Findings Of Fact Shane Joseph Johnson is a child under commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services who was granted the privilege of transferring to a community placement under the supervision and authority of the Division of Youth Services. The transfer was the subject of a furlough agreement entered into by Johnson with HRS. On August 30, 1983, Shane Johnson signed a furlough agreement which required him to attend the Starting Place and to obey his parents and counselor. On February 21, 1984, Shane Johnson was terminated from the Starting Place for violation of the rules. On March 7, 1984, Shane Johnson entered into another furlough agreement which required him to enroll in school full-time at Hollywood Hills High School and to engage in part-time employment at Ferrara's Restaurant. The furlough agreement additionally required that Shane Johnson obey all laws and comply with other general conditions of the furlough. On March 22, 1984, Shame Johnson was fired from his job at Ferrara's Restaurant. On April 2, 1984, Shane Johnson was suspended from Hollywood Hills High School because he was caught in possession of marijuana on the school grounds. According to Carol Connor, Shane Johnson's human services counselor, Shane Johnson admitted that he was using marijuana while at the Starting Place and admitted that he had a marijuana joint at school when he was suspended. Additionally, Shane Johnson acknowledged that he had lost his job. Based on these violations, Ms. Conner recommended that Shane Johnson's furlough be revoked. A hearing was held by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on the recommendation of revocation and an order of Revocation was entered on April 11, 1984. It is this order of Revocation which is appealed herein.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the revocation of Shane Joseph Johnson's furlough be affirmed. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 5th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Braynon, Esquire District X Legal Counsel 201 W. Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1185 David L. Kreider 9015 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent’s employment with the Sarasota County School Board should be terminated, pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(b) and (6)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: David DeWitt was born in Miami and attended Miami Sunset Senior High School, where he played varsity basketball, graduating in 1980. He met his wife, the former Karen Burmeister, in high school. They dated each other in high school and beyond, and were married in 1988. They have two children: a son, Ryan, born in 1990, and a daughter, Megan, born in 1994. Karen DeWitt has been a teacher since 1985, and currently serves as instructional technology facilitator at Ashton Elementary School in Sarasota. David DeWitt attended Miami-Dade Community College on a basketball scholarship, then graduated from Florida International University with a bachelor's degree in business administration in 1986. He received a master's degree in computer education from Barry University in 1993. He completed a program in educational leadership at Nova University, also in 1993. Mr. DeWitt applied for a teacher's position in the Miami-Dade public school system in 1988, and was assigned to a teaching position at Miami Sunset for the 1988-89 school year. He taught in the "diversified cooperative training" program, in which students received credit for off-campus employment. He also worked as an assistant basketball coach. After the sudden resignation of the head coach, Mr. DeWitt served as interim head basketball coach during the 1990-91 season. The principal of Miami Sunset, Barbara Silver, encouraged Mr. DeWitt to seek certification in administration, believing he had the potential to become a principal. As noted above, he completed an educational leadership program in 1993. He received his state certification, and midway through the 1993-94 school year transferred to Homestead Middle School as an assistant principal. The DeWitts were concerned about raising small children in the urban atmosphere of Miami, and David DeWitt began interviewing for jobs in other school systems. He ultimately took a position with the Sarasota County public school system, and began as an assistant principal at Riverview High School in the 1994-95 school year. He remained in that position until the time of his suspension. Prior to the events that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. DeWitt was never subjected to discipline in his employment, nor had complaints been lodged as to any of his actions at Riverview. The principal of Riverview, Kevin Flynn, testified that Mr. DeWitt had continuously progressed to higher levels of responsibility during his employment at Riverview. In 1997, Mr. DeWitt was chosen to lead the team establishing the International Baccalaureate ("IB") program at Riverview. Mr. Flynn testified that, prior to this proceeding, David DeWitt's reputation was that of a very able administrator, and that his standing was high among both teachers and parents. Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. DeWitt would have been a good candidate for principal at any high school in Sarasota County. The findings of fact below are arranged in the following order, based upon four discrete sets of events. First are the facts relating to the events of Fall 1997 through Spring 1998. These largely concern the allegations of Jennifer Bonelli about a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. Second are the facts relating to events of Spring 1999, which largely concern the allegations of Kendra Simpkins about a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. The investigation of the Bonelli and Simpkins allegations uncovered allegations about a sexual relationship between David DeWitt and Joy Perez. The allegations of Ms. Perez are dealt with as the third section of the findings of fact, though the events actually occurred several years before the Bonelli/Simpkins allegations, because Ms. Perez’ allegations were discovered by investigators during their investigation of the Bonelli/Simpkins allegations. The fourth section deals with events that occurred after Mr. DeWitt was suspended from his position at Riverview High School, chiefly allegations that Kendra Simpkins continued to stalk and harass the DeWitt family until the time of the final hearing. I. Fall 1997-Spring 1998 The allegations during this period focus on alleged sexual episodes with Riverview students Jennifer Bonelli and Kendra Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli claims that Mr. DeWitt had several sexual encounters with her at Twin Lakes Park during this time period. Ms. Simpkins claims that a single episode occurred in Mr. DeWitt's office during this time period. Mr. DeWitt flatly denies all the allegations, claiming that both girls were infatuated with him, and invented their stories. Jennifer Bonelli Jennifer Bonelli attended Riverview from 1996 through 1999. She graduated in 1999 and at the time of the hearing was attending the University of South Florida in Tampa. Her parents and two of her brothers still live in the Sarasota area. During the 1997-98 year, when she was a junior, Ms. Bonelli worked as a teacher's assistant in the guidance office. She was assigned to Ms. Chris Landes, who was Mr. DeWitt's secretary. Ms. Bonelli worked in the guidance office for one period each day, performing routine clerical duties under the supervision of Ms. Landes. Mr. DeWitt was Ms. Bonelli's grade level administrator, meaning that he was assigned to follow her class from its freshman through its senior year, handling disciplinary problems or problems the students may have in their classes. Mr. DeWitt was not a guidance counselor. Ms. Bonelli testified that she first saw David DeWitt either in the beginning of her junior year or during the summer after her sophomore year. She had asked to be assigned to the guidance office, and to Ms. Landes and Mr. DeWitt in particular. Ms. Bonelli testified that her initial impression of Mr. DeWitt was that he was a pleasant, nice, helpful, friendly person. Ms. Bonelli stated that she liked and was attracted to Mr. DeWitt, and soon developed a crush on him. Ms. Bonelli's testimony that she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt only after she met him cannot be credited. Blair Johnson, one of Ms. Bonelli's best friends, testified that Ms. Bonelli told him she found Mr. DeWitt attractive during her sophomore year, and expressed a romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt during the summer after her sophomore year. Christine Ross, another of Ms. Bonelli's friends at Riverview, also testified that Ms. Bonelli expressed a crush on Mr. DeWitt the year before she began working in the guidance office, and before she had met Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross testified that the crush was based simply on seeing Mr. DeWitt around the school. The testimony of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Ross is credited on this point. Blair Johnson testified that he and Ms. Bonelli had summer school classes at Riverview that year, and that one day Ms. Bonelli accompanied him to the guidance office, where he had to go to make changes to his fall schedule of classes. The secretary mentioned to them that Mr. DeWitt would be moving into the guidance office that fall. Mr. Johnson testified that as he filled out his fall class schedule, Ms. Bonelli asked the secretary detailed questions about when Mr. DeWitt would be moving in and what kind of furniture he would have. Mr. Johnson testified that he was a student assistant in the guidance office during Fall 1997, assigned to Mr. DeWitt's secretary during second, third, and fourth periods. Ms. Bonelli took lunch during fourth period, then worked in the guidance office during fifth period. Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. Bonelli regularly came into the guidance office and worked with him during her lunch period. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Johnson that she did so to be near Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she often talked with Mr. DeWitt, in the hallway and in his office. The discussions were not limited to school events and activities. Ms. Bonelli testified that they talked about their personal lives. Despite these frequent personal discussions, Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt never mentioned he was married. She asked him about it, and he never gave her a direct reply or ever volunteered anything about his marriage. She perceived that Mr. DeWitt was trying to avoid the subject of his marriage. Ms. Bonelli stated that she could not recall whether she asked Ms. Landes if Mr. DeWitt was married. She admitted that there were many people in the guidance office she could have asked. She stated that she was curious, and asked around, but never asked an adult. Ms. Bonelli's testimony as to her lack of knowledge of Mr. DeWitt's marital status was untrue. In June 1997, Ms. Bonelli masqueraded as David DeWitt in a series of prank e-mails that she sent to her friend Blair Johnson. In one of these e- mails, she correctly named Mr. DeWitt's wife and children. She knew the ages of the children and where they went to school. Further, Mr. Johnson testified that he heard Ms. Bonelli commenting about Karen DeWitt as early as Summer 1997, referring to her as a "bitch" and a "slut." Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli later began saying that "we need to get rid of Karen." Mr. Johnson testified that he was "pretty weirded out" by the fact that Ms. Bonelli knew the name of Mr. DeWitt's wife, and was later disturbed at the stories Ms. Bonelli was spreading about Mr. DeWitt, discussed below. Mr. Johnson's testimony on this point is credited. Karen DeWitt works with Mr. Johnson's mother, and Mr. Johnson met Karen DeWitt in October 1997. He considered telling Mrs. DeWitt about Ms. Bonelli's actions, but decided that it would seem "weird and possibly obnoxious" for a 17-year-old boy to bring up such subjects with a teacher. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had no clear recollection of when he met Ms. Bonelli. She was assigned to his secretary, Ms. Landes, and so could have been there for some time before he took notice of her. Mr. DeWitt did not dispute that Ms. Bonelli began as an aide in the guidance office in Fall 1997. He stated that as far as he knew, she did a fine job. He based this opinion on reports from Ms. Landes. Mr. DeWitt testified that his policy is to keep his home life and work life separate, and that he has no photographs of his wife and children in his office. He testified that he has never denied to anyone that he is married. As detailed below, several witnesses testified that Mr. DeWitt was unaccountably coy about discussing his marital status, to the point of even denying that he had a wife and children. Mr. DeWitt attempted to explain that he kept home and work separate, and believed that his personal life was not the business of students. This explanation does not answer why Mr. DeWitt would deny being married at all, when the true state of affairs could be easily ascertained by anyone with a genuine interest in the matter. Ms. Bonelli testified that she and Mr. DeWitt engaged in "casual flirting." They would compliment each other. She stated that the comments were such that they "could be taken either way," depending on one's demeanor or gestures. She believed he was flirting with her, and she liked it. Mr. DeWitt testified that he recalled no conversations with Ms. Bonelli during Fall 1997, other than of the "Hi, how are you?" variety. He had no real recollection of Ms. Bonelli ever being in his office during this period. Mr. DeWitt testified that he always looked for reasons to compliment students, whether on their appearance or their accomplishments, as a means of enhancing their self-esteem. Christine Ross testified that during this period, she would go to Riverview football games with Ms. Bonelli. She stated that Ms. Bonelli would always make an effort to speak with Mr. DeWitt, who was assigned to monitor the area between the players' bench and the fence separating the field from the grandstand. Mr. DeWitt had no specific recollection of talking to Ms. Bonelli at the football games, but stated that hundreds of students walked past the fence on their way to the concession stand, that he spoke to many of them, and that he very likely did have some brief conversations with Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt testified that in Fall 1997, he would go to Sarasota Middle School to run in the evenings. He saw Ms. Bonelli there once or twice. He did not speak with her and could not say what she was doing there. He did not like seeing her there, because he saw enough of students during the work day and did not want to be in the position of having to deal with them during his "down time." Mr. DeWitt also testified that there were three or four occasions when Ms. Bonelli drove up next to his car at stop lights on Proctor Road as he drove home from school or from Riverview football games. Ms. Bonelli would usually roll down her window and wave, though in one instance after a football game she asked him what he was doing. Mr. DeWitt said "hello" and told her he was on his way home. Mr. DeWitt testified that these apparently fortuitous meetings were infrequent enough that he did not yet feel uncomfortable or as if Ms. Bonelli was following him. Mr. DeWitt testified that in about January 1998, he started feeling uncomfortable about Ms. Bonelli. He was seeing her more and more. He saw her in his rear view mirror constantly. At least twice, he saw her coming down the road toward him in her Lexus, then make a U-turn to follow him. If he was leaving the school, driving home, he would see her somewhere on his way. If he then got back in his car to take his son to Twin Lakes Park for baseball practice, Ms. Bonelli would either be on the road or at the park. If Mr. DeWitt went to the mall, he would see Ms. Bonelli there. Ms. Bonelli denied following Mr. DeWitt. This denial cannot be credited. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him that she followed Mr. DeWitt around town to places where he did personal things, such as picking his children up from day care. Mr. Johnson stated that he was in the car with Ms. Bonelli on one occasion when she made a U-turn to follow Mr. DeWitt's car. Riverview students Christine Ross and Kendra Simpkins also related stories of riding in Ms. Bonelli's car and following Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that at some point in Fall 1997, the relationship began to go beyond flirting. She testified that one day Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of Twin Lakes Park, describing to her the days and times he went there to jog. Ms. Bonelli stated that around the end of September 1997, she began going to Twin Lakes Park at the times suggested by Mr. DeWitt. She went two to four days a week. She did not always see Mr. DeWitt there, and would simply jog on the days he was absent. She continued to go to Twin Lakes Park until some time in January 1998. Ms. Bonelli testified that on occasion she would go to the park with her school friends, including Christine Ross and Blair Johnson. She also went to Twin Lakes Park with her father and brother. When she went with a group, they would either jog or play football on the field next to the circular running path. Christine Ross testified that on one occasion, Mr. DeWitt tossed the football with the group for a few minutes. Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt approached her in November 1997 and told her he had a "problem," and would like her help. She asked him what the problem was, and Mr. DeWitt told her she would have to figure that out for herself. Ms. Bonelli stated that she had no idea what kind of problem Mr. DeWitt was talking about, whether school related or personal. For a period of weeks, Mr. DeWitt would ask her every day if she had thought about his "problem," and whether she could help him with it. Finally, she asked him if the problem had to do with the two of them, and he said yes. She took that to mean something sexual. Ms. Bonelli testified that in November 1997, she and Mr. DeWitt were leaving the park around dusk after running. She stated that they did not run together, but that Mr. DeWitt had asked her to come talk to him after he finished his run. Mr. DeWitt got into his Ford Explorer, then asked Ms. Bonelli if she wanted to "watch." She didn't know what he meant, but soon enough figured it out. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt was sitting in his car, hands in his lap. It looked as if his hands were moving. She was standing next to the car, outside the driver's side window. She could not actually see his hands, but his arm looked as if it were moving up and down. She could not see if he was exposing his genitalia. Ms. Bonelli stated that she "snickered" and walked away toward her car. Ms. Bonelli testified that during this period in late 1997, Mr. DeWitt would ask her to "talk dirty" to him, and that she did so on a few occasions. She stated that she didn't know how to "talk dirty," and asked friends what to say. Ms. Bonelli did not name these friends, and no witness at the hearing testified as to coaching Ms. Bonelli on "talking dirty." Ms. Bonelli testified that the "dirty talk" was graphic. She would describe sexual acts she wanted to perform on him, using terms such as "cock," "stroke," and "suck." Ms. Bonelli also stated that Mr. DeWitt would ask her to "help him out" or "give him a little," which she took to be an invitation to grab or fondle him as he masturbated. She testified that she did not accept the invitation. Two other students, Kendra Simpkins and Blair Johnson, testified that Ms. Bonelli told them that she did masturbate Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that these "talking dirty" sessions took place as they each sat in their own cars, parked next to each other in a small asphalt indentation near the front of Twin Lakes Park. She was on his left, looking over the passenger side window of her car to his driver's side window. Though she earlier testified that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Ford Explorer at the time of the first "watching" incident, Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Honda during these "talking dirty" episodes. She drove a Lexus SE400, and recalled that Mr. DeWitt was sitting at her eye level. Ms. Bonelli testified that it looked as though Mr. Dewitt was "touching himself" and as though his right arm was moving while she talked dirty. She could not see his hands. Ms. Bonelli testified that these "talking dirty" sessions occurred at Twin Lakes Park from ten to twelve times. Each time, Mr. DeWitt's arms appeared to move toward his genitals. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt's facial expression never indicated that he reached orgasm. She stated that he smiled as she spoke. She admitted that she never actually saw him masturbate, but assumed he was doing so. She testified that she never had skin-to-skin contact with Mr. Dewitt during any of these episodes or at any other time. Ms. Bonelli testified that on one occasion she saw a glimpse of Mr. DeWitt's penis when he pulled it out of his shorts as she stood at his driver's side window. She said he then giggled nervously and put it back into his shorts. Ms. Bonelli testified that as time passed, Mr. DeWitt became more nervous about their activities at Twin Lakes Park. Mr. DeWitt would say that he saw people he knew at the park, and that he did not want to be seen together with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Bonelli testified that she told her friend, Christine Ross, all the details of her meetings with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park, and that she took Ms. Ross to the park more than once to prove that she was not making up the story. She testified that Ms. Ross saw her talking with Mr. DeWitt, but was not close enough to hear what was said. Ms. Ross testified that she did go to Twin Lakes Park with Ms. Bonelli in Fall 1997, for the dual purpose of exercising and observing Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross stated that it was Ms. Bonelli's idea to go there, so that she would believe Ms. Bonelli's stories about her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she recalled one occasion when Ms. Ross ducked down in passenger seat of her car and eavesdropped on Ms. Bonelli's conversation with Mr. DeWitt at the park. She stated that Mr. DeWitt was sitting in his car, which was parked next to the passenger side of Ms. Bonelli's car. Ms. Bonelli stated that she was not sure whether this was one of the "talking dirty" episodes, but that Ms. Ross would have heard whatever was said by her and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross testified she hid on the passenger side floor of Ms. Bonelli's car when it was parked next to Mr. DeWitt's, and that she overheard Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt having a conversation "of a sexual nature." She testified that Ms. Bonelli was "talking dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. She stated that Mr. DeWitt did not solicit these statements, but he did say that he liked them. Counsel for Mr. DeWitt confronted Ms. Ross with her deposition testimony, which averred that she had never heard any such talk between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Ross stated that she had had time since her deposition to think about the facts, and now recalled incidents that she could not recollect at her deposition. Ms. Ross' testimony cannot be credited. This finding is not based solely on the contradictions between her deposition testimony and her testimony at the hearing, though those discrepancies were significant and the revised testimony conveniently gibed with Ms. Bonelli's story. There were also internal contradictions in her testimony at the hearing that make it plain she was untruthful. She claimed to be hiding on the floorboard of Ms. Bonelli's car, out of Mr. DeWitt's sight, yet she also claimed that she could see Mr. DeWitt's head and shoulders in the adjacent car. Ms. Ross claimed that Mr. DeWitt was driving a green 1998 Honda, when Mr. DeWitt in fact drove a Ford Explorer and his wife drove a midnight blue 1991 Honda at the time of these events. In this regard, it is again a significant coincidence that Ms. Bonelli also erroneously stated that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Honda. Ms. Ross claimed that she could hear Ms. Bonelli's conversation with Mr. DeWitt, that she "definitely" recalled that the conversation was of a sexual nature, and that it went on for fifteen or twenty minutes. However, she could not recall any specifics of the conversation. Ms. Ross claimed that Mr. DeWitt later privately questioned her about what she had observed between Ms. Bonelli and him. Ms. Ross did not explain how Mr. DeWitt could know to ask such questions if he didn't know she had been hiding in the car. Mr. DeWitt recalled a conversation with Ms. Ross in which he asked her "how much do you know," but he was asking about the egging incident discussed below. Ms. Ross told other stories of standing at a distance and observing Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli interact at Twin Lakes Park. Even if these stories were credited, they would establish nothing more than the fact that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli were at the park at the same time, and acknowledged each other's presence. Ms. Ross testified that Ms. Bonelli told her stories about meeting Mr. DeWitt at the park, and speaking in a sexual manner while Mr. DeWitt masturbated. This testimony is credited insofar as it establishes that Ms. Bonelli was telling those stories at roughly the time she alleges the events occurred, but is not credited as establishing the truth of those stories. Ms. Bonelli testified that she also told Blair Johnson about events at Twin Lakes Park, though not in the detail she provided to Ms. Ross. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him about going to Twin Lakes Park. Mr. Johnson stated that he heard Ms. Bonelli tell different people three different versions of what happened at the park between Mr. DeWitt and her. The first story was that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli got into her car, and she masturbated him. In the second version, she told a group of friends that she performed oral sex on Mr. DeWitt in her car. The third version was that she and Mr. DeWitt had full sexual intercourse in her car. Mr. Johnson did not believe any of these stories, but he did not report them until after the trespassing incident, discussed below. Mr. Johnson testified that he tried to ignore the DeWitt discussions, because he believed Ms. Bonelli was telling these stories for the attention they brought her. He believed that she kept changing the stories for "greater attention availability." Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli would tell these stories to anyone who would listen, not merely to her close confidants. This testimony was effectively corroborated by another Riverview student, Dominique McAnn, who testified that stories about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli circulated widely among her group of friends, numbering about 40 students. Ms. Bonelli testified that these assignations occurred at twilight, and that people driving past could not necessarily see what was happening. She stated that Twin Lakes Park was not busy during the months these meetings were occurring. She never saw little league baseball or soccer games going on at the times she met Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Bonelli testified that the meetings at the park ended in mid-January 1998. She stated that there was no definitive break in the relationship, but that Mr. DeWitt began ignoring her to show attention to another student, Kendra Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt flatly denied that any of these events at Twin Lakes Park ever took place. As noted above, Mr. DeWitt testified that he saw Ms. Bonelli a few times when he went to run at Sarasota Middle School during Fall 1997. He testified that in early 1998, he switched to jogging at Twin Lakes Park to avoid seeing Ms. Bonelli or any other student. He stated that he considers running to be his personal "down time" for stress relief. He dealt with students all day and didn't want to see them when he ran. At that time, he harbored no particular animus for Ms. Bonelli, but simply wanted to go somewhere not frequented by students. Karen DeWitt testified that her husband conveyed these thoughts to her at the time he switched from jogging at Sarasota Middle School to Twin Lakes. She also testified that Mr. DeWitt never came home from running after dark. After school, he spent time playing with his son. He would go running only if he could get away by about four p.m. If it was getting dark, he would stay home and help out with the children. Karen DeWitt testified that her husband jogged three or four times per week, and that she and the children went with him about half the time. The children would play while their father ran. Mr. DeWitt testified that he chose Twin Lakes because it was close to his house, had a soft running trail, and also had open fields where his children could play while he ran. Ms. Bonelli denied ever seeing Karen DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park when David DeWitt was jogging there. Ms. Bonelli claimed not to know what Karen DeWitt looked like at the time of these events. It cannot be conclusively found that Ms. Bonelli's claim on this point is untrue. However, it is noted that Ms. Bonelli demonstrated to Blair Johnson knowledge of Mr. DeWitt's wife and children that she claimed in her testimony not to possess. Even before he began jogging there, Mr. DeWitt took his son to Twin Lakes for soccer and baseball practices and games in 1997. His son played soccer from October to January, and baseball from January to April. Mr. DeWitt coached both sports, and so was there with his son very often. Mr. DeWitt would go to run between four and five p.m. Contrary to Ms. Bonelli, Mr. DeWitt testified that there was a lot of traffic in and out of the park when he went running there. Twin Lakes is a public park. At the time, it was the spring training facility for the Baltimore Orioles. Mr. DeWitt testified that youth baseball is played there year-round, and that youth football practices took place in the fall in the area near the running trail. Twin Lakes Park is lighted. Mr. DeWitt testified as to a bank of lights around the baseball fields that comes on every evening. He also stated that the parking lot is lighted, and produced photographs showing the lights. He stated that there are no lights around the running trail, which was why he always tried to complete his run before dark. Teresa Flannelly, whose son played baseball and soccer with Mr. DeWitt's son starting in January 1998, testified that she drives past Twin Lakes Park eight to ten times a day. She testified that the park is busy at dusk, due to little league baseball, soccer, and football. She also testified that the lights in the parking lot are always on at night. Mr. DeWitt testified that at some point in early 1998, Ms. Bonelli began appearing at Twin Lakes Park when he was there. He stated that he did not run with her, and did not like seeing her there. On one occasion as he was jogging on the half-mile trail, Ms. Bonelli approached him unexpectedly. Mr. DeWitt testified that this startled him, and he made it clear to Ms. Bonelli that he was upset and unhappy at her uninvited and unwelcome approach. Mr. DeWitt testified that he told Ms. Bonelli, "I'm here to reduce stress. I don't need you here at this park. If you're going to be here, I'll find somewhere else to go running. I'm not sure how many more parks there are. You are not to be around me at this park. This is a public park. Are you going to be running here?" He stated this was the extent of their conversation. Mr. DeWitt denied ever playing catch with a football with Ms. Bonelli or her friends. He could not clearly recall ever seeing her at the park with anyone else. Mr. DeWitt stated that there were a couple of times that he talked to Ms. Bonelli from his car. He stated that Ms. Bonelli had a knack for showing up just when he finished running and was walking to his Ford Explorer. She would either pull in or would already be parked in the space next to his car. Mr. DeWitt stated that these conversations were similar to the one he described when Ms. Bonelli approached him on the running trail. Mr. DeWitt recalled another occasion when he returned to his car to find Ms. Bonelli's empty car parked next to his. This time, he managed to get into his car and drive away before Ms. Bonelli returned to her car. Mr. DeWitt flatly denied having sexual conversations with Ms. Bonelli at Twin Lakes Park or on any other occasion. Mr. DeWitt denied ever asking Ms. Bonelli to "talk dirty." He denied ever masturbating in his car or doing anything that might be mistaken for masturbating. James Clark, a teacher and athletic director at Riverview, credibly testified that he frequented Twin Lakes Park during this period because his daughters were cheerleaders in the junior football program. Mr. Clark testified that he often saw Mr. DeWitt running at Twin Lakes, and would say hello and chat with him there. Mr. Clark never saw Mr. DeWitt engaging in anything inappropriate at the park. Ms. Bonelli testified as to several other incidents involving her and Mr. DeWitt, aside from events at Twin Lakes Park. She stated that Mr. DeWitt had her talk dirty to him in his office as the two of them put together test packets. She stated that Mr. DeWitt would also motion for her to crawl under his desk, presumably for oral sex, even though his office door was open and students could see in through a large window. She testified that she declined. Mr. DeWitt denied that either the dirty talk or the desk incident ever occurred. He also pointed out that next to his office door was a window, eight feet high and three feet wide, without curtains or blinds, that allowed anyone walking past his office to look inside, and that the corridor outside his office was heavily used by students going to and from class. His description of the window was corroborated by several witnesses, including Ms. Bonelli herself. Mr. DeWitt also testified that the door to his office was always open, unless he was having a meeting with parents or a disciplinary meeting with a student, and that his secretary sat only a few feet from that open door. Mr. DeWitt's testimony as to his office practices and the physical layout of his office was supported by that of his secretary, Chris Landes, and by Dean Wait, the director of guidance, whose office was across the hall from Mr. DeWitt's. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt asked her to go into the school's media center bathroom with him. The media center was above the guidance office. To the left of Mr. DeWitt's office was a stairwell leading to the media center. Ms. Bonelli stated that she saw Mr. DeWitt walk into the teacher's bathroom near the media center, and that he motioned for her to follow him in. She testified that she declined. Mr. DeWitt denied that this incident ever occurred. It is noted that Ms. Bonelli's description of this alleged incident is remarkably similar to an admittedly false story she later helped concoct and spread through Riverview about Mr. DeWitt and Kendra Simpkins, discussed below. Ms. Bonelli vaguely recalled grabbing Mr. DeWitt's crotch over his clothes on one occasion. Christine Ross testified that she witnessed this event, and that it occurred in a crowded hallway between classes at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt denied that this ever happened. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt once asked her about "cybersex," which she defined as "a form of talking dirty over the internet." Mr. DeWitt asked her what it was, and she gave him some examples. He asked her what she would say to someone if she were having cybersex. Ms. Bonelli stated that she never engaged in cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli approached him at school one day early in 1998 and asked if he had ever "cybered." Mr. DeWitt told her he had no idea what she was talking about. Ms. Bonelli told him it was something people do on America On- Line ("AOL"), doing "fantasy things" with other people. Mr. DeWitt told her that he didn't have AOL. Mr. DeWitt's testimony on this point is credited. Mr. DeWitt testified that other disturbing computer- related incidents occurred at about the same time, approximately March 1998. Linda Brooks, the parent of a student in the IB program, had questions about her daughter's science class. She met with Mr. DeWitt, and they exchanged e-mail addresses. She saw Mr. DeWitt write down her e-mail address in his daily planner, which generally sat open on his desk. Ms. Brooks testified that she attempted to send an e- mail message to the school system address he had given her, but it came back as undeliverable. Shortly thereafter, she received an e-mail purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt. The message was short, something about wanting to make contact, and was signed, "Dave." Ms. Brooks testified that this seemed strange because it was too casual. She had never called him "Dave," and had never heard him refer to himself as anything other than "David DeWitt" or "Mr. DeWitt." She nonetheless wrote a lengthy response and used the "reply" button to send it. She noted that the address displayed was "DavidDeWitt@aol.com." Ms. Brooks testified that she never received a response to her e-mail, so she phoned Mr. DeWitt about the information she was requesting. During the conversation, she mentioned that she had sent an e-mail, and Mr. DeWitt told her he had never received it. Ms. Brooks told him that her e-mail was a response to the one he had sent her over the weekend. Mr. DeWitt told her that he had never sent her an e-mail. Ms. Brooks told him that the e- mail had come from an AOL account. Mr. DeWitt told her he had never had an AOL account. Ms. Brooks printed the e-mail and brought it to Mr. DeWitt at Riverview. She testified that Mr. DeWitt was very concerned that someone was pretending to be him. As they were discussing the situation, Ms. Brooks recalled that Mr. DeWitt had written her e-mail address in his daily planner, and she asked him who had access to the planner. Mr. DeWitt told her that he has an open door, and his planner usually sits open on his desk, meaning that any number of people could have copied Ms. Brooks' address. Mr. DeWitt suspected Ms. Bonelli. About a week later, he asked Ms. Bonelli if she had sent an e-mail to Ms. Brooks. Ms. Bonelli's answer was equivocal. Mr. DeWitt told her that he believed she took Ms. Brooks' e-mail address from his planner. Ms. Bonelli answered, "You think I'd go into your office and get the address out of your planner?" Mr. DeWitt said, "Yes." Ms. Bonelli said, "Well, maybe I did." Mr. DeWitt testified that he investigated no further, because this satisfied him that Ms. Bonelli was the culprit. Ms. Bonelli testified that she never sent an e-mail to Linda Brooks. Ms. Bonelli's denial is not credible. Blair Johnson testified that on June 18, 1997, he received an e-mail from an account named after Mr. DeWitt. He found it odd that Mr. DeWitt would send him an e-mail, because he didn't know Mr. DeWitt very well. Mr. Johnson's internet account was not identifiable as his, meaning that the sender could not have discovered his e-mail address by search or happenstance. Mr. Johnson would have had to give his address to the sender. This added to Mr. Johnson's suspicions concerning the sender's identity. Mr. Johnson testified that he knew Ms. Bonelli was interested in Mr. DeWitt, and he asked for her opinion on the e- mail. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Johnson that she had been chatting with Mr. DeWitt on-line and had given Mr. Johnson's e-mail address to Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Johnson found this strange, but did not ask Mr. DeWitt about the matter. The next day, Mr. Johnson received another e-mail from "David DeWitt." Mr. Johnson was now certain that Ms. Bonelli was the sender, and decided to play along with the game by responding to "DeWitt." He then telephoned Ms. Bonelli, who admitted to sending the bogus e-mails and to receiving Mr. Johnson's response. She told Mr. Johnson she did it as a joke, and told him he was not the only person receiving "DeWitt" e-mails. Concluding the joke, Ms. Bonelli sent a reply to Mr. Johnson's response, still in the "DeWitt" character. This e-mail was sent on June 24, 1997. As noted above, this e-mail indicates that Ms. Bonelli knew the names of Mr. DeWitt's wife and children, as well as the children's ages and where they went to school, months before she began working in the guidance office at Riverview. Ms. Bonelli testified that she never impersonated Mr. DeWitt on an e-mail. She claimed to have herself received an e- mail purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt. She testified that she tried to check the AOL profile of the sender, but there was no profile. Ms. Bonelli's testimony is not credible. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt quizzed her about what she had done sexually with boyfriends. She stated that Mr. DeWitt wanted details of these experiences, but that she refused to provide them. Mr. DeWitt denied that such conversations ever occurred. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt never asked her to have sexual intercourse with him. She stated that, at the Fall 1997 homecoming dance, she told him she would like to have sexual intercourse with him. Mr. DeWitt told her to wait until she graduated from high school. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did chaperone the Fall 1997 homecoming dance, but that no such conversation ever occurred with Ms. Bonelli. He stated that if Ms. Bonelli had made such an overture, he would have reported it to the principal and to Deputy Richard Foster, Riverview's Student Resource Officer ("SRO"). Ms. Bonelli testified that one night around New Years Day 1998, she was driving home from a Riverview basketball game. She pulled up at a stop light next to Mr. DeWitt, and he asked her to pull into Albritton's, a fruit stand off Proctor Road. She testified that they talked there for about an hour and a half. Mr. DeWitt asked her to try to find out who had been vandalizing his home mailbox, because he suspected Riverview students. He promised to take her to dinner if she found out the culprits. Mr. DeWitt denied that this meeting ever took place. Kendra Simpkins Ms. Bonelli testified that when Kendra Simpkins started working in the guidance office in mid-January 1998, Mr. DeWitt began speaking to Ms. Simpkins rather than to her during the period. Ms. Bonelli was upset and jealous over the attention Mr. DeWitt was showing Ms. Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt suddenly stopped reciprocating her advances, and that she assumed this was because Mr. DeWitt wanted to start an affair with Kendra Simpkins. As noted in more detail below, Ms. Bonelli habitually accused any female student she saw speaking to Mr. DeWitt of having an affair with him, or of wanting to have an affair with him. At the time of her testimony, Kendra Simpkins was a senior at Riverview, scheduled to graduate in June 2000. She began at Riverview in 1996, and attended the school throughout her high school career. She played on the softball and volleyball teams. Ms. Simpkins lives with her mother, stepfather, and two younger brothers, Clayton and Maxwell. In about January 1998, Ms. Simpkins began work in the guidance office. She testified that she did this to obtain community service credit hours, which enhance a student's resume. She worked there during sixth period, roughly noon to 12:45 p.m., performing clerical tasks assigned by Mr. DeWitt's secretary. At the time she began work in the guidance office, Ms. Simpkins was an ROTC cadet. She testified that her first personal contact with Mr. DeWitt was his passing compliment about her ROTC uniform. Ms. Simpkins stated that from that point, she and Mr. DeWitt began having conversations about school, her activities, and her personal life, including boyfriends. