, withdraw from all social contact, neglect his nutrition and hygiene and suffer insomnia. At times, Respondent would be unaware of the passage of time and would have crying spells. In his depressive condition, sometimes Respondent knew what he was required to do, such as calling in to report an absence, but because of his despair and dejected mood, was unable to motivate himself to do anything. Respondent's apathy and inability to attend to his necessary duties was a direct result of his neurotic depression. Due to the depressive symptomatology, a neurotically depressed person might fail to perform required duties for a number of reasons. As a result of an inability to concentrate, the depressed person may be unable to receive and assimilate instructions. The depressed person having a desire to complete a required duty may lack the physical capacity to perform because mentally he or she feels unable to do so. Further, because of an unconscious, passive- aggressive need for punishment, a depressed person may neglect to perform a required duty. The Respondent was examined by Dr. Albert Jaslow, a psychiatrist, on September 15, 1986 at the request of Dr. Gil of the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. Jaslow confirmed that Respondent was suffering from a mental illness and found that Respondent had made progress with his treatments from Dr. Rousseau. Dr. Jaslow noted that Respondent had reached a state of "relative adjustment" and had begun to realize that it would be necessary for him to be involved in a psychotherapeutic relationship in order to control the negative behavioral aspects of his periods of depression. Dr. Rousseau believes that Respondent responded well to treatment after an initial period of resistance and lack of insight (which is a part of the depressive symptomatology). Dr. Rousseau feels that the Respondent was getting better during the course of therapy but will need to continue taking his medication and receiving psychotherapy in order to fully complete the recovery process and control any recurring symptoms of depression.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be dismissed from employment; however, said dismissal shall be held in abeyance for 2 years from the date of the Final Order contingent on the following: Respondent's present suspension shall remain in effect until the commencement of the 1987-88 school year when Respondent shall return to work; Respondent shall continued treatment with Dr. Rosseau or another qualified psychiatrist of his choice; Respondent shall maintain acceptable performance evaluation reports during the school year, overall acceptable annual evaluations and be recommended for employment by his school principal at the end of the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years. The Office of Professional Standards, Dade County Board, shall monitor the Respondent's progress and fulfillment of the terms of the Final Order. If the Office of Professional Standards provides information by letter or motion to the school board that the Respondent has failed to meet any of the terms of this Order, the school board shall, if satisfied that the information is correct, immediately effectuate Respondent's dismissal by majority vote. If Respondent meets the requirements of the Final Order, the dismissal shall be remitted without further action. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 28th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4805 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. (No finding of fact 3) Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 31. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 8360 West Flagler Street Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33144 William duFresne, Esquire 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue Suite 310 Coconut Grove, Florida 331133 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Dr. Patrick Gray Division of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue - Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33136 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nancy S. Lowery ("Respondent"), violated Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2001),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 365470, issued by the Department of Education. The certificate covered the area of family and consumer science and was valid through June 30, 2002. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Oakridge High School ("Oakridge"), a school in the Orange County School District ("School District"), and taught exceptional education students. On February 1, 2002, while employed as a teacher at Oakridge, Respondent showed the movie, "Jaws III," in her classroom to the students in her fourth-period class. That day there were about ten students in Respondent's fourth-period class. Prior to or soon after starting the movie, Respondent turned off the lights in the classroom, and the lights remained off while the movie was playing. While the movie was playing, the students in Respondent's class sat at their desks. However, at some point during the movie, D.C., a female student in the class, asked J.G., another student, if she (J.G.) gave "head." In response, J.G. answered in the affirmative. After J.G. responded, D.C. and G.J., a male student in the class, then coaxed J.G. to perform oral sex on G.J. Then, G.J. unzipped his pants and told J.G. to put her head "down there," and she did so. At or near the same time, G.J. put his hand