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did compliment Ms. Simpkins on her ROTC uniform, but did so at the suggestion of Colonel McClellan, the ROTC instructor at Riverview. Col. McClellan had seen Ms. Simpkins in the guidance office, and inquired of Mr. DeWitt whether she worked there. When Mr. DeWitt answered in the affirmative, Col. McClellan told him that Ms. Simpkins was having trouble in school, and trouble in general, but that she liked ROTC and might benefit from some positive reinforcement in that regard. Mr. DeWitt complimented her the first time he saw her in the uniform, but stated that he did so in the interest of Ms. Simpkins' self-esteem. Mr. DeWitt testified that this was no different than the positive comments he gives to students generally, whenever he can find a reason to do so. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had conversations with Ms. Simpkins. These conversations were similar to those he had with other students seeking direction and looking for advice. He recalled that Ms. Simpkins was on the junior varsity volleyball team, but had the opportunity to play on the varsity team. She was very anxious about the situation and went to Mr. DeWitt for advice, saying she was more comfortable playing with the junior varsity team. Mr. DeWitt advised her to play on the varsity, because playing with better people would make her a better player. Mr. DeWitt also recalled that Ms. Simpkins came to him with problems she was having at home, concerning the relationship between her mother and stepfather. Mr. DeWitt stated that their conversations never veered into areas that made him feel uncomfortable. He saw her speaking with female counselors, and assumed she would go to them with any "deep problems." Ms. Simpkins testified that the subject of "cybersex" came up during the course of her conversations with Mr. DeWitt. She stated that while browsing America On-Line ("AOL") one day, she found a screen name that appeared to be Mr. DeWitt's, and wrote an e-mail to him. An on-line chat ensued, during which cybersex arose as a topic. Ms. Simpkins later asked Mr. DeWitt in person about the chat, but he denied having an AOL account or knowing anything about the on-line chat. However, Mr. DeWitt was interested in the subject of cybersex and pressed Ms. Simpkins for an explanation. Ms. Simpkins testified that she responded that she wasn't "into that," and declined to talk about cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt denied having "cybersex" conversations with Ms. Simpkins, and denied ever chatting with Ms. Simpkins on AOL. Mr. DeWitt's denial is credited. If Ms. Simpkins indeed innocently chatted on AOL with someone pretending to be Mr. DeWitt, that person was likely Jennifer Bonelli. It is also noted that, as will be discussed below, a time came when Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli got together and compared their stories about Mr. DeWitt. It is likely that Ms. Simpkins' "cybersex" story had its origins in these conversations with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt touched her in Spring 1998. One day, she walked into his office to get a yearbook for someone who needed to see a photo of a graduate. Mr. DeWitt was sitting at his conference table. As Ms. Simpkins passed behind his chair, he leaned back in his chair and pretended to stretch his arms. While stretching, he grabbed Ms. Simpkins' genitals. Ms. Simpkins believed this was not accidental, though she admitted it might have been. She stated that Mr. DeWitt offered a sarcastic apology. She said she accepted the insincere apology because she really didn't mind what he did. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt always avoided the subject of his personal life. If she asked about his wife and children, he would change the subject. Ms. Simpkins knew Mr. DeWitt was married because Ms. Bonelli had told her so. She knew Mr. DeWitt had children because her brother played baseball at Twin Lakes Park, where Mr. DeWitt's son played. Ms. Simpkins stated that during the spring of 1998, she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt. She said this was because Mr. DeWitt seemed to take an interest in her. He came to one of her softball games. He was polite and "looked out for me." She believed that Mr. DeWitt reciprocated her feelings, but admitted that Mr. DeWitt's actions were equivocal and that she chose to interpret them in a manner to her liking. Ms. Bonelli testified that she and Ms. Simpkins developed a "very superficial" relationship in the spring of 1998. This relationship consisted primarily of the two young women quizzing each other as to their dealings with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli was trying to figure out if "something was going on" between Ms. Simpkins and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli stated that after about a month of this relationship, she opened up to Ms. Simpkins and told her what had gone on between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Simpkins replied that Mr. DeWitt had also asked her to "talk dirty" to him, and that she did it, but she would not tell Ms. Bonelli exactly what she said to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Simpkins everything she had done with Mr. DeWitt, including the masturbation incidents. Ms. Simpkins seemed upset at learning that Mr. DeWitt also had a relationship with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Bonelli admitted to being fiercely jealous of Ms. Simpkins. Ms. Simpkins stated that her earliest experience of Ms. Bonelli was unpleasant. Ms. Bonelli was jealous and spreading rumors about Ms. Simpkins, because she had seen Ms. Simpkins talking to Mr. DeWitt and assumed that "things were going on." Christine Ross confirmed that Ms. Bonelli was telling stories about Ms. Simpkins and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that she told Ms. Bonelli that nothing was going on between her and Mr. DeWitt, and that Ms. Bonelli had no place spreading such rumors. Ms. Simpkins testified that she then "talked things out" with Ms. Bonelli and they became friends. Ms. Bonelli did not characterize Ms. Simpkins as her "friend." After they became friendly, in about March 1998, Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Simpkins that she had a crush on Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she would meet Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park, and that "he didn't want anything to do with her." Ms. Bonelli's story changed after Ms. Simpkins admitted that she, too, had a crush on Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli then told Ms. Simpkins that she and Mr. DeWitt "actually did stuff." Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Simpkins that she would kiss and masturbate Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. "She would do him" or give him a "hand job" was Ms. Simpkins' recollection of Ms. Bonelli's claim. Ms. Bonelli did not tell her how many times this occurred. Ms. Bonelli also claimed she had brought someone with her to witness the fact that Mr. DeWitt would meet her at the park. Ms. Simpkins testified that she believed Ms. Bonelli's stories, though she admitted that the changes in the stories gave her reason to doubt Ms. Bonelli's truthfulness. Ms. Simpkins thought that the stories sounded like things Mr. DeWitt would do. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him about her discussions with Ms. Simpkins. It appeared to Mr. Johnson that the two girls were engaged in a one-upmanship contest concerning their alleged encounters with Mr. DeWitt. One girl would say she talked to Mr. DeWitt. Then the other would say she went into Mr. DeWitt's office and talked to him. Then the first girl would relate a story about intimate discussions of family matters, and so the tales would escalate. Ms. Bonelli testified that once after school, she and Ms. Simpkins went through Mr. DeWitt's desk looking for photographs of female students. Ms. Simpkins did not believe Ms. Bonelli's assertion that Mr. DeWitt had photographs of Ms. Bonelli and Jennifer Rizi, another student assistant in the guidance office. Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins rifled Mr. DeWitt's desk in search of the photos. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli was jealous of Jennifer Rizi, and believed something was going on between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Rizi. Bonelli admitted confronting Jennifer Rizi and asking her if she was having a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt, and that Ms. Rizi denied it. Ms. Rizi testified that she knew Mr. DeWitt from church, and that he also knew her stepsister and mother. Ms. Rizi considered Mr. DeWitt a friend of the family and spoke to him often about school, family, and boyfriend problems. She never felt Mr. DeWitt was prying into her sex life or otherwise acting inappropriately. Ms. Rizi testified that she knew Ms. Bonelli as an acquaintance. Ms. Bonelli had introduced herself to Ms. Rizi and "pumped" her for information about Mr. DeWitt whenever she saw her. In April or May 1998, Ms. Bonelli asked her if she and Mr. DeWitt had "hooked up" in a romantic way. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Rizi that she had an unrequited crush on Mr. DeWitt and was jealous of Ms. Rizi talking to him. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Rizi that nothing inappropriate had occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Rizi testified that she was completely appalled at the suggestion that she and Mr. DeWitt had some sort of romantic relationship. She told Ms. Bonelli that nothing was going on between Mr. DeWitt and her, and inquired why she would even ask such a thing. Ms. Rizi testified that she did not speak to Ms. Bonelli again after this incident. Ms. Simpkins recalled that she was in Ms. Bonelli's car one day that spring when Ms. Bonelli saw Mr. DeWitt driving his car in the opposite direction. Ms. Bonelli made a U-turn and followed Mr. DeWitt down Proctor Road for a few blocks, close enough that Mr. DeWitt could see who was following him. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli did not tell her why she turned to follow Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she jogged at Sarasota Middle School. Ms. Simpkins also testified that she once accompanied Ms. Bonelli to Sarasota Middle School in search of Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli denied ever going to Sarasota Middle School for the purpose of seeking out Mr. DeWitt. The Trespassing Incident Mr. DeWitt testified that in early 1998, he and his wife suspected that someone was coming onto their property at night. During this period, Mr. DeWitt also told Mr. Flynn, the principal of Riverview, that he believed Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins were "stalking" him. Ms. Bonelli testified that she knew where Mr. DeWitt lived because she had friends in his neighborhood, Saddle Creek. The DeWitts live in the first house on the left, just past the entrance to Saddle Creek. They own a five-acre lot, and their house is set back about 330 feet from the road. Ms. Bonelli admitted that she trespassed on Mr. DeWitt's property three or four times in Spring 1998. She and a group of friends would drive out to Saddle Creek at night and walk on Mr. DeWitt's property. Ms. Bonelli named Christine Ross, Kendra Simpkins, Blair Johnson, and several other boys as her companions on one or more of these trips. In fact, Mr. Johnson did not accompany Ms. Bonelli on these excursions. Ms. Bonelli stated that they did "stupid kid things," such as running around in Mr. DeWitt's back yard and looking into the windows of the house. She stated that they would stay on the property for as long as an hour. Ms. Bonelli testified that they would sometimes go up to the windows to look inside, and that she would see both Mr. DeWitt and his wife, thus confirming in her mind that Mr. DeWitt was indeed married. As found above, Ms. Bonelli well knew that Mr. DeWitt was married long before these trespassing incidents. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him that she had been at Mr. DeWitt's house on two or three occasions. She told him she had dressed in dark or camouflage clothing and looked in Mr. DeWitt's windows, observing his family. She told Mr. Johnson that she hid in an enclosure next to the house and watched Mr. DeWitt take out his trash. Mr. Johnson testified that he knew where Mr. DeWitt lived because Ms. Bonelli had pointed it out to him. One evening, as Mr. Johnson was driving home from the house of a friend who lived in Mr. DeWitt's neighborhood, his way was blocked by two cars, a Jeep and a sedan, stopped in the middle of the road near Mr. DeWitt's property. The occupants of the cars appeared to be talking to each other. Several teenage boys were standing in the Jeep, talking loudly. Mr. Johnson pulled up close, waiting for them to move so that he could get by. At that moment, he saw Ms. Bonelli run out of the woods fronting Mr. DeWitt's property. She was dressed in dark clothing. She jumped into the sedan, which drove off. The Jeep sat there, and its occupants watched Mr. Johnson as he drove past. Mr. Johnson confronted Ms. Bonelli later about the incident. She seemed surprised, then relieved that the person in the car that night was a friend who would not report her. Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. Bonelli laughed and joked about the incident. Ms. Bonelli testified that she did not personally vandalize Mr. DeWitt's house or steal anything from his property, but that on one occasion her companions did. On Saturday, April 17, 1998, at around 11 p.m., Ms. Bonelli drove to the DeWitt residence, dropped off Kendra Simpkins and Christine Ross, then drove through the neighborhood. Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross threw eggs at Mr. DeWitt's front door, put eggs in his mailbox, and stole from the yard an animal skull belonging to Mr. DeWitt's young son. Ms. Bonelli returned to the house, picked up Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross, and drove away. Ms. Bonelli attempted to minimize her role in this incident, testifying that Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross asked her to drop them off and that she couldn't see what they were doing. She said they asked her to give them a couple of minutes, so she drove away, then turned around in a church down the road and came back. Ms. Bonelli's testimony that she merely dropped off the other girls and was unaware of what they did is not credible. Ms. Simpkins admitted that it was she and Ms. Ross who actually egged the house, and admitted that she and Ms. Ross stole the animal skull "as a souvenir." However, Ms. Simpkins testified that egging the house was Ms. Bonelli's idea. Ms. Bonelli picked up Ms. Simpkins, then stopped at Kash'n'Karry on the way to Ms. Ross' house and bought the eggs. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli gave her the receipt for the eggs to place in Mr. DeWitt's desk as a joke. Ms. Simpkins stated that she later placed the receipt in Mr. DeWitt's desk. Ms. Simpkins' testimony is credited on this point. Ms. Ross testified that the eggs were already in the car when the other two girls arrived to pick her up. She stated that both Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli told her that egging the house was Ms. Simpkins' idea. Ms. Ross is believable in stating that Ms. Bonelli told her that it was Ms. Simpkins' idea to egg the house, but she is not credible when she claims that Ms. Simpkins herself took credit for the idea. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife were in bed when he heard a loud banging against the front door. He got up, ran to the front door, took the alarm off, and opened the door. When he went out the door, he stepped on some eggs. He ran out and saw two females running away from the house. Mr. DeWitt could see two female figures as they ran from the house to the edge of the property, but he could not positively identify them in the dark. He had a "hunch" that it was Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and/or Ms. Ross. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife found unbroken eggs on window ledges and other places around the house, which he took as a message that the perpetrators had been looking in the windows. Mr. DeWitt also noticed that his son's animal skull was missing. Because of the late hour, Mr. DeWitt took no action that evening, aside from cleaning up his front door and steps. He did not call the police that weekend, because he believed the incident was school related and that he could deal with it on Monday morning. Mr. DeWitt testified that when he arrived at school on Monday, April 20, 1998, the animal skull had been placed on his parking spot. He wondered if the perpetrators thought they were casting a hex on him. Ms. Simpkins testified that she placed the skull in Mr. DeWitt's parking space so that he would find it on Monday morning. Ms. Bonelli drove Ms. Simpkins to the school to place the skull on Mr. DeWitt's parking space. Mr. DeWitt told School Resource Officer (SRO) Rick Foster about Saturday evening's events. The two men agreed they would look into the matter. SRO Foster would seek leads through his sources in the school, and Mr. DeWitt would talk to people in the Saddle Creek area. Mr. DeWitt testified that he didn't immediately drop everything to investigate this incident. He maintained a regular schedule of parent conferences and other daily activities. During that week, Mr. DeWitt questioned Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and Ms. Ross separately. All three girls denied any involvement in the egging. Also during that week, Mr. DeWitt found in his desk the Kash'n'Karry receipt for the eggs. Ms. Simpkins later slipped into his office and took back the receipt. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli, after initially claiming no knowledge, returned to his office and told him that she knew it was Ms. Simpkins who egged his house. As proof, Ms. Bonelli provided Mr. DeWitt with a print-out of an on-line discussion she had with Ms. Simpkins, in which Ms. Simpkins admitted to "doing some snooping" in Mr. DeWitt's desk and retrieving the receipt for the eggs. Mr. DeWitt then called Ms. Simpkins into his office. SRO Foster was also present at this meeting. Ms. Simpkins again denied any knowledge of the egging. Mr. DeWitt bluffed Ms. Simpkins by asking if she was aware he had considered placing a surveillance camera on his property. Ms. Simpkins asked if Mr. DeWitt had caught her on tape, thus admitting her involvement. Mr. DeWitt produced the print-out Ms. Bonelli had given him, and he asked Ms. Simpkins to quit playing games and tell the truth. At this point, Ms. Simpkins confessed to participating, but quickly added that Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross were also involved. She told Mr. DeWitt that it was Ms. Bonelli's idea, and that Ms. Bonelli bought the eggs. She falsely claimed that Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross threw the eggs. Ms. Simpkins claimed she didn't even know what Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross were doing. SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt then brought in Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross, each of whom also admitted to the incident. Mr. DeWitt bluffed Ms. Bonelli about the presence of a surveillance camera, and Ms. Bonelli responded that he might have Ms. Ross and Ms. Simpkins on tape, but he couldn't have her because she never got out of the car. Ms. Bonelli also told Mr. DeWitt that she thought she had seen the nonexistent surveillance camera when she was walking around his house. Since she did not leave her car during the egging incident, this statement amounted to a confession that she had been on Mr. DeWitt's property on at least one other occasion. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife had actually considered buying a surveillance camera, due to their suspicions that people were trespassing on their property and due to the fact that over a period of weeks their mailbox had been repeatedly vandalized. No evidence was presented to establish the culprits in the mailbox vandalism, which was a problem for the whole neighborhood, not only for the DeWitts. Mr. DeWitt stated that he did not actually tell the girls there was a camera on his property, but that he did not deny it when his hints led the girls to that conclusion. Ms. Bonelli's recollection was that Mr. DeWitt did affirmatively claim he had somebody on film, and it was this claim that caused her to admit her participation while contending she never got out of the car. Even if Ms. Bonelli's testimony on this point is credited, it still amounts to no more than Mr. DeWitt bluffing Ms. Bonelli to prod an admission from her. Petitioner contends that Mr. DeWitt's bluff is evidence of his dishonesty. This contention ignores the context of Mr. DeWitt's actions, which was an effort to get the truth from three girls who had already lied during their initial questioning. Petitioner's contention is rejected. SRO Foster recalled that his involvement in these incidents commenced with a conversation with Mr. DeWitt in the lunchroom, at some time prior to the egging. Mr. DeWitt told SRO Foster that he suspected someone was trespassing on his property, and asked SRO Foster for his advice. SRO Foster told Mr. DeWitt that because he lived fairly far out of town, he needed to be cautious. SRO Foster said that he might be able to call the Crime Suppression Unit if matters required surveillance, but for the time being Mr. DeWitt should take precautions until he could get information as to the identity of the trespassers. Mr. DeWitt testified that this conversation occurred in January 1998. He stated that for some time previous, he would walk into his yard and think he saw someone. At first he dismissed these suspicions, thinking that he was only seeing a deer, but eventually he became certain that he was seeing people in his yard. Mr. DeWitt testified that on about March 17, 1998, he had another conversation with SRO Foster. Ms. Bonelli had approached Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park on the previous day. Mr. DeWitt was becoming uncomfortable with the frequency of Ms. Bonelli's appearances and, to a lesser extent, of Ms. Simpkins' appearances in his daily travels. He wanted SRO Foster to know these concerns and look into the situation. SRO Foster testified that Mr. DeWitt later came to him and said he had information about students who may have been involved in the trespassing. SRO Foster stated that Mr. DeWitt gave him the names of Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and several others. SRO Foster did not recall asking Mr. DeWitt how he learned those names. SRO Foster testified that he called his supervisor and told him an administrator at Riverview was complaining about students trespassing on his property. SRO Foster requested an intervention officer to come in and investigate the matter. SRO Foster testified that it was standard procedure to call in another detective to work on cases involving teachers or staff members, so that there could be no allegations of favoritism or bias. Detective Carolyn Price was sent to lead the investigation. After Det. Price arrived, the detectives pulled the named students from their classes one at a time and talked to them about the incident. SRO Foster testified that at first they were strictly investigating a trespassing incident, because Mr. DeWitt had not told them about the theft of the skull or about any stalking or sexual allegations. SRO Foster recalled that they spoke to all the students named by Mr. DeWitt and to some others whose names came up during the course of the interviews. Det. Price recalled that her first meeting with Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster was on April 29, 1998 at 10:30 a.m. They told her that Mr. DeWitt had a problem with people trespassing on his property in the late evening. The trespassing had occurred off and on for the last month. There had been some vandalism and there was at least one item missing from the yard. Mr. DeWitt had since discovered that students at Riverview were involved. Det. Price stated that SRO Foster had a list of students potentially involved, but she didn't know where he got the list. Det. Price could not recall whether Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster told her on the first day that there was stalking or harassment involved in the case. She returned to Riverview several days in a row between April 29 and May 8, and said that it could have been on the second day that all the information came out. However, it was "very definitely" her understanding that she was investigating a crime involving stalking, though the primary complaint was trespassing, loitering, and prowling. Det. Price recalled Mr. DeWitt coming to her and telling her that one of the items missing from his property had turned up at school in front of his parking space. He also told her that a couple of the people involved in the trespassing had shown up at Twin Lakes Park and Sarasota Middle School when he had gone to jog, prior to the trespassing incident. SRO Foster also recalled Mr. DeWitt telling him of seeing the girls when he went to jog, but did not recall the precise timing of Mr. DeWitt's statements. As noted above, Mr. DeWitt testified that this conversation occurred in March 1998. Det. Price could not recall the order in which the students were interviewed, but recollected that they interviewed the girls on the first day and the boys the next day. She stated that all of the students were cooperative, and all admitted to trespassing on Mr. DeWitt's property. She stated that Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster were present during the interviews. SRO Foster recalled that they interviewed Ms. Bonelli at least twice, first alone, then with her parents, and that Ms. Bonelli admitted to the trespassing when they called her parents. Det. Price testified that they called in her parents because the matter involved criminal charges and there was as yet no indication that Mr. DeWitt would forego prosecution. Det. Price recalled speaking only to Ms. Bonelli's mother, because her father was not available to come in on that day. SRO Foster recalled speaking to Ms. Bonelli's mother at one point, and to both parents later. Mr. DeWitt had a more specific recollection. He stated that Mrs. Bonelli arrived for the conference without her husband, and told Mr. DeWitt and the detectives that her husband was Italian, had a temper, and she would prefer that he not be involved. Mr. DeWitt spoke up and insisted that Mr. Bonelli be involved. Mrs. Bonelli telephoned her husband and he came to the school. While they waited for Mr. Bonelli to arrive, they went through the facts with Mrs. Bonelli. They later explained the situation to Mr. Bonelli. Det. Price did not recall discussing with Mrs. Bonelli the subject of Jennifer's crush on Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster testified that Ms. Bonelli's parents were upset and apologetic to Mr. DeWitt. Linda Bonelli, the mother of Jennifer Bonelli, testified that she received a phone call from Mr. DeWitt's secretary, who said that something serious had happened and that she and her husband needed to come to the school and meet with Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Landes that her husband was out walking and that she would have to come in alone. Mrs. Bonelli came in to the school. She testified that she met with her daughter, Mr. DeWitt, and SRO Foster. Mr. DeWitt started the meeting, stating that Jennifer had been on his property. Mr. DeWitt then said he thought it best to let Jennifer tell her mother the details. Mrs. Bonelli stated that Jennifer told her that she and some other girls had been on Mr. DeWitt's property, that one of the girls had taken an egg and smeared it or thrown it on the front door, and that one of the girls had stolen an animal skull from the yard. Mrs. Bonelli testified that nothing about a crush or any subject other than the trespassing incident came up at the meeting. Mr. DeWitt ended the discussion by stating that he was not sure how he was going to handle the whole matter. Mrs. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt's statement raised a red flag in her mind, because she was uncomfortable leaving the matter unresolved. She told Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster that she would like to have another meeting with them that afternoon, and that her husband would attend the second meeting. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she wanted a "male influence" in the room. The Bonellis came in for the second meeting, again with Jennifer, Mr. DeWitt, and SRO Foster. Mrs. Bonelli testified that this meeting covered the same subject matter as the earlier one, and that nothing about a crush or Twin Lakes Park was ever mentioned. Stanley Bonelli, Jennifer's father, confirmed that the trespassing incident was the only topic of discussion. The Bonellis assured Mr. DeWitt that Jennifer would never go onto his property again, and Mr. DeWitt stated that he would not press charges. Det. Price and SRO Foster recalled interviewing Ms. Simpkins, who admitted being on Mr. DeWitt's property. They also recalled meeting Ms. Simpkins' mother, Trudy Burkhardt, who was upset and crying, worried about the effect this would have on her daughter's ability to get a college scholarship. Det. Price specifically recalled making sure that Ms. Burkhardt knew about the crush, that it was the cause of her daughter's actions and that it was not reciprocated by Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster testified that both Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins appeared remorseful, and expressed their remorse to Mr. DeWitt. During the interviews, the two girls also admitted their crushes on Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster stated that the subject came up because they were trying to develop a motive for the girls' trespass on Mr. DeWitt's property. SRO Foster stated that Mr. DeWitt did not seem shocked or surprised when the girls told of their crushes. Det. Price's recollection was slightly different. She remembered Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster telling her that they believed one or both of the girls was infatuated with Mr. DeWitt, and that was partly the reason they followed him to the park and trespassed on his property. Det. Price could not recall Mr. DeWitt giving her any corroboration about the park incidents. Mr. DeWitt told her that he felt the girls were infatuated with him. He also brought up something about conversations going back and forth on computers involving him, that someone had logged on pretending to be him and then carried on conversations with the girls. Det. Price concluded that the crush was the motive for the crime. She believed there was some jealously or rivalry between the girls. She asked both Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins if there was anything going on besides a strictly student/teacher relationship, and they both denied that there was. Both girls admitted they had told stories to other students implying that the crush was mutual, and said they had made up those stories. Det. Price stated that Mr. DeWitt repeatedly said there were never any reciprocal feelings on his part. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli directly admitted to the detectives that her motive was anger because Mr. DeWitt had not reciprocated her crush on him. Mr. DeWitt ultimately waived prosecution of all the students involved in the trespassing incidents. He told SRO Foster that he believed it was a matter that should be dealt with internally at Riverview, not through the criminal process. Mr. DeWitt testified that the parents were emotional and extremely apologetic, promising that nothing like this would happen again, and that he believed the students had learned their lesson. Mr. DeWitt signed a waiver of prosecution on May 5, 1998. The detectives had each student sign trespass warnings, to the effect that they would be arrested if they were found on Mr. DeWitt's property again. Det. Price and SRO Foster warned Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins not to spread rumors about Mr. DeWitt or about the trespassing incident. Both girls acknowledged that they would not discuss these matters with fellow students. Ms. Bonelli recalled Det. Price giving her a lecture, saying that it was okay to like her teacher, but that she couldn't follow him to places where he goes to run. Ms. Bonelli stated that this lecture "came out of nowhere," because the subject of her crush on Mr. DeWitt had not come up in the interviews. As to the crush, Ms. Bonelli's testimony is not credible, because SRO Foster, Det. Price, and Mr. DeWitt all testified that she admitted to the crush. Ms. Bonelli testified that she tried to explain that she had not followed Mr. DeWitt. As noted above, the evidence established that she had been following Mr. DeWitt around town for a period of months. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt, sitting outside Det. Price's field of vision, glared at her as if to say, "Don't you dare open your mouth." Ms. Bonelli testified that she said no more about her alleged liaisons with Mr. DeWitt. Both SRO Foster and Det. Price testified that Mr. DeWitt was present for most, if not all, of their student interviews. They saw nothing wrong with Mr. DeWitt's presence because, based on their knowledge of the facts, Mr. DeWitt was the victim of the crime. Further, Mr. Flynn testified that he had given Mr. DeWitt authority to deal with the situation. Neither Ms. Bonelli nor Ms. Simpkins gave the detectives any indication that Mr. DeWitt had done anything inappropriate, or that their crushes were somehow reciprocated by Mr. DeWitt. Both detectives stated that Mr. DeWitt did not participate actively in the interviews of the students and parents, and neither noticed any effort by Mr. DeWitt to intimidate any of the students. Det. Price testified that she could see Mr. DeWitt during the interviews, though she conceded her attention was mostly focused on the girls. On April 29, 1998, Ms. Simpkins wrote a note of apology to Mr. DeWitt. The note expresses her regret at the problems she caused to Mr. DeWitt and his family, especially to his young son by the theft of his animal skull. In her direct testimony, Ms. Simpkins stated that everything in the apology was true and sincere. In cross-examination, counsel for Mr. DeWitt asked her if she was being sincere when she wrote that Mr. DeWitt was a "really kind person." Ms. Simpkins replied that she was just "sucking up" to avoid prosecution. Ms. Bonelli also wrote a note of apology to Mr. DeWitt, expressing her regret for the harm she had caused to Mr. DeWitt and his family, especially his son. The note was attached to a model boat, a gift from Ms. Bonelli to Ryan DeWitt. Blair Johnson testified that at some point after the trespassing incident, he came forward to assistant principal Dan Cronin and told him about the vandalism on Mr. DeWitt's property, as well as the rumors Ms. Bonelli had been spreading about her alleged sexual encounters with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Cronin told Mr. Johnson that the incident was already under investigation through the school administration, and he couldn't discuss the matter with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Cronin did not testify at the hearing; thus, it cannot be determined what actions, if any, Mr. Cronin took after his meeting with Johnson. Neither Kevin Flynn, the principal of Riverview, or Allen Wilson, the district human resources director, mentioned any involvement by Mr. Cronin in the investigation. The Spielman Note Karen Spielman was an art teacher at Riverview. Christine Ross was a student in her class. On March 25, 1998, Ms. Ross approached Ms. Spielman and told her she had a friend who was having a relationship with an assistant principal. The friend needed to talk to someone because she was upset. Ms. Spielman told Ms. Ross she was available to talk to her friend. Ms. Ross testified that she went to Ms. Spielman because she considered her a strong figure, and because she believed the issue of Ms. Bonelli's relationship with Mr. DeWitt should be investigated. Ms. Ross brought Ms. Bonelli to Ms. Spielman's classroom after school on the same day. Ms. Spielman had a long conversation with both girls. Ms. Bonelli told her the entire story of her alleged dealings with Mr. DeWitt, both at school and at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Spielman testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she was involved with the assistant principal and she was upset because he had "kind of dropped her" and she didn't know what to do. Ms. Bonelli told her of the sexual conversations she'd had with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told her there had been no sexual intercourse, but there had been "touching." Ms. Spielman assumed the touching was in an "inappropriate place." Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Spielman that she was afraid to tell her parents about Mr. DeWitt, because they would blame her and be very angry if they found out. Despite Ms. Bonelli's statements, Ms. Spielman believed that Ms. Bonelli's mother knew about her daughter's accusations against Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that she knew this story must be reported. She called central administration the next day and arranged a meeting with Allen Wilson, the director of human resources. The meeting took place on March 27, 1998. She told Mr. Wilson the story without revealing Ms. Bonelli's name. Mr. Wilson told her that nothing could be done unless the girl came forward and was willing to be identified. Ms. Spielman later spoke with Ms. Bonelli, who was unwilling to come forward. Ms. Spielman took no further action until April 28, 1998. This was the date on which Mr. DeWitt first confronted Kendra Simpkins and Jennifer Bonelli about the trespassing incident. Ms. Spielman testified that after school, a girl came into her classroom and asked if she had seen Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Spielman said she hadn't. The girl said she had seen Ms. Bonelli crying in Mr. DeWitt's office and was concerned. Ms. Bonelli had earlier told Ms. Spielman that a girl named Kendra Simpkins was also involved with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman asked this girl if her name was Kendra, and the girl said it was. Ms. Spielman didn't ask Ms. Simpkins why she sought her out for information about Ms. Bonelli, but the inference can be drawn that either Ms. Bonelli or Ms. Ross had told Ms. Simpkins about their meeting with Ms. Spielman. Ms. Spielman stated that Ms. Bonelli later came to her classroom and said "something had happened" and "things had changed." Ms. Bonelli did not tell her exactly what had happened, only that she and some other girls had done something to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman drafted a one-page memorandum to Mr. Wilson outlining the charges made by Ms. Bonelli during their first meeting on March 25. The memorandum is dated April 28, 1998, though she did not take it to Mr. Wilson's office until May 6, 1998. Ms. Spielman's only explanation for the gap between writing and delivering the memo was that "it took me a while to type this up." The memorandum references Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and Ms. Ross without naming them. It briefly restates Ms. Bonelli's story, but only vaguely, referencing "sexual conversation" and "touching." It states that Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt never had sexual intercourse. It does not mention specifics regarding the alleged masturbation, though Ms. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Spielman about this during their first conversation. The memorandum calls for immediate action to be taken, and expresses Ms. Spielman's belief in the credibility of the girls' story. Ms. Spielman did not tell Mr. DeWitt about the memorandum, out of concern for Ms. Bonelli's confidentiality. Ms. Spielman also did not provide a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Flynn, the Riverview principal, even after Mr. Wilson asked her to do so. Ms. Spielman testified that it was "common knowledge" that Mr. Flynn was grooming Mr. DeWitt for the principal's job, that the two men were close, and thus sending the memorandum to Mr. Flynn might jeopardize Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt testified that as the conference with Ms. Bonelli, her parents, and the detectives was ending on April 29, Ms. Bonelli mentioned to him that she had told Ms. Spielman about her alleged relationship with him. Mr. DeWitt stated that he was unaware at the time that Ms. Spielman had written a memorandum. Ms. Bonelli claimed not to know how Mr. DeWitt found out about her conversations with Ms. Spielman. She speculated that perhaps Christine Ross told Mr. DeWitt. She claimed that Mr. DeWitt suddenly pulled her from class shortly after the meeting with the detectives and confronted her about Ms. Spielman. Ms. Ross denied telling Mr. DeWitt, stating that she learned from Ms. Bonelli that Mr. DeWitt knew about Ms. Spielman. Mr. DeWitt's version of how he learned about Ms. Spielman's involvement is credited. Mr. DeWitt testified that he told Ms. Bonelli they needed to go to Ms. Spielman's classroom immediately and tell her the truth. Ms. Bonelli apologetically agreed. Mr. DeWitt told SRO Foster that he was going to see Ms. Spielman, that Ms. Bonelli said she had told a teacher about the alleged affair and he was taking her down to get her to tell the truth. Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli then walked to Ms. Spielman's classroom. Mr. DeWitt told Ms. Spielman that Ms. Bonelli had something to tell her. He offered to leave, but Ms. Bonelli asked him to stay. Ms. Bonelli then told Ms. Spielman that she had made up the whole story, that it was a lie and she felt badly for doing this. Mr. DeWitt then said that Ms. Spielman had heard what she needed to hear, that he wanted to make sure she heard what Ms. Bonelli had to say. Mr. DeWitt then went back to his office and Ms. Bonelli went to her next class. According to Ms. Bonelli, when Mr. DeWitt confronted her about Ms. Spielman and asked how much she knew, Ms. Bonelli told him that Ms. Spielman knew "everything." Mr. DeWitt replied, "We need to change that. You need to fix it." Mr. DeWitt walked her to Ms. Spielman's classroom, telling her that "everything will be okay" if she would tell Ms. Spielman her story was false. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Spielman that her story was false. Ms. Bonelli testified that after the meeting with Ms. Spielman, Mr. DeWitt told her, "Don't fuck up." Mr. DeWitt denied Ms. Bonelli's version of this episode. Ms. Spielman recalled meeting Mr. DeWitt alone first. Mr. DeWitt told her that Ms. Bonelli had disclosed to him her conversations with Ms. Spielman, and he wanted to clear up the matter. He told her about the girls coming to his house, the egging, and the theft of the cow skull. He mentioned videotaping the girls, though Ms. Spielman stated that she never saw any tape. He was concerned about what Ms. Spielman thought of him after hearing Ms. Bonelli's story. Mr. DeWitt did not recall meeting with Ms. Spielman prior to bringing Ms. Bonelli to her classroom. Ms. Spielman testified that less than an hour later, Mr. DeWitt returned to her classroom, this time with Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt said that Ms. Bonelli had something to say. Mr. DeWitt asked Ms. Bonelli if she wanted him to leave, but she declined the offer. Ms. Bonelli proceeded to tell Ms. Spielman that she had lied about everything. Ms. Spielman was upset. She asked Ms. Bonelli, "What about everybody else who knows about this?" Ms. Bonelli said there was no one else. Ms. Spielman knew this was not true, because she was aware that Ms. Ross knew and she suspected that Ms. Simpkins also knew. Nevertheless, Ms. Spielman said nothing to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that she saw Mr. DeWitt a third time during her lunch period. Mr. DeWitt again told her that Ms. Bonelli's story was not true, and that Ms. Bonelli was stalking him around town. Mr. DeWitt did recall a follow-up meeting with Ms. Spielman. He testified that he went back to Ms. Spielman later that day, or possibly the next day, and talked to her about the situation. He testified that Ms. Spielman was a colleague and he wanted to make sure she understood that this matter had been looked into by SRO Foster and Det. Price, that the girls had admitted to walking around his house at night and egging it, and that they had been stalking him. He asked Ms. Spielman if Ms. Bonelli had told her these things. Ms. Spielman said that she had not. Det. Price testified that no one gave her any information about Ms. Spielman's involvement. She stated that Ms. Spielman's information would have been relevant to her investigation. She also stated that a teacher who had been told by Ms. Bonelli about an affair would have been obligated to file a report with the state. Ms. Spielman did not make such a report, aside from her memorandum to Mr. Wilson. Det. Price never saw the memorandum. Ms. Spielman testified that she did not meet with Mr. Wilson when she delivered her memorandum on May 6, 1998. She recalled speaking with Mr. Wilson by telephone afterwards, and telling him that Ms. Bonelli had come to her and said her story was a lie. Mr. Wilson testified that after he received the memorandum, he called Mr. Flynn and asked him to begin an investigation. Mr. Flynn told him that an investigation was already underway concerning Mr. DeWitt and two female students, and that Mr. Flynn would make sure that Mr. Wilson received a copy of the police report. Mr. Wilson testified that it is not School Board policy to allow the individual under suspicion to participate in the investigation, and he did not anticipate that Mr. DeWitt would be involved. Mr. Wilson followed up on the matter with Ms. Spielman, who reported that nothing new had occurred. Mr. Wilson later received a report stating that the girls indicated they had made up the story about sexual misconduct by Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Wilson took no further action on the allegations recited in Ms. Spielman's letter, believing the matter was over. Mr. DeWitt recalled having a meeting with Mr. Flynn and Mr. Wilson a few days after the detectives concluded their investigation. Mr. DeWitt stated that Mr. Wilson assured him that "we know who you are and what you are about," and told Mr. DeWitt that an educator has to expect this sort of thing. Mr. DeWitt stated that Mr. Wilson never told him about the Spielman memorandum. Mr. Wilson recalled meeting with Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Flynn, but did not recall the details. He did not deny telling Mr. DeWitt that this was the kind of thing an educator should expect. He testified that under the circumstances of the accusations and apparent exoneration, it was something he might have said to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that a couple of weeks later, she saw Ms. Bonelli in the hallway at Riverview. At that time, Ms. Bonelli told her, "I lied about lying." In other words, Ms. Bonelli was now claiming that her original story was true. Ms. Spielman told Ms. Bonelli she had a feeling her story was true. Ms. Spielman testified that, "I just didn't feel like she could make up a story like that and I felt she was under pressure when she was telling me she lied when he was present." Reflecting on her meetings with Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Spielman testified that she began to believe that Mr. DeWitt may have pressured Ms. Bonelli into recanting her story. Despite her professed belief in Ms. Bonelli's recantation of her previous denial, Ms. Spielman took no further action on the matter. No further events relevant to this proceeding occurred at Riverview during the 1997-98 school year, or during the first half of the 1998-99 school year. Blair Johnson testified that during the summer of 1998, he bluntly confronted Ms. Bonelli about her actions. He told her he could not believe she had created these stories about Mr. DeWitt. He told her she was in over her head. Ms. Bonelli responded that he was right, and she did not know what she was going to do. Ms. Bonelli later sent Mr. Johnson an e-mail expressing regret at the "whole Dave mess" and saying that she had "gotten over my older guy phase." She also wrote: "I have never done anything more than kiss a guy and you know that. I wouldn't know the first thing to do." Spring 1999 Kendra Simpkins Ms. Simpkins testified that after Mr. DeWitt accepted her apology for the trespassing incident, everything seemed all right between them. She took summer classes in 1998, and had conversations with Mr. DeWitt, but stated that nothing out of the ordinary occurred. In Fall 1998, Ms. Simpkins was no longer an aide in the guidance office and so had little regular contact with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that during Fall 1998, Mr. DeWitt began showing interest in her again. She stated that her crush on him had dissipated after the trespassing incident, but that Mr. DeWitt’s renewed attention made her happy and reignited her crush. She stated that Mr. DeWitt would say, “I think something’s going to happen,” or “We should start something.” She assumed he meant they should start some sort of relationship, though he was never specific about the “something” he had in mind. Ms. Simpkins testified that at about 10 a.m. on December 22, 1998, during the school’s Christmas break, she went to Riverview to give Mr. DeWitt a Christmas card. Mr. DeWitt was wearing black shorts and a black striped shirt. They talked. Mr. DeWitt read the Christmas card, on which Ms. Simpkins had written, “I hope you get everything you want for Christmas.” Mr. DeWitt asked what her note was implying. She responded that it meant exactly what it said. Ms. Simpkins testified that this conversation led Mr. DeWitt to suggest they meet somewhere. She told him that she had to go buy Christmas presents, and he told her to come back to school when she was done. She did so, returning to the school at about 2:30 p.m. When she arrived, Mr. DeWitt said, “Let’s go somewhere.” Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt drove off in a Honda Accord and she followed him, heading east on Proctor Road away from Riverview. Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt pulled off the road a couple of times as they drove. He first stopped at the intersection of Swift Road and Constitution Boulevard, and asked her where they should go. She said she didn’t know. He told her to follow him. They drove a bit farther, then stopped at the corner of Swift and Clark Roads. Mr. DeWitt said that he wanted to stay in the vicinity so that Ms. Simpkins could make it to her waitress job at 4 p.m. She told him it didn’t matter. Mr. DeWitt said, “Okay, Twin Lakes.” Ms. Simpkins testified that she followed Mr. DeWitt to the parking lot at Twin Lakes Park. She stated there were no other cars anywhere near them in the lot. She saw no other people. Ms. Simpkins testified that she pulled her car up next to Mr. DeWitt’s, on the left, and rolled down her passenger side window. They talked about mundane matters for a few minutes. Mr. DeWitt then asked her to “talk dirty.” She refused. Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt then said, “What are you going to do while I’m doing this?” She testified that he was masturbating. She could not actually see into his car, but could tell what he was doing by his arm movements. There was no doubt in her mind about what he was doing. She said that he did this for approximately three minutes. Ms. Simpkins testified that she was "disgusted" and told Mr. DeWitt that she had to go to work. She stated that she was wearing jeans and a tank top, and that she changed into her work uniform there in the car. She testified that Mr. DeWitt could tell what she was doing but could not see anything. She put the work shirt on over her tank top, then removed the tank top. She stated that Mr. DeWitt continued to masturbate while she changed clothes. He asked her to “show me something.” She refused. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt became more excited as she changed her clothes and started masturbating faster. He never told her whether he reached orgasm. She testified that the encounter ended when she had to go to work. She had to report for work at 4 p.m. Before she left, they talked about meeting again in the park. Mr. DeWitt told her to come by his office the next day. Ms. Simpkins testified that she went to his office the next day. Mr. DeWitt told her that he needed to go Christmas shopping after work. He told her to meet him at Twin Lakes Park at 6 p.m. Ms. Simpkins stated that she didn't go because her mother made her take her younger brothers to a movie. January 4, 1999, was the first day of school after the Christmas break. Ms. Simpkins testified that her next conversation with Mr. DeWitt occurred after classes on that day. She had not seen Mr. DeWitt during the school day, but saw him leaving school in his car. They pulled their cars to the side of the road. Mr. DeWitt told her to meet him at Twin Lakes Park at 5:30 p.m. She went to the park, arriving first. She parked in the lot, away from the other cars. She testified that “nothing was going on” in the park. Mr. DeWitt arrived and parked next to her. They sat in their respective cars and talked for about an hour. Ms. Simpkins stated that, without prompting, she got out of her car and into Mr. DeWitt’s Honda Accord at about 6:30 p.m. She testified, “I wanted something to happen.” She stated that she “had no clue” how to put her desire into action. As she sat in the passenger seat, Mr. DeWitt told her to “make the first move.” She took off her shirt, but left on her bra. Mr. DeWitt kissed her and touched her breasts. He then kissed her breasts and touched her vagina through her clothing. Ms. Simpkins testified that it was dark outside when this episode occurred. The windows of Mr. DeWitt’s car were rolled up. She said the windows were tinted, making it difficult to see into the car even in daylight. Ms. Simpkins stated that it was dark inside the car, and that she couldn’t actually see Mr. DeWitt masturbating. She could tell that he had pulled down the top of the sweatpants he was wearing, and she could make out his arm movements. She was not sure if he reached orgasm, but said she heard some grunts that indicated he might have. Ms. Simpkins stated that after they had been in his car together for about ten minutes, Mr. DeWitt began getting “really paranoid.” Cars were driving by, and he was worried about being caught. He told Ms. Simpkins to put on her shirt. Mr. DeWitt categorically denied all of Ms. Simpkins’ allegations concerning the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999. After learning of the allegations, Mr. DeWitt and his wife made efforts to put together a chronology of what they actually did on those dates. Mr. DeWitt testified that as an administrator, he was required to work during Christmas break. On December 22, 1998, he arrived at Riverview for work at 7:30 a.m. He testified that during the break, he would not have worn coat and tie, but did wear slacks and a comfortable shirt to work. He never wore shorts to work. He stated that he did own a black-striped golf shirt, but would not have worn it to work because it was “not a real dressy shirt.” Karen DeWitt testified that her husband always dressed "professionally," even during the Christmas break. She never saw him go to school in shorts. Mr. DeWitt's secretary, Chris Landes, testified that she never saw him dressed in shorts at work, even during non-office hours. Mr. DeWitt testified that he worked with Ms. Landes and caught up on phone calls and paperwork that morning. He was supposed to work until after 3 p.m., but left school at about 11 a.m. to do some Christmas shopping with his wife. Karen DeWitt testified that David called her from his office to set up where and when they were going to meet. One key to the DeWitts' recreation of the events of that day was their son's recent hospitalization for an asthma attack, from December 17 through December 19. The DeWitts were instructed to monitor their son closely, and to get him out into the fresh air and let him walk about. Both David and Karen DeWitt testified that their main motive in going shopping on December 22 was to get their son out of the house and let him move about outdoors. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did not see Kendra Simpkins that morning or at any other time during the Christmas recess. He did receive a Christmas card from her that year, but could not recall when it came. He found it on his conference table with several other cards and gifts from students. He did not keep the card, but recalled that Ms. Simpkins did write on it something to the effect of “hope you get everything you want for Christmas.” He did not recall having a conversation with Ms. Simpkins about the card. Mr. DeWitt met his wife and children at University Shopping Center, an outlet mall, at about 11:30 a.m. They shopped there until about 1 p.m. Mr. DeWitt produced a credit card receipt indicating that a purchase was made at a store in the mall at 11:50 a.m. The receipt was signed by Karen DeWitt, but both DeWitts testified that their entire family was present. The DeWitts left the mall and went to Chick-Fil-A for lunch. They frequented this Chick-Fil-A because it has a playground. Mr. DeWitt testified that the restaurant was crowded. It took them some time to get their food, then they allowed their children to play. They stayed there for a little more than an hour. The DeWitts next drove to Southgate Mall, at about 2:30 p.m. They shopped there until about 4 p.m., though they could not produce receipts for any purchases. Karen DeWitt testified that they bought only ice cream cones at Southgate Mall, and paid cash for them. David DeWitt was sure of their time of departure, because he recalled wanting to get home before rush hour traffic. They drove home, arriving at about 4:45 p.m., and then went through their normal evening routine of dinner, baths, and putting the children to bed. The DeWitts also reconstructed the events of January 4, 1999. This was the first day of school after the Christmas break. Mr. DeWitt stated that he was at Riverview from 7 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. He did not talk to Kendra Simpkins that day. Karen DeWitt confirmed that David went to work at 7 a.m., because she was still at home when he left. She left with the children shortly thereafter. At 3:15 p.m., Mr. DeWitt drove to Ashton Elementary School, where his wife works and his son Ryan attends school. Karen DeWitt usually brings Ryan home with her, but on this day she was holding a computer training session for teachers after school. Thus, David DeWitt took Ryan home on January 4. This was the date of the national championship football game between Tennessee and Florida State. Mr. DeWitt and his son were going to buy a pizza and "make a big deal" out of watching the game together. Mr. DeWitt testified that it took about a half hour to drive from Riverview to Ashton Elementary, park, walk in and get Ryan, then touch base with Karen regarding their evening plans. They decided that Karen would pick up a pizza from Papa Johns on her way home. Mr. DeWitt produced a canceled check, to the order of Papa Johns and signed by his wife, dated January 4, 1999. After picking up Ryan, Mr. DeWitt drove to Concordia Lutheran School to pick up his daughter from her preschool. He signed her out at 4 p.m. He drove home with the children. Karen DeWitt testified that she did not know who would have had her children from 4 to 6 p.m. if they were not with David, because the DeWitts did not use babysitters. Karen came home with the pizza and they ate dinner at about 6 p.m. The children were prepared for bed prior to the 8 p.m. pregame show. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and Ryan watched the first half of the game, then he put Ryan to bed. Mr. DeWitt never left his house after coming home with the children. The Investigation Events began to reach a head in early February 1999. The witnesses were unclear as to the precise chronology of events leading to the investigation, because everything appeared to be happening at once. To allow for a rational narrative, these events will be treated in the order that Mr. DeWitt became aware of them. Mr. DeWitt's version of events began with hearing a rumor that someone in Ms. Wallace's English class had blurted out something to the effect of, "What's up with Jennifer Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt?" Mr. DeWitt recalled that he heard about this incident either from a student or from another assistant principal. Mr. DeWitt immediately alerted SRO Foster, who notified Det. Price to come in and assist with student interviews. SRO Foster testified that it was typical for SROs to get involved in squelching rumors, but that an intervention officer such as Det. Price also had to be called in when the rumor dealt with a faculty member. Det. Price's report indicates that SRO Foster contacted her on February 8, 1999, and that she came to the school the next day. SRO Foster testified that they interviewed a number of students, and determined that a student named Dominique McAnn made the statement in the English class. The detectives told the students that the incident at Mr. DeWitt's house had been investigated, the girls had been spoken to, and it was inappropriate to spread rumors. Dominique McAnn told them she had heard rumors about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, and the detectives told her it was something that had already been dealt with. Mr. DeWitt was present for these interviews. SRO Foster testified that he and Det. Price thought they were doing a "clean-up" from the earlier investigation. Ms. Bonelli testified that she confronted Dominique McAnn in the hallway after class and asked her why she spoke in the class. Ms. McAnn answered that she had heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she then proceeded to tell Ms. McAnn what "really happened" between Mr. DeWitt and her, the "dirty talk" and masturbation. Dominique McAnn testified that she did not know Jennifer Bonelli until the hallway confrontation. She knew Ms. Bonelli's face because Ms. Bonelli would come into the restaurant where she worked and call her by name, though she didn't know Ms. Bonelli's name and didn't know how Ms. Bonelli knew hers. Ms. McAnn did not put the name with the face until Ms. Bonelli confronted her about the statements in English class. Ms. McAnn testified that one of Ms. Bonelli's friends, Beverly Pitchford, was talking in the class about Ms. Bonelli and her accusations against Mr. DeWitt. This irritated Ms. McAnn, because the class was supposed to be reading quietly. Ms. McAnn could not recall the precise words of her response, but remembered it was "something mean" about Ms. Bonelli, to the effect that Ms. Bonelli was "weird" or "crazy" and should just leave Mr. DeWitt alone. Her statement was loud enough that other students could hear it. Ms. McAnn testified that she had previously heard rumors about a girl named Jennifer Bonelli who claimed that she and Mr. DeWitt had some sort of sexual relations. She stated that this rumor was widespread among her circle of 40 or so friends, but that they did not believe it. Ms. McAnn testified that Ms. Bonelli came up to her in the hallway during lunch, crying about what Ms. McAnn had said. Ms. McAnn at first didn't know who she was. Ms. Bonelli proceeded to tell her the story of her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that it started when she was a student assistant in the guidance office. Ms. Bonelli said something about going jogging with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she and Mr. DeWitt communicated via "IM," or Instant Messenger, an AOL feature allowing real-time conversations between users who know each others' screen names. Ms. Bonelli was not positive that the person she spoke to was Mr. DeWitt, but she believed it was him. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she had "provocative" conversations with this person, including "cybersex." Ms. McAnn testified that Ms. Bonelli appeared to believe that she was having cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. McAnn's testimony contrasts with Ms. Bonelli's own testimony, in which she claimed that Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of "cybersex" in a conversation, but did not claim that they actually engaged in "cybersex." It is found that no "cybersex" actually occurred between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, but that Ms. Bonelli told varying untrue stories on the subject. Ms. Bonelli suspected Ms. McAnn and her best friend of having sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt, because they often talked to him and appeared to be on good terms with him. Ms. McAnn testified that nothing sexual ever occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her or her friend. This is yet another instance of Ms. Bonelli's accusing or suspecting any girl who talked with Mr. DeWitt of having some sexual relationship with him. Ms. McAnn thought Ms. Bonelli was "weird" and "obsessive" about Mr. DeWitt, because "when I talked to her, what I got from her was she was very much in love with Mr. DeWitt.” Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn about the trespassing incident, and told her that Mr. DeWitt stopped having anything to do with her because he was paying attention to Kendra Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she had tried to get close to Ms. Simpkins so that Ms. Simpkins would tell her what she was doing with Mr. DeWitt, but that Ms. Simpkins would not tell her. Other than the cybersex, Ms. Bonelli mentioned to Ms. McAnn only one other incident of a sexual nature involving Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli said that Mr. DeWitt wanted her to watch him masturbate. Mr. DeWitt had said something to the effect that he wanted her to perform sexual acts on him, and she didn't know how, so he was going to show her. Ms. Bonelli didn't specify the sexual acts Mr. DeWitt had in mind, but made gestures that left Ms. McAnn with the impression she was talking about masturbation or oral sex. Ms. McAnn wasn't sure whether Ms. Bonelli was claiming to have seen Mr. DeWitt masturbate, or whether Mr. DeWitt had only talked about masturbating. SRO Foster testified that among the students interviewed were Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins, both of whom denied any involvement in spreading rumors. SRO Foster indicated that he never believed they were involved in this incident, but called them in to tell them about the matter so they would not be caught off-guard by hearing the rumor in the hallways. During these discussions, Ms. Bonelli denied to the detectives that anything of a sexual nature had ever occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster were "really rude" to her during the questioning, not giving her an opportunity to explain. She stated that Mr. DeWitt told her he was mad at her for spreading these rumors, and asked her why she did it. Ms. Bonelli told him that Dominique McAnn had done it. Ms. Bonelli said she was as upset as Mr. DeWitt that the subject had come up again. Ms. Bonelli testified that she did not recall telling the detectives that the rumors were untrue. Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price also went to Ms. Wallace's English class. Mr. DeWitt intended to address the class about Ms. McAnn's statement, but Ms. Wallace talked them out of it. Ms. Wallace told them that only a small part of the class heard what was said, and that she herself learned about it only because a student told her later. Mr. DeWitt took her advice, deciding that addressing the class might blow the matter out of proportion. Mr. DeWitt recalled that they also interviewed a student named Jody Schinzel, whose mother was a clinic aide at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt stated that Jody Schinzel was very defensive, and did not want to come in unless her mother was also present. The Schinzels came in and offered no information. They were argumentative with Det. Foster. Mr. DeWitt testified that Mrs. Schinzel had a tendency to allow students who weren't sick to "hang out" in the clinic. Mr. DeWitt stated that if there were 30 kids in the clinic, 28 of them were not sick and were there watching TV or videos, hanging out, period after period, day after day. During the 1997-98 school year, Mr. DeWitt was the clinic aide supervisor, and was sent by Mr. Flynn to talk with Mrs. Schinzel about why these students were hanging around all the time. Mr. DeWitt testified that it "wasn't pleasant," and that a single conversation was not sufficient to settle the matter. Mrs. Schinzel was not receptive to any discussion about the kids hanging out. Mr. DeWitt threatened to place something in writing in her employment file, and she said she would complain to the union. Mr. DeWitt stated that it was an awkward situation and that their relationship was strained thereafter. At about the same time as the Dominique McAnn incident, Jennifer Bonelli and her friend, Mike Caffelle, spread a false rumor around the school, to the effect that Mr. DeWitt and Kendra Simpkins had been seen going into the faculty restroom together and did not emerge for several minutes. Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins told the same story about the alleged bathroom incident. As Mr. DeWitt walked down the hall toward his office after lunch, Ms. Simpkins approached him to complain about the fact that Ms. Bonelli had thrown pennies at her car and called her "whore" when they passed in the hallways. As they approached his office, they saw Ms. Bonelli standing there. Mr. DeWitt did not want a confrontation, so he told Ms. Simpkins to ignore Ms. Bonelli and continue telling him what happened. They walked past the office and up the stairs toward the media center and faculty bathroom. By the time they reached the top of the stairs, Ms. Simpkins had finished her story. Mr. DeWitt told her to avoid Ms. Bonelli and let SRO Foster know if the harassment continued. Ms. Simpkins walked out of the media center and Mr. DeWitt went into the bathroom. Mr. DeWitt emerged a few minutes later and noticed Mike Caffelle sitting at the computer lab. Mr. Caffelle looked at Mr. DeWitt, who nodded in acknowledgement. Mr. Caffelle had been sent up the back stairs by Ms. Bonelli to observe Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins after they passed Mr. DeWitt's office. After Mr. DeWitt emerged from the bathroom, Mr. Caffelle reported back to Ms. Bonelli that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins had gone into the bathroom together. They proceeded to spread this story around the school. Shortly thereafter, SRO Foster showed Mr. DeWitt some notes he'd gotten from a student concerning a rumor that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins had gone into the bathroom together. They determined that Mr. Caffelle was the main source of the rumor and called him in to talk about it. Mr. Caffelle admitted starting the rumor with Ms. Bonelli, and admitted that he had not seen Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins enter the bathroom together. Ms. Bonelli testified that a few days before the detectives began their investigation of the bathroom rumor, she was having discussions with Dominique McAnn, Jody Schinzel, and Mrs. Schinzel about Mr. DeWitt. The evidence establishes that these conversations occurred on or before February 3, 1999. The investigation of the rumors commenced on February 9, 1999. The record is unclear as to how many days elapsed between the episode in the English class and Mr. DeWitt's becoming aware of it and alerting the detectives. The evidence leads to the inference that it must have been several days, because Ms. Bonelli was certain that her confrontation with Ms. McAnn just after the English class episode preceded these discussions about Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Schinzel told Ms. Bonelli that she was not the only student with whom Mr. DeWitt had had sexual relationships, that Mr. DeWitt had done this "a lot." Mrs. Schinzel named Melissa McBride as a student who'd had a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she believed Mrs. Schinzel, who did not testify at the hearing. Melissa McBride testified at the hearing. She graduated from Riverview in 1997, and had worked in the attendance office near Mr. DeWitt's office during her senior year. She testified that Mr. DeWitt hugged her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable, but that she didn't feel that he was trying to provoke a sexual response. She testified that Mr. DeWitt denied having a wife and children, even when she told him that she knew better. She felt that his "body language" indicated he was interested in a relationship with her, but that Mr. DeWitt did nothing overt to pursue such a relationship. She did not have a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. The Schinzels urged Ms. Bonelli to make a written statement against Mr. DeWitt. They told her that other girls were writing statements, and it would "help out" if she also wrote one. They assured her that her name would "just be caught up in the jumble." They told her that someone else could write the statement for her. Jody Schinzel and Dominique McAnn urged Ms. Bonelli to go see teacher Mary Kenne. She went, along with Jody Schinzel. Ms. Kenne sat down with the girls and had Ms. Bonelli tell her story. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Kenne then asked her to write a statement, to go along with the statements that other people were writing. Ms. Kenne would not tell her who the other people were, and assured her that her own statement would be held in confidence. Ms. Bonelli dictated a statement, and Jody Schinzel wrote it down. Ms. Kenne testified that Jody Schinzel had come to see her on February 3, and asked to speak privately. Ms. Schinzel showed Ms. Kenne handwritten notes passed between her and Ms. Bonelli. The notes briefly recapitulated Ms. Bonelli's accusations: Mr. DeWitt's telling her about his "problem," their jogging together, and the sexual conversations. The note stated: "Basically we never did anything physical. He always wanted me to watch him jerk off and I did once. But I wanted to get physical . . . never happened. Then along came Kendra. " [Emphasis in original] Ms. Schinzel told Ms. Kenne that Ms. Bonelli had been involved with Mr. DeWitt and that another girl at Riverview was involved with him. Ms. Kenne testified that she read half the notes and then told Ms. Schinzel that if these things were true, she needed to hear them directly from Ms. Bonelli, that Ms. Bonelli must be willing to come forward and state that these things happened. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Schinzel that she was required by law to take action on these accusations. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Schinzel came back on February 4 and told her that Ms. Bonelli would come to see her the next day. Ms. Schinzel brought Ms. Bonelli with her to Ms. Kenne's classroom on February 5. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Kenne her allegations against Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Bonelli told of events that had happened the previous year, such as trespassing at Mr. DeWitt's house, and of their relationship at Twin Lakes Park and around school. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Kenne that in 1998 she had gone to Karen Spielman and told her the allegations, but that she had later recanted them. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Bonelli that if she wanted to take the matter further, she would have to write down her allegations in a signed statement. Ms. Kenne denied forcing or intimidating Ms. Bonelli into writing the statement, and made no mention of having told Ms. Bonelli that other girls were also writing statements. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Kenne "encouraged" her to write the statement, but did not "pressure" her to do so. When he interviewed Ms. Bonelli a few days later, Principal Flynn made a notation that Ms. Bonelli told him that she "felt pressure from the clinic lady and Ms. Kenne to write it down." Ms. Kenne left Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Schinzel alone to produce the statement. Ms. Bonelli didn't have time to finish it before her next class, so she took it with her. She finally gave it to Ms. Kenne during sixth period. Ms. Kenne testified that she glanced at it quickly, made a copy, and cut Ms. Bonelli's name out of the copy. Ms. Kenne testified that just after school on February 5, Ms. Bonelli returned to her room with Christine Ross, who told Ms. Kenne that she witnessed one of the incidents at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Ross told her that she was in the back of Ms. Bonelli's car, covered in blankets, while Ms. Bonelli had a conversation with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross said she was aware of other things that had happened between Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Ross that if she wanted the matter taken further, she would have to make a written statement. Ms. Ross wrote a statement and gave it to Ms. Kenne. Ms. Ross' written statement consisted of allegations that she had witnessed Mr. DeWitt talking to Ms. Bonelli at football games and at Twin Lakes Park. She had also seen Mr. DeWitt having conversations with other students. She claimed to have confronted Mr. DeWitt about his alleged actions, and claimed that he would neither confirm nor deny those actions. Ms. Ross' written statement makes no mention of the sexual conversation she claimed in her testimony to have heard between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, though Ms. Kenne recalled that Ms. Ross told her about it. Ms. Kenne testified that she took the statements to Velton Hodges at the Sarasota Classified Teachers Association, the local teachers' union. Mr. Hodges made copies and took them to Mr. Witt at the Superintendent's office. Ms. Kenne stated that on Monday morning, February 8, Mr. DeWitt came to her room at about 10:45 a.m. and asked to speak with her. Mr. DeWitt said he had heard she was conducting an investigation and taking statements from girls. Ms. Kenne told Mr. DeWitt that she was not conducting an investigation, that some girls had come to her, she had them write down what they had to say, and she turned it in. Ms. Kenne testified that Mr. DeWitt asked her for the statements. She did not have the statements, having given her copies to a friend for safe keeping. Mr. DeWitt asked her why she hadn't come to him about the situation. Ms. Kenne responded that she was not comfortable doing that, because Mr. DeWitt was involved in the allegations, and because she had a bad experience in the past with a similar, unrelated situation. Ms. Kenne told Mr. DeWitt what the girls had said about him, but she refused to identify the girls because they had come to her in confidence. Mr. DeWitt told her that he already knew it was Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt's recollection of this meeting was similar to Ms. Kenne's, except that he could not recall whether he mentioned Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins by name. Ms. Kenne stated that at about 12:30 p.m. on the same day, SRO Foster called and asked her to meet with him and Mr. DeWitt in Mr. Flynn's office. She went to Mr. Flynn's office, and they discussed the allegations. Ms. Kenne stated that much of the discussion involved why she had not come to Mr. DeWitt or SRO Foster before turning the girls' statements in to the administration. Ms. Bonelli testified that, during the course of her interview with Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price about the McAnn incident and bathroom rumors, Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of her written statement to Ms. Kenne. Mr. DeWitt recalled that he learned of the statements from Dominique McAnn. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price that her written statement was not true. SRO Foster testified that Ms. Bonelli told them that Jody Schinzel had pressured her to make the statement, and that the events described therein never happened. Det. Price recalled that Ms. Bonelli did not tell them exactly what she had written, but led them to believe it was not very damaging to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told them that she thought Christine Ross had embellished or fabricated some of her statement, and implied that it was Ms. Ross' statement that was the source of Ms. Kenne's concerns. Ms. Bonelli told Det. Price that Ms. Ross and her mother hated Mr. DeWitt because he had refused to allow Ms. Ross out of class early to go to work. Mr. DeWitt recalled the incident with Ms. Ross and her mother, though he was obviously not privy to their reaction to his denial of early release for Ms. Ross. Ms. Bonelli stated that she was later alone with Mr. DeWitt, and he told her to get the statement back from Ms. Kenne. Ms. Bonelli testified that she tried to get the statement back, but that Ms. Kenne did not have it. Linda Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt called her at home on the evening of February 8, at about 5 p.m. Mr. DeWitt said there was a matter at school, and he wondered if she knew anything about it. Mrs. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt did not specify the "matter," but that she understood his reference because Jennifer had told her about it. Mr. DeWitt asked her to tell him what she knew and when she learned about it. Mrs. Bonelli told Mr. DeWitt that Jennifer had come home from school one day last week and told her that a girl named Dominique had made a comment about Jennifer and Mr. DeWitt in Ms. Wallace's English class. Jennifer's friends had alerted her to the comment, and Jennifer took Dominique aside and told her to keep her nose out of her business. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she asked Jennifer if that took care of the matter, and Jennifer answered that she thought it did. Mrs. Bonelli testified that Jennifer did not tell her the subject matter of Dominique's comment, only that there was a comment and it displeased her. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she assumed the comment dealt with the trespassing incident, and that she had no clue about any romantic relationship between her daughter and Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Bonelli's profession of ignorance is not credible. As will become clear in the findings below, the essence of her testimony was that she believed Jennifer was telling the truth, though she had no idea what Jennifer was telling the truth about and never made any inquiry as to the subject matter, even after the police became involved a second time and even though she believed that her daughter was afraid of and intimidated by Mr. DeWitt. Based upon the entirety of her testimony and that of her husband and daughter, it is far more reasonable to find that Mrs. Bonelli was aware of Jennifer's situation at least as early as the trespassing incident, and was attempting to keep Mr. Bonelli from learning the details. It would be speculative to determine whether Mrs. Bonelli failed to come forward because she did not think Jennifer would be believed, as she intimated in her testimony, or because she herself did not believe Jennifer, or merely because she feared her husband's reaction. Returning to her telephone conversation with Mr. DeWitt, Mrs. Bonelli testified that she went on to tell him that a couple of days after Jennifer told her about the English class incident, Jennifer came home and said Ms. Kenne had approached her. Ms. Kenne told Jennifer that she had heard things from Ms. Wallace about Jennifer and Mr. DeWitt, and wanted her to make a statement. Ms. Kenne told Jennifer that other girls had complaints about Mr. DeWitt, and that Jennifer should make a statement about what Mr. DeWitt was doing. Again, Mrs. Bonelli stated that Jennifer did not tell her the subject matter of the things she knew, and that she did not ask. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Jennifer not to make a statement unless she was absolutely sure of the facts, because someone's life could be ruined. Mrs. Bonelli testified that at this point in the telephone conversation, Mr. DeWitt wanted to speak to Jennifer and her together on the phone. Mrs. Bonelli replied that Jennifer was out running and, besides, the family had just moved, the phones weren't set up, and it would be tough to get everyone on one line. Mr. DeWitt told her that he would appreciate it if she would get the phones hooked up so that he could call back later and get the matter straightened out. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Mr. DeWitt she would like to get it straightened out, too, because she had not told her husband about any of this. Mr. Bonelli had suffered a heart attack in October 1997 and was supposed to avoid stress, and Mrs. Bonelli kept this matter from him "because I didn't think anything was going to go further with this." Mrs. Bonelli set up the phones, and Mr. DeWitt called back. Mrs. Bonelli and Jennifer got on the phone with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli was in the room, and shouted to his wife that she was to tell Mr. DeWitt to have no further contact with Jennifer; if Mr. DeWitt wanted to speak to Jennifer, he was to call Mr. Bonelli and set up a meeting in his office. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she relayed this statement to Mr. DeWitt, who said, "Okay." Mrs. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt then said, "So, Jen, you can get back that statement tomorrow and all this will go away." Jennifer agreed, and that was the end of the conversation. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she did not ask Jennifer what this matter was all about. She stated that she was curious, but felt that Jennifer had been intimidated by and was scared of Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli testified that he did not question Jennifer about the matter because he figured it was just some girls getting together and making allegations, and he didn’t put too much credence in it. He thought it was just girls being girls, and didn't know that Mr. DeWitt was involved in it. He thought Mr. DeWitt was on the phone in his role as an administrator, not as a participant in the matter. He testified that his statements about Jennifer not speaking to anyone without his knowledge was a general comment, not directed at Mr. DeWitt in particular. Mr. Bonelli's testimony is credible. Mr. DeWitt testified that he called the Bonelli residence and asked Mrs. Bonelli to get her husband and Jennifer on the phone. Mrs. Bonelli made the excuse about the telephones still being in boxes. Mr. DeWitt told her that he wanted the phones hooked up and Mr. Bonelli on the phone when he called back. Mr. DeWitt called the second time, and Jennifer and her mother were on the phone. Mr. DeWitt again asked Mrs. Bonelli to put her husband on the phone. Mr. DeWitt testified that Mr. Bonelli seemed to be "a player" in the earlier trespassing situation and a decision-maker in the house, so he wanted to be sure that Mr. Bonelli heard what took place at school that day with his daughter. However, Mrs. Bonelli would not put her husband on the phone. Mr. DeWitt's version of this exchange is credited. Mr. DeWitt went over the matter of the rumor, and told Mrs. Bonelli that Jennifer did not start the rumor and had nothing to do with it. He could hear Mr. Bonelli speaking in the background, but could not understand what he was saying. Mr. DeWitt was certain that he heard Mr. Bonelli say to his wife that she should ask Mr. DeWitt to "make sure no one contacts my daughter." Ms. Kenne testified that on the next morning, February 9, Ms. Bonelli came in and asked her to return her statement. Ms. Bonelli told her she had changed her mind about testifying and wanted nothing more to do with the matter. Ms. Bonelli did not deny the truth of her written statement, but told Ms. Kenne that she did not want to hurt Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Bonelli that she had already turned in the statement and given her own copy of the statement to a friend for safe-keeping, so she could not return it. At about 8:30 a.m., Det. Price, SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt came to Ms. Kenne's classroom and asked for the statements. Ms. Kenne told them that she had been unable to get them from her friend, and that she would bring them in the next morning. Ms. Kenne testified that Det. Price became belligerent, and told her that she could be arrested for interfering with a felony investigation and obstructing justice if she didn't produce the statements. Ms. Kenne testified that Mr. DeWitt was yelling at her, and that all three were threatening her. Det. Price testified that Ms. Kenne was very agitated. Ms. Kenne told them that she didn't have the statements, that she had sealed them in an envelope and given them to a friend to hold. Det. Price told her that she needed the statements as part of a criminal investigation and she was to turn them in to her the next day. Det. Price stated that Ms. Kenne started to argue and say she didn't know if she could do that. Ms. Kenne started crying and accusing them of yelling at her. Det. Price testified that she was prepared to arrest Ms. Kenne for obstruction if she did not turn in the statements. Ms. Kenne testified that she gave the statements to Det. Price on Wednesday morning, February 10, 1999. Det. Price brought a security officer with her to Ms. Kenne's classroom, telling Ms. Kenne that she did not want to be accused of intimidating her again. Ms. Kenne had no further conversations with Det. Price, SRO Foster, or Mr. DeWitt about the statements. SRO Foster testified that while he and Mr. DeWitt were interviewing Dominique McAnn on February 9, he received a phone call from Todd Hunger, an assistant state attorney. Mr. Hunger told SRO Foster that he had been approached at the YMCA by Jennifer Bonelli the previous weekend. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Hunger that she was having a relationship with an unnamed Riverview administrator, and that SRO Foster was helping Mr. DeWitt to cover it up. Foster testified that this, on top of everything else he was investigating, was "unbelievable." While some of SRO Foster's actions during the investigation could be second guessed, particularly his allowing Mr. DeWitt to remain personally involved for as long as he did, there was no credible evidence that SRO Foster was engaged in a cover-up or that he performed his duties less than competently and conscientiously. Stanley Bonelli testified that his daughter approached the assistant state attorney for advice on how to get her statement back from Ms. Kenne. Jennifer was upset, and didn't understand why she couldn't get the statement back, so she approached this attorney and asked him about the matter. SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt went to Principal Flynn's office and briefed him on the situation. Mr. Flynn told Mr. DeWitt to have no further contact with the students during this investigation. SRO Foster contacted his superiors, who decided to pull Det. Price and SRO Foster from the case and assign two more experienced detectives, Chris Iorio and Robert Bang, to the case. Det. Iorio and Det. Bang were generally assigned to investigate crimes against juveniles. Det. Iorio was the lead detective on the case. Det. Iorio's first recollection was getting a phone call from SRO Foster that there were rumors going around Riverview and an investigation was beginning. Shortly thereafter, SRO Foster and Det. Price met with Det. Iorio's supervisors, who determined that SRO Foster and Det. Price's relationship with the school was such that they should back away from the case. Det. Iorio was informed of Ms. Bonelli's accusations and assigned to investigate. Det. Price had already called the Bonelli home and spoken to Linda Bonelli. Det. Price arranged for the Bonellis to come down to the police station for an interview after school on February 10. Det. Bang and Det. Iorio interviewed Jennifer briefly, and concluded that nothing had happened between Mr. DeWitt and her because Jennifer recanted everything in the written statement she had given to Ms. Kenne. Det. Iorio talked to Jennifer and her parents. Det. Iorio testified that he told them that Jennifer should not be making up this kind of thing and that, as far as he was concerned, the matter was concluded. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she and her husband did not go into the room when Jennifer was interviewed, that Jennifer did not tell her husband and her what happened, and that she did not ask Jennifer about it. Mrs. Bonelli did concede that the detectives showed them Jennifer's statement. Mr. Bonelli testified that Jennifer went in alone with the detectives, and they came out saying that Jennifer had retracted her statement and they were filing no charges against Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli was upset, both from reading the statement and from his daughter's retraction of it. He testified that he could see that Jennifer was emotionally upset and he figured this was not the time to question her about the matter. He intended to speak to her about it the next day when she came home from school. The Bonellis left the station, and Det. Iorio relayed his information to SRO Foster. Jennifer Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt knew she was going down to meet with Det. Iorio and Det. Bang, and that Mr. DeWitt told her that the entire matter would "go away" if she just denied the truth of her written statement. She said she reported to Mr. DeWitt after the meeting, told him that she had recanted her statement and that he was in the clear. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt was happy, and told her, "good job." Ms. Bonelli testified that the next morning, February 11, a security guard pulled her out of class and sent her to Mr. Flynn's office. The guard would not tell her why she was there. She was then sent into a room where Mr. Flynn, Mr. Cronin, and her father were already having a discussion. Mr. Flynn was speaking to her father about recommending her for expulsion based on her false written statement. Ms. Bonelli testified that she spoke up and said the statement was not false, that she had recanted it to save Mr. DeWitt's job. Ms. Bonelli received a ten-day suspension pending the investigation, but was not expelled from Riverview. Stanley Bonelli testified that he called Mr. Flynn on February 11 to arrange a meeting. He was upset because his daughter had been "forced" by Ms. Kenne to give a statement, without informing her parents. Mr. Bonelli was also upset that Mr. DeWitt had called his home and spoken to his wife and Jennifer, and that he did not know what the conversation was about, other than someone named Dominique had made an allegation about his daughter and Mr. DeWitt. He was upset that Mr. DeWitt had talked to his daughter at school without his permission. In light of all these concerns, he wanted to speak to Mr. Flynn, and the meeting was arranged. Mr. Bonelli's version of the meeting generally agrees with his daughter's. Mr. Flynn told Mr. Bonelli that he was going to expel Jennifer for inappropriately degrading the reputation of an administrator. Mr. Flynn told him that Jennifer had lied in her written statement. Mr. Bonelli testified that when his daughter saw that she was going to be expelled, lose all her enrollment credits and scholarship, and perhaps not go to college for two years, she said, "I'm not going to protect anyone. I did not lie." Mr. Bonelli testified that Mr. Flynn then said that he was suspending Jennifer for ten days pending an investigation. Mr. Bonelli told Mr. Flynn that he was hiring an attorney. Mr. Flynn's version of the meeting also agrees in most essentials with that of Jennifer and Stanley Bonelli. The only telling difference is that Mr. Flynn did not recall Jennifer saying, "I'm not going to protect anyone." Mr. Flynn's recollection was that Jennifer said, "I'm not going to be expelled for this." Mr. Flynn testified that as soon as Jennifer said that her statement was true, he stopped the interview and called Det. Price into the room to confirm what Jennifer had just said. Det. Price talked to Ms. Bonelli and reminded her that this would lead to a police investigation because she was alleging crimes. Det. Price told her that if it was found she was lying, she could be prosecuted for filing a false police report. Ms. Bonelli wanted a police investigation. Det. Price testified that she read Ms. Bonelli her Miranda rights. Det. Price stated that though Ms. Bonelli was a victim at this point for investigative purposes, she had changed her story so many times that it was best to read Ms. Bonelli her rights for her own benefit and safety. Det. Price stated that this was the end of her involvement in the case. Mrs. Bonelli testified that on February 11, after coming home from the meeting with Mr. Flynn, Jennifer told her that the statement was true. Mrs. Bonelli testified that this was the first time she knew that Jennifer had some sort of relationship with Mr. DeWitt. She testified that she had no hint of such a thing before this. As noted above, Mrs. Bonelli is not credible on this point. Jennifer Bonelli returned to the police station on February 11, accompanied by an attorney hired by her father, and met with Det. Iorio and Det. Bang again. Det. Iorio testified that he advised her that he was investigating a possible crime, and that if she lied there could be penalties, even prosecution. He read Ms. Bonelli her rights, swore her in and she gave a taped statement as to what she said really occurred. Ms. Bonelli told Det. Iorio that she started working in Mr. DeWitt's office, that she openly had a crush on him, that it started out as them making small talk. Mr. DeWitt would ask about her relationships with boyfriends, what types of sexual encounters they had. It got to the point where there was some touching. At some point they met at Twin Lakes Park, where Mr. DeWitt jogged. They reached the point of Mr. DeWitt masturbating in his car while Ms. Bonelli talked dirty to him. Det. Iorio believed Ms. Bonelli was being truthful, and decided to pursue the investigation further. Det. Iorio testified that Ms. Bonelli mentioned the name of Kendra Simpkins and told him she was involved with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins was called down to the police station. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Simpkins was very embarrassed about the interview, but eventually told them us she was having a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt and would give a sworn taped statement of those events. Ms. Simpkins related her version of the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, discussed above. Ms. Simpkins also related the story of Mr. DeWitt's alleged reaching back in his chair and touching her crotch. Det. Iorio testified that his investigation revealed the names of other girls who might have been victims of Mr. DeWitt: Melissa McBride; Jennifer Rizi; Bethany Donato; Katy Seib; Dominique McAnn; and Lori Gully. He and Det. Bang interviewed as many of these witnesses as they could contact. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. McBride told him that she was a student of Mr. DeWitt's, and that although she never had a physical relationship with him, Mr. DeWitt made it very clear that if she was available, so was he. She was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt was having relationships with girls at Riverview, because it was a common occurrence for him to be "hitting on" the girls at school and to be lenient on girls in disciplinary matters. As noted above, Melissa McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt would hug her in a way that made her uncomfortable, and that his "body language" made her believe he was interested in a relationship. Ms. McBride also testified that she had permission to leave the campus after third period to attend the Sarasota County Technical Institute, and that she discussed meeting Mr. DeWitt for lunch at Subway. They never actually had lunch together. Mr. DeWitt never overtly proposed a sexual relationship with Ms. McBride. Ms. McBride also testified that Mr. DeWitt denied to her that he had a wife and children. Ms. McBride stated that she knew Mr. DeWitt was married, and told him that she knew, but that he continued to deny those facts. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never gave Ms. McBride an embrace as she described it, though he may have hugged her shoulder-to-shoulder as he did other students. He denied asking Ms. McBride to lunch. He also denied ever discussing his marital status with Ms. McBride, stating that it would not have been any of her business. Mr. DeWitt again stated that he has never denied having a wife and children to anyone. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Donato said she had heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. She remembered Ms. Bonelli telling her she'd gone to Twin Lakes Park with Mr. DeWitt and given him a "hand job." Ms. Donato told Det. Iorio that Mr. DeWitt told her he wanted to take her for a spin in his car and look at the stars when she turned 18. Ms. Donato did not testify at the hearing. Mr. DeWitt denied ever telling Ms. Donato he would like to take her out in his car, or saying anything to her that could have been construed to mean he would like to take her out. The detectives' version of Ms. Donato's statement must be viewed in light of the fact that virtually every witness who testified at the hearing or via deposition disputed at least certain aspects of the detectives' report. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Seib told him that she'd had no sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt, but that Mr. DeWitt made comments about her breasts and short skirts, and asked her what kinds of sexual relations she was having with her boyfriends. Katy Seib testified at the hearing. She testified that Mr. DeWitt never made comments about her breasts and that she did not remember telling Det. Bang or Det. Iorio that he had. She testified that Mr. DeWitt made comments about her skirts, but in the context of letting her know they were inappropriate school attire. Mr. DeWitt was her grade level administrator, and she talked to him about personal problems, including boyfriend problems. She testified that nothing inappropriate was ever discussed between Mr. DeWitt and her. She testified that she felt intimidated by the detectives, and felt they were trying to manipulate her into saying something they could use against Mr. DeWitt. Det. Iorio testified that Dominique McAnn had no knowledge of inappropriate behavior by Mr. DeWitt, but suggested they talk to Lori Gully, a teacher who had recently left Riverview. Ms. McAnn testified at the hearing, and confirmed that she may have given the detectives the name of Lori Gully. Ms. McAnn testified that the rumor went around the school that something may have occurred between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Gully, a former teacher at Riverview. This rumor was based on the fact that Ms. Gully left the school shortly after working closely with Mr. DeWitt on the initiation of the IB program. Det. Iorio spoke with Ms. Gully by telephone. Det. Iorio reported that Ms. Gully said she never had any sexual contact with Mr. DeWitt, but that Mr. DeWitt would make innuendoes or make it known he was available for an affair. Det. Iorio also reported that Ms. Gully was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt would have sexual contact with students at Riverview. Lori Gully testified at the hearing. She worked at Riverview for one year, 1996-97. She worked closely with Mr. DeWitt on the IB program before taking a new job in Fort Myers. She characterized Mr. DeWitt as a hard worker, very active with students, and focused on student achievement. She testified that Mr. DeWitt never made any overt advances toward her, but that she perceived an undercurrent of something she didn't like. She was never uncomfortable being alone with him, or threatened by him. Ms. Gully testified that Mr. DeWitt would say things that could be taken two ways, insinuating some desire for a more than professional relationship. For example, prior to an out-of- town conference they would both attend, Mr. DeWitt said to her, "Maybe we'll get to spend some time together, do you know what I mean?" Ms. Gully had a vague impression that Mr. DeWitt was ready to have an affair if she was, but stated that he was always professional with her. She conceded that her impression was just a "weird feeling" that she couldn't explain but was undeniably there. She never saw Mr. DeWitt act inappropriately toward anyone at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt testified that his relationship with Ms. Gully was always professional, courteous, and cordial. They never had any conversations of a sexual nature, and he never said anything intended to give her the impression that he had romantic feelings toward her. Ms. Gully testified that she did not tell the detectives that Mr. DeWitt made it known he was ready for an affair; this was her intuitive feeling, not a statement made by Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Gully also denied telling the detectives that she was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt was involved with students. She actually told them she was not surprised they were calling her, because a friend had told her about the DeWitt investigation. She testified that her actual feeling was that it would be out of character for Mr. DeWitt to be involved with students. Det. Iorio testified that he and Det. Bang determined it would be very important to their investigation to capture Mr. DeWitt on tape discussing the allegations. Ms. Simpkins' mother agreed to allow Kendra to wear a listening device, commonly called a "body bug," and attempt to engage Mr. DeWitt in a conversation. They also had Kendra place two tape-recorded "control calls" from the police station. Audible tapes and transcripts of one "body bug" conversation and one control call conversation were entered into evidence, over Mr. DeWitt's strenuous objection. Det. Iorio listened to the tapes during the investigation, and testified that he heard nothing on the tapes that would cause him to end the investigation. In particular, Det. Iorio found that the "obscenities" used by Mr. DeWitt told him there was definitely "something there." On the tapes, Mr. DeWitt says nothing clearly exculpatory or incriminating. Ms. Simpkins, having been coached by the detectives not to directly raise questions about the alleged sexual episodes, tells Mr. DeWitt that she has to go talk to the police and asks Mr. DeWitt what she should say. Mr. DeWitt testified that he assumed Ms. Simpkins was going to be questioned about the bathroom rumor, because he believed that was the only thing the police were investigating that could possibly involve Kendra Simpkins. He tells Ms. Simpkins to tell the police that nothing happened. Ms. Simpkins continues to question Mr. DeWitt with variations on the same query. Mr. DeWitt keeps telling her that the police want to know about the bathroom rumor. Ms. Simpkins keeps saying that the police must "know something." Mr. DeWitt says there is "nothing to know." In frustration, Mr. DeWitt does at one point exclaim, "God damn," which is the "obscenity" referred to by Det. Iorio. Mr. DeWitt never plainly tells Simpkins to just go in and tell the truth, though he testified that at some point he did tell her to tell the truth and that statement must have been on one of the "inaudible" tapes referenced above. Mr. DeWitt repeatedly tells Ms. Simpkins that the police "don't know anything," and that she should tell them the same thing she told SRO Foster and Det. Price. However, Mr. DeWitt is saying these things in the context of trying to calm the apparently frantic Kendra Simpkins. He is also plainly exasperated with Ms. Simpkins' going over and over the same ground in repeated meetings and phone calls. Ms. Simpkins was directly asked about the instructions given by the detectives. She testified that they told her to ask questions that would draw out Mr. DeWitt, rather than "yes" or "no" questions. She testified that she didn't think to ask him about specific things such as Twin Lakes Park. She testified that even if she had asked him specific questions, his answers would have been the same. Several times on the tapes, Mr. DeWitt encourages Ms. Simpkins to get her mother involved in the matter, and wants to make sure that her mother knows everything that is happening. Mr. DeWitt in fact