in J.G.'s pants. For most of the class period, J.G.'s head was in G.J.'s lap. While J.G. was performing oral sex on G.J., some of the students in the class positioned their desks so that Respondent could not see what J.G. and G.J. were doing. At all times relevant to this proceeding, B.D. was about 16-years-old and a student at Oakridge. B.D. was in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, and observed the events and incident described in paragraphs four through six. Petitioner was in the classroom during the entire fourth period while "Jaws III" was playing. However, once the movie began playing, Petitioner was at the computer in the classroom "working on" or "typing" something. Petitioner was working at the computer most of the class period and did not see J.G. and G.J. engaging in the inappropriate sexual conduct described in paragraph five. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Kari Sperre was the chairman of the Exceptional Education Department at Oakridge, the department in which Respondent worked. On the morning of February 1, 2002, Ms. Sperre took her class on a field trip. Ms. Sperre and her class returned to the school during the fourth period. As Ms. Sperre walked by Respondent's classroom, she noticed that the lights in that classroom were out. Later that day, it was reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. had told another student, L.C., that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. Upon hearing this report, Ms. Sperre investigated the matter. Ms. Sperre first talked to L.C., a female student in the ninth grade at Oakridge. L.C., who was not in Respondent's fourth-period class, reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. told her (L.C.) that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. After she spoke with L.C., Ms. Sperre then talked to J.G. Although initially reluctant to talk to Ms. Sperre, J.G. eventually told Ms. Sperre what had happened that day in Respondent's class. J.G. told Ms. Sperre that she had only recently transferred to Oakridge, that she was in Petitioner's fourth-period class, and that the lights in the class were out during class that day. J.G. also reported to Ms. Sperre that two students in the class, D.C., a female student, and G.J., a male student, encouraged her to perform oral sex on G.J. According to J.G., D.C. and/or G.J. told her that all she had to do was put her head underneath G.J.'s jacket and nobody would know what was going on. J.G. also told Ms. Sperre that G.J.'s pants were open and admitted that, "I just bent down and did it." J.G. told Ms. Sperre that this incident occurred while the class was watching the movie and while Respondent was working on the computer. At all times relevant to this proceeding, J.G. was classified as an exceptional education student, having been classified as educable mentally handicapped. A student classified as educable mentally handicapped has an IQ of below 70, well below the average IQ of 100. After the February 1, 2002, incident that occurred in Respondent's class, J.G. was suspended from school for engaging in inappropriate conduct at school. Also, since the incident, J.G. withdrew from school and is no longer enrolled in the School District. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated several policies of the School District. First, the School District requires that teachers supervise their students at all times when they are in the classroom. In order to do this, the teacher should have the students within sight. This is especially important with regard to exceptional education students, who have special and unique challenges. Respondent did not supervise her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, although she was in the classroom. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent was working at the computer most of the class period and was unaware of what the students were doing. Clearly, Respondent was not supervising her students, as evidenced by her failure to ever notice or observe the sexually inappropriate conduct by students in her class. By failing to properly supervise her class on February 1, 2002, Respondent failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and/or physical health and/or safety. The incident that occurred on February 1, 2002, in Respondent's class could have a negative impact on both the students who observed the incident, as well as the student who was encouraged to perform oral sex on the male student. The educable mentally handicapped student who was coaxed into performing the act could be the victim of teasing as a result of her involvement in the incident. According to Ms. Sperre, those students who witnessed the incident could also be negatively impacted by being exposed to and observing the incident. For example, many of the students in the exceptional education class could also be encouraged to engage in the same type of activity that they witnessed in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002. The School District has a policy that prohibits teachers from turning out all the lights in their classrooms during class time. This policy is for safety reasons and requires that even if there is a need to turn off the classroom lights, at least one "bank" of lights must remain on at all times. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy discussed in paragraph 22, by turning off all the lights at or near the beginning of the fourth period, and they remained off while the students were watching the movie. This violation contributed to Respondent's failure to supervise the students because with all the lights out, even though she was in the classroom, Respondent was unaware and unable to see what the students, including J.G. and G.J., were doing. During the 2001-2002 school year, Oakridge had a policy that allowed teachers to show only movies that were educational or had some relevance to the lesson being taught in the class. At the beginning of every school year, including the 2001-2002 school year, teachers at Oakridge are given faculty handbooks, which include various policies and procedures that they are required to read. In addition to these written policies and procedures, Oakridge administrators would "discuss" various "oral procedures" with teachers at facility meetings. It is unclear if the policies or procedures regarding the kinds of movies that could be shown at Oakridge and the prohibition against having all the lights off in classrooms at Oakridge were written or oral policies and/or procedures. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy related to the kind of movies that are allowed to be shown in the classroom by showing the movie, "Jaws III." "Jaws III" is not an educational movie, nor was it relevant to any lesson being taught by Respondent at or near the time it was being shown to the students. The School District investigated the February 1, 2002, incident, and thereafter, the committee reviewed the incident and voted unanimously to recommend that Respondent be terminated as a teacher in the School District. Despite the unanimous recommendation of termination, because Respondent's teaching contract for re-appointment was to be considered soon, instead of terminating Respondent, the School District decided that it would simply not recommend her for re-appointment for the 2002- 2003 school year. On February 20, 2002, after the February 1, 2002, incident was investigated, Oakridge's principal, J. Richard Damron, issued to Respondent a letter of reprimand and a letter of directives regarding the incident that occurred in Respondent's classroom on February 1, 2002. The letter of reprimand specifically referenced the February 1, 2002, incident and stated that Respondent had "failed to use reasonable care in supervising" the students in her class. Next, the letter of reprimand stated that a directive would be issued in a separate correspondence that outlines the School District's expectations regarding Respondent's conduct in the future. Finally, the letter of reprimand noted that "should there be another incident of a similar nature in the future[,] discipline, up to and including dismissal could be recommended." On February 20, 2002, Principal Damron issued written directives to Respondent which required her to do the following: (1) establish a safe, caring, and nurturing environment conducive to learning and the physical and psychological well- being of students; (2) refrain from showing films that are not directly associated with lessons that contribute to the education of children; (3) keep children under her [Petitioner's] direct supervision at all times and not leave students alone, with other teachers, or be absent from her duties unless she makes prior arrangements with the principal or one of the assistant principals; and (4) comply with all district and school directives, policies, rules, and procedures. Respondent's job performance as a teacher at Oakridge for the 2001-2002 school year was evaluated in March 2002. The results of the evaluation are reported on the School District's form entitled, Instructional Personnel Final Assessment Report ("Assessment Report"). The Assessment Report dated March 25, 2002, noted two areas in which Respondent "Needs Improvement": (1) Professional Responsibilities; and (2) Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was rated as "Effective" in four areas: (1) Curriculum Knowledge; (2) Planning and Delivering Instruction; (3) Assessment of Student Performance; (4) Development and Interpersonal Skills. On March 25, 2002, the same day the Assessment Report was completed, Principal Damron notified Respondent that he was not recommending her for re-appointment for the 2002-2003 school year. According to the letter, Principal Damron decided to not recommend Respondent for re-appointment "based upon performance- related reasons and the temporary contract" that she held at that time. Alfred Lopez, a senior manager with the Orange County School District, testified that by failing to supervise the students in her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the School District had "definitely" been reduced. Ms. Sperre testified that she would not ever want Respondent employed in a school in Orange County in which she (Ms. Sperre) was employed. Notwithstanding the beliefs of Mr. Lopez and Ms. Sperre, based on the letter of reprimand and the letter of directives issued on February 20, 2002, it appears that Respondent continued to teach at Oakridge after the February 2002 incident through the end of the school year. Furthermore, no evidence was presented which established that after the incident, Respondent was reassigned, relieved of, or otherwise removed from her position as an exceptional education teacher at Oakridge after the incident.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(a), but did not violate Subsections 231.2615(1)(a) and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(e). It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order impose the following administrative sanctions on Respondent: Upon employment in any public or private position requiring an educator's certificate, Respondent shall be placed on two years' probation with the conditions that during this period, she shall: Notify the Education Practices Commission, upon employment and immediately upon termination of employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate; Have her immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the Education Practices Commission; Violate no law and fully comply with all School District regulations, school rules, and the State Board of Education; Satisfactorily perform assigned duties in a competent, professional manner; and Bear all costs of complying with the terms of this probation. Enroll in and successfully complete a three-hour college course in classroom management within the first year of probation and submit to the Bureau of Education Standards an official college transcript verifying successful completion of the course with a grade of "B" or higher. This course must be taken in person, and a correspondence or on-line course will not satisfy this requirement. Issue a letter of reprimand, with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2005.
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Pinellas County should dismiss the Respondent on charges of alleged misconduct in office and sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frederick Lemiesz, was employed by the Pinellas County School District as a chef instructor at Pinellas Technical Education Center in St. Petersburg (PTEC-St. Pete) from 1978 until his suspension without pay on June 12, 1996. In that time, he has been disciplined only once—on April 28, 1995, he received a letter of reprimand for threatening, pushing and using profane and abusive language toward another staff member. During the 1995-1996 school year, the Respondent taught a Gibbs High School student named Amanda Beasely, who was in the culinary arts program at PTEC-St. Pete. Amanda had been identified as having a special learning disability (SLD) was receiving SLD services both at Gibbs High, where she was taking her academic classes, and at PTEC-St. Pete, where she was taking vocational classes. Most of the 1995-1996 school year passed without incident of any kind. During a culinary arts class in May, 1996, the Respondent engaged Amanda in conversation regarding her intentions after her graduation from high school in June, 1996. When she told him that she had no plans, the Respondent asked her if she ever had thought of a career in modeling. She replied that she had not. He encouraged her to consider it. She agreed, and the Respondent explained to her that it would be necessary to have a portfolio of photographs to get started. He offered to make arrangements for a portfolio. Again, she agreed. The Respondent told Amanda to follow him, and he led her to the photography room of Terry Allison, a Commercial Photography Instructor at PTEC-St. Pete. The Respondent introduced Amanda to Allison and told Allison that Amanda needed a portfolio to get start her career as a model. Allison explained to them that initially she would need a “composite sheet,” not a “portfolio.” (A “composite sheet” consisted of a number of black and white photographs from the neck up.) He told them that the cost of a composite sheet would be $25. The Respondent agreed to the price, and Allison made an appointment for 7:15 the next morning. The Respondent told Amanda not to be concerned about her culinary arts class scheduled for the same time because the Respondent would mark her as being present. At some point, the Respondent offered to act as Amanda’s manager and explained to her that a manager usually received ten percent of the money a model made. Amanda told her that ten percent seemed reasonable to her. The Respondent believed that he had a verbal contract with Amanda to be her manager and that the contract would serve to compensate him for his expenses. That evening, Amanda reported to her parents what the Respondent had told her and what he had arranged for her the next morning. Her parents did not object to the idea but had some concerns. Apparently, Amanda’s parents inquired about it at Gibbs High, and somehow Dorothy Zeason, a Varying Exceptionalities Specialist at Gibbs High learned about it. Zeason and notified Sharon Lane, Amanda’s Varying Exceptionalities Specialist at PTEC-St. Pete. Zeason requested that Lane look into the situation. When Lane saw Amanda at PTEC-St. Pete the next morning all dressed up and carrying a change of clothes, it reminded her of her conversation with Zeason, and she asked Amanda about it. When Amanda told her that she was on the way to the photo shoot, Lane asked to accompany Amanda to her culinary arts class, where they met the Respondent. The question of payment was raised, and the Respondent assured them that he was going to pay for the composite sheet. Still not sure of the situation, Lane accompanied Amanda to meet Allison at the photography room. There, Allison told Lane what was planned. When Lane told Allison that Amanda’s mother had some concerns, Allison asked if Amanda was a high school student. When told that she was, Allison expressed surprise and said that, in that case, written parental permission was required. At that point, Amanda returned to her culinary arts class, and no photographs ever were taken. The Respondent telephoned Amanda at her home on two occasions in May, 1996. The first of these may have been the evening before the aborted photo shoot. During this first conversation, the Respondent spoke to Amanda about Amanda’s modeling career and about their agreement that the Respondent would act as her manager. The Respondent could give no good school-related reason for placing this call. (He said he called to verify personal information provided by Amanda for school purposes, but evidently saw no reason to do so earlier in the school year.) The Respondent also spoke to Amanda privately in his office at the culinary arts school at PTEC-St. Pete. On one occasion, the Respondent showed Amanda several pictures of a former girl friend who had died twenty years ago. The Respondent told Amanda that she reminded him of the deceased girl friend and that, if he was showing her any “extra liking,” it was because of this. In either the same or another conversation in his office in May, 1996, the Respondent asked Amanda if she believed in reincarnation and then told her that he believed the spirit of his former girl friend was inside Amanda. This kind of talk made Amanda uncomfortable. During either the same or another conversation in his office in May, 1996, the Respondent offered Amanda a spoon ring he had purchased in the PTEC-St. Pete jewelry workshop for about $5 and said he wanted Amanda to take it as a gift from him. Amanda tried several times to decline, saying that she did not feel right about accepting it, but the Respondent was insistent. He suggested that Amanda have it sized, if necessary, or exchange it for something she liked better. To placate the Respondent, Amanda accepted the spoon ring. She brought it to the jewelry workshop for sizing but never returned to pick it up. On another occasion during culinary arts class in May, 1996, the Respondent called Amanda into his office and told her that he wanted to give her money as a gift for her upcoming graduation and birthday. Once again, Amanda tried several times to decline, saying that she did not feel right about accepting it, and the Respondent again was insistent. However, this time the Respondent finally resigned himself to Amanda’s repeated refusals, telling her that he guessed he would just have to give the money to someone else. On another occasion during culinary arts class in May, 1996, Amanda and a friend thought they saw the Respondent winking at Amanda in a manner of flirting. During one of the Respondent’s conversations with Amanda in May, 1996, he asked for directions to her home and asked her to describe the house. The Respondent could give no good school-related reason for why he needed this information. The Respondent was intoxicated when he telephoned Amanda at her home the second time in May, 1996. (He claims not to remember anything about this telephone call due to his intoxication from a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.) The Respondent first addressed Amanda by the wrong name. Then he introduced himself first as “Bo.” When she did not recognize the name (or voice), he told her he was her “teacher, Mr. Lemiesz.” During this conversation, the Respondent told Amanda that he thought she was beautiful, that he loved looking into her beautiful brown eyes, and that he loved her dimples and smile. He also told her that he believed the two of them were spiritually connected and were going to be friends for life. It was a Saturday, and the Respondent asked Amanda what she was doing the next day, Sunday. He told her that he was going out on his sailboat. She took it as an invitation to go with him, and she told him she was going to church in the morning and would be busy all the rest of the day. This second telephone conversation made Amanda uncomfortable. When her parents returned home, Amanda told them about it. Amanda’s parents became concerned for her safety and reported the series of incidents to her school. Amanda declined to return to school at PTEC-St. Pete for the few days remaining before the end of the school year. Action taken by the School Board culminated in the June 12, 1996, letter suspending the Respondent without pay and recommending his dismissal. The letter and its grounds were reported in the St. Petersburg Times. As a result of the Respondent’s conduct in May, 1996, his effectiveness in the school system has been impaired to some degree. Amanda’s parents would not want the Respondent teaching their daughter or any other female student, and school administrators are apprehensive about putting the Respondent back in the classroom. But their reactions are based in part on assumptions that the Respondent would have continued, or worsened, his behavior towards Amanda had he not been stopped and that the Respondent has not learned his lesson. It was not proven either that the Respondent would have continued, or worsened, his behavior towards Amanda had he not been stopped or that the Respondent has not learned his lesson. Meanwhile, although the Respondent’s effectiveness has been impaired to some degree, it was not proven that he could not still be an effective chef instructor for the school system at PTEC-St. Pete, especially in view of his long service without incident prior to May, 1996.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order upholding the Respondent’s suspension without pay but reinstating him at this time, without back pay. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of February, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1997.