called Ms. Burkhardt that evening to make sure she knew about the bathroom rumor and that Kendra had talked to the detectives that day. Despite the controversy at the hearing over the admissibility of the recordings, they are not persuasive one way or the other as to Mr. DeWitt's culpability. On March 12, 1999, the detectives filed a probable cause affidavit recommending that Mr. DeWitt be charged with one count of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a 15-year-old child. This charge related to Mr. DeWitt's alleged grabbing of Kendra Simpkins' crotch in his office in 1998, when Ms. Simpkins had not yet turned 16. The detectives determined that no other charges could be filed because Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli were both at least 16 years old when the alleged acts occurred. On April 5, 1999, the State Attorney's office filed a memorandum declining to prosecute, because Kendra Simpkins did not wish to pursue the case and because there were no independent witnesses. Joy Perez After he was removed from the case, Det. Foster was approached by a Riverview teacher, who claimed to have heard that Mr. DeWitt had had an affair with a student when he was teaching in Miami. Det. Foster gave this information to Det. Bang and Det. Iorio, who went to Miami to investigate. A great deal of testimony was elicited as to this Miami investigation, which ultimately proved fruitless. The Sarasota County School Board ultimately found Joy Perez through a private investigator. The testimony about Det. Iorio and Det. Bang's Miami investigation had to do with their accusations that the faculty and staff of Miami Sunset High School were engaged in a cover-up of Mr. DeWitt's alleged affair with Joy Perez. The detectives' allegations are without merit. The evidence established that Det. Iorio and Det. Bang arrived at the school unannounced, armed with misinformation as to the name of the person they were seeking, attempted to bully faculty and staff members, decided that everyone they spoke to at Miami Sunset was lying when they denied knowledge of an affair between Mr. DeWitt and a former student, and then twisted the witnesses' statements to suit their theory of a "cover-up." It is not necessary to detail the detectives' accusations and the contrary testimony of the Miami Sunset witnesses because this controversy is not relevant to the allegations against Mr. DeWitt. The undersigned has thoroughly reviewed all the testimony, and finds that any conflicts in the testimony must be resolved in favor of the Miami Sunset witnesses. The credibility of Det. Iorio and Det. Bang's report was already rendered questionable during the Sarasota phase of the investigation, where Lori Gully and Katherine Seib denied making damaging statements attributed to them by the report. Joy Perez attended Miami Sunset Senior High from 1988 until her graduation in 1991. During her junior and senior years, she served as an athletic trainer. In the 1990-91 season, when Mr. DeWitt was the head basketball coach, Ms. Perez was assigned as a trainer to the basketball team. She was 18 years old when the relationship with Mr. DeWitt is alleged to have occurred. Ms. Perez testified that there were two to four female trainers at every basketball game. The trainers usually sat on the same side of the court as the team, and less frequently sat across from the team, with the fans. After the games, the trainers would collect the equipment and store it. The trainers also attended team practices. Ms. Perez testified that she was at most games and practices, but could not say she was at all of them. Mr. DeWitt's assistant coach was Andy Chiles, another teacher at Miami Sunset and a friend of Mr. DeWitt's since high school. Ms. Perez testified that she was on good terms with Mr. Chiles. Ms. Perez testified that she met Mr. DeWitt at the start of basketball season. They would talk. She recalled that Mr. DeWitt was very flattering, complimenting her looks. She testified that these talks progressed into a relationship. They began going out together. Ms. Perez testified that she had no romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt before he commenced his flattery. They would talk at school, and at some point Ms. Perez realized that Mr. DeWitt was interested in more than just flirting. She stated that he was the aggressor in the relationship. Ms. Perez testified that now, nine years after the fact, she had no clear recollection of how they progressed from talking to going out together after school. She recalled that Mr. DeWitt would come over to her house after school. Ms. Perez testified that most of their meetings occurred after school, not at night. They would go out to eat. Ms. Perez testified that she introduced Mr. DeWitt to her mother. She stated that she wanted to make sure her mother approved of the fact that she was dating a teacher. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt had discussions with her mother about the relationship, and that her mother never tried to stop it. She said her mother was "okay" with it, though she was unaware that it later progressed to a sexual relationship. Ms. Perez testified that the dating commenced in about January 1991. She stated that they held hands and kissed on these dates. Miami Sunset was an open campus, meaning that students were allowed to leave the grounds for lunch. Ms. Perez testified that she and Mr. DeWitt would go to lunch together at various restaurants. Ms. Perez recalled in particular going with Mr. DeWitt to a Pizza Hut three or four miles from the Miami Sunset campus. She was concerned that another student would see them, because the Pizza Hut was frequented by her friends and classmates. She stated that an acquaintance did see her getting into Mr. DeWitt's car and warned her to be careful. Ms. Perez could not recall how many times she went there with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Perez stated that she and Mr. DeWitt also went to the Sizzler once, just after lunchtime. She stated that this restaurant was not near the school and was not frequented by students. She stated that they went to dinner at Tony Roma's, also not in the neighborhood of Miami Sunset. Ms. Perez testified that she and Mr. DeWitt were concerned about teachers seeing them, so they did not make their relationship public. They did not hold hands or kiss at school. Ms. Perez testified that the relationship finally progressed to sexual intercourse. She stated that she had sexual intercourse with Mr. DeWitt in his car, at hotels, and at his mother's house, all while she was still a student at Miami Sunset. She estimated they had sexual intercourse fewer than ten times. Ms. Perez testified that they did not engage in oral sex, and that Mr. DeWitt never asked her to "talk dirty" to him or masturbated in her presence. Ms. Perez stated that they went to hotels, usually between noon and 5 p.m. Mr. DeWitt would wait for her at the corner, then they would go to the hotel in his car. They went to more than one hotel, but she could not remember their names. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt gave her gifts, "little things." She recalled receiving a charm, and a T-shirt that Mr. DeWitt brought back from the Final Four basketball tournament. She did not know where any of these items now were. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt told her he was separated from his wife. Ms. Perez testified that she did not know Mr. DeWitt's wife, nor did she have any idea what his wife looked like. Ms. Perez testified that she never met Mr. DeWitt's wife at basketball games, or ever saw Mr. DeWitt talk to anyone he later said was his wife. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt told her that he had a young son. Mr. DeWitt also told her that his wife and child lived in the Kenlands, an apartment/condominium complex not far from the school. Mr. DeWitt told her that he also lived in the Kenlands, with his wife and child. He told her that he lived with his wife for financial reasons, but that they had separate bedrooms. At the time, Ms. Perez accepted this explanation of the DeWitts' "separation," in part because her own parents had slept in separate bedrooms. Ms. Perez admitted that she didn't know if there was a written separation agreement, or whether the DeWitts were having sexual relations. Ms. Perez knew Mr. DeWitt's mother, Marilyn DeWitt, who was also a teacher in the Miami-Dade public school system. Ms. Perez took a night class in pottery from Marilyn DeWitt at Miami Sunset. Ms. Perez testified that she knew her teacher was DeWitt's mother. Ms. Perez stated that she never saw Marilyn DeWitt at a basketball game. Ms. Perez testified that the sexual relationship ended in about April 1991. She stated that she began feeling that Mr. DeWitt's story about being separated from his wife was not true. She testified that Andy Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt "might" still be married. Under cross-examination, Ms. Perez admitted that Mr. Chiles actually showed her a high school yearbook photo of Karen DeWitt and that he tried to warn her that Mr. DeWitt was married. Ms. Perez testified that after Mr. Chiles showed her the yearbook picture, she again asked Mr. DeWitt if he was really married. She stated that Mr. DeWitt repeated the story that he was separated. Ms. Perez testified that she did not ask the other trainers if Mr. DeWitt was married. Ms. Perez testified that she considered her relationship with Mr. DeWitt to be private, and did not discuss it with anyone at school. Ms. Perez testified that she ended the relationship. There was not a clean break. Mr. DeWitt continued to call her at home, but she was not interested in continuing the relationship because she did not believe he was really separated. Ms. Perez stated that she allowed the relationship to "dwindle off." Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt would bother her in the hallways. When class was dismissed, he would wait around in the halls for her. If she was speaking to a male, Mr. DeWitt would come up and interrupt the conversation. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt would also drive by her house. She did not know whether Mr. DeWitt had friends in her neighborhood or any other legitimate reason to go past her house. Ms. Perez testified that after she graduated and went to college, she continued to receive calls from Mr. DeWitt, seeking to renew the relationship. She was not hostile towards him, but had no interest in resuming the relationship. Ms. Perez estimated that she would speak to Mr. DeWitt about twice a year. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt called to tell her he was moving to Sarasota to take an assistant principal position. He called her after he moved to Sarasota, to inquire as to how she was. Ms. Perez testified that she last saw Mr. DeWitt about four years before the hearing. He called and told her he was coming to Miami and wanted to see her. Mr. DeWitt told her that he was now divorced. Ms. Perez agreed to meet Mr. DeWitt, but told him to bring the divorce papers with him. Ms. Perez testified that they had dinner at St. Michel, a restaurant in Coral Gables. Mr. DeWitt brought photocopies of some forms that appeared to be divorce papers. Ms. Perez stated that the papers were unclear, and that the information contained therein did not coincide with things Mr. DeWitt had told her over the years. She knew that Mr. DeWitt had a child at the time their relationship commenced, but the papers indicated the child was born after she graduated. Ms. Perez stated that this caused her to conclude these were not real divorce papers. After the dinner at St. Michel, Ms. Perez had no desire to see Mr. DeWitt again. She told him as much at the dinner. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt never called her again after the dinner, and she never saw him. Ms. Perez did not ask for or keep a copy of the divorce papers. She stated there was no reason to keep them. Once she concluded the papers were not legitimate, she had her proof. Ms. Perez was asked how she could be sure the child mentioned in the divorce papers was the same child she knew about from her days at Miami Sunset. She answered that someone had told her Mr. DeWitt had another child, but Mr. DeWitt denied it every time she asked him. Ms. Perez testified that she never reported her relationship with Mr. DeWitt to anyone in authority at the school. In retrospect, she believed that she should have done so. She stated that she knew it was wrong to have a sexual relationship with a married man, even when the relationship was active. Ms. Perez learned of this case when she was contacted by the Sarasota County school system's private investigator, who took her recorded statement. Ms. Perez testified that Marilyn DeWitt phoned her a few months prior to the hearing. Mrs. DeWitt wanted to know why Ms. Perez was testifying against her son. Ms. Perez told Mrs. DeWitt that the Sarasota authorities approached her and that she was just telling the truth, without any intent to hurt anyone. Mr. DeWitt recalled Joy Perez as an athletic trainer for the basketball team when he was head coach. He testified that she worked at all home and away games, as well as most practices. Mr. DeWitt estimated that he saw her two to four hours a day, six days a week, during the basketball season. Mr. DeWitt denied having any sort of sexual relationship with Joy Perez. He denied holding hands with or kissing her. Karen DeWitt came to every home basketball game, sitting in the fan seating across from the team bench. She brought their infant son, Ryan, who was born on October 27, 1990, just before the basketball season began. Marilyn DeWitt came to some of the home games, and sat with Karen and Ryan. Andy Chiles' fiancée, Julie, would also sit with Karen DeWitt. The DeWitts often socialized with Mr. Chiles and his fiancée after the games. Mr. DeWitt estimated that average attendance at the basketball games was about 100 people. Immediately after the game, Mr. DeWitt would go into the locker room, talk to the players, get the uniforms together, and clean up the locker room. This process took 15 to 30 minutes. Mr. DeWitt would then come out and find Karen and make plans for the rest of the evening. Sometimes they would go out to eat with Mr. Chiles and his fiancée; other times, Karen and Ryan would go home and wait for David. By the time Mr. DeWitt came out after the game to see Karen, there would be very few people left in the gym, mostly the custodian and the trainers. The fans were encouraged to clear out immediately after the game so that the bleachers could be rolled up and the gym cleaned. Mr. DeWitt did not recall seeing Joy Perez talking to his wife. He did recall that Ms. Perez once came into the locker room and told him that someone outside wanted to talk to him. When he went out of the locker room, Karen was waiting to see him. Karen DeWitt had a clear recollection of sending Joy Perez into the locker room to find her husband. She testified that the trainers were her "lifeline" into the locker room. If she needed to take Ryan home, she would ask a trainer to get Mr. DeWitt for her. She gave Joy Perez such a message. Karen DeWitt testified that any other conversations she ever had with Joy Perez were of the "hi, how are you?" variety. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez and the other trainers were made to feel part of the team. They were invited to all team functions, including banquets, dinners, and after- game socials. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez sought him out for counseling. Her father had died in a scuba diving accident in the Florida Keys, and Ms. Perez was very upset and emotional about it. Mr. DeWitt stated that Ms. Perez talked at length about how it happened and the void it caused in her life. Ms. Perez also talked to Mr. DeWitt about general high school issues, where she should go to college, and boyfriend issues along the lines of wondering who would ask her to the prom. Mr. DeWitt testified that after a time he concluded Ms. Perez was showing him too much attention. She was always around, and was showing a fondness for Mr. DeWitt that gave him a feeling she was romantically interested in him. He conceded that Ms. Perez' actions could have been simply an eager trainer trying to impress her coach. Mr. DeWitt raised the issue with Deborah Fries-Furton, a teacher who had been the head athletic trainer and was still deeply involved with the basketball team and the trainers. Mr. DeWitt testified that he knew Ms. Fries-Furton was close to Ms. Perez and her family, and asked her to let Ms. Perez know that he was happily married. Mr. DeWitt asked Ms. Fries-Furton to do so in a manner that was non-threatening. He believed that Ms. Fries-Furton had that conversation with Ms. Perez. Mr. DeWitt testified that he didn't report Ms. Perez because he didn't feel she had "crossed the line." Ms. Perez had done nothing inappropriate or threatening. She never came out and asked Mr. DeWitt to have sex with her. Mr. DeWitt stated that it was just a sense he had that she was becoming enamored of him. He never directly told her to cut back on the attention she was showing him. Mr. DeWitt testified that he visited the night pottery class taught by his mother, and that Joy Perez was sitting in the class doing a pottery assignment. His mother introduced him to the class. Karen DeWitt recalled David taking her to the pottery class for a visit. Karen was curious about the class, and David took her there the first time so that she would know where it was. Karen recalled that she was still pregnant with Ryan on her first visit. Marilyn DeWitt introduced them as her son and his wife. Karen recalled subsequent visits after Ryan was born, and Marilyn showing off Ryan to the class. Karen remembered seeing Joy Perez in the class, but did not remember talking to her there. Ms. Perez denied ever seeing Mr. DeWitt's wife or child come into the pottery class. Mr. DeWitt stated that he "absolutely never" told Ms. Perez that he was separated from his wife, and never said anything that would lead her to think that. He lived with Karen and Ryan in a condominium in the Kenlands, off Kendall Drive. His mother lived about two miles away, and they spent a lot of time at her house, but he never lived apart from his wife. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never told Ms. Perez that he was "separated from but living with" his wife, and that he never showed her where he lived. Karen DeWitt confirmed that Mr. DeWitt never lived anywhere else during this period, and testified that they had no marital problems that approached the level of a separation. Mr. DeWitt stated that every basketball player knew where he lived. All the players had his home phone number. He stated that his house was not far from the school, and that players would stop by before and after practice and on the weekends. Ms. Fries-Furton also knew where Mr. DeWitt lived. It would not have been difficult for Ms. Perez to learn where Mr. DeWitt lived from the players or from Ms. Fries-Furton. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never showed his mother's house to Joy Perez, and that she was never in that house with his or his mother's permission. He stated that there was a spring basketball league that took place at the junior college directly behind Marilyn DeWitt's house. A path through the woods led directly from his mother's house to the college. Mr. DeWitt coached in the spring league. He would walk from there to his mother's house with a player or two from Miami Sunset, before and after the games. They would get something to eat and play basketball in Mrs. DeWitt's back yard, where she had a lighted court. They would swim in her pool. Again, it would have been easy for Ms. Perez to learn from these players where Mr. DeWitt's mother lived. Mr. DeWitt denied ever being alone with Ms. Perez in any restaurant. He was familiar with the Pizza Hut discussed by Ms. Perez, and stated that she might have been there on some occasion when he took the entire team for pizza, but never alone with him. Mr. DeWitt was also familiar with the Sizzler restaurant, which was only 100 feet away from his condominium in the Kenlands. He stated that he and Karen would put Ryan in his stroller and walk there for meals, but that he was never there with Joy Perez. Mr. DeWitt knew of a Tony Roma's in Miami, and stated that he and his wife may have eaten there during the 1990-91 school year, but he denied ever taking Joy Perez there. Karen DeWitt remembered going to Tony Roma's with her husband on her birthday, because the restaurant gave free meals to people on their birthday. Mr. DeWitt denied taking Joy Perez to the St. Michel restaurant in Coral Gables. He stated that he has never been to that restaurant, which he said was "quite expensive." After the birth of Ryan in October 1990, Karen DeWitt took maternity leave until April 1991. Mr. DeWitt testified that during this period, he would come home for lunch with Karen and Ryan every day. They either ate at home or walked to the Sizzler. Both David and Karen DeWitt testified that they could not recall a day during her maternity leave that they did not have lunch together. Karen testified that David's coaching duties often kept him away from home in the evenings, so he took the opportunity at lunch to spend time with Ryan and her. He would spend at least an hour at home during lunch. Mr. DeWitt recalled giving Joy Perez a Final Four T- shirt, as he did to all the players and trainers. He testified that the school sent the basketball coaches to the Final Four. The year he was head coach, Mr. DeWitt went to Indianapolis with two assistant coaches. He testified that they walked around the various vendor exhibits, and companies such as Puma, Nike, Converse and Adidas gave away free merchandise, including T- shirts. They brought back shirts for everyone on the team and for the trainers. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez' mother told him that Joy was fond of and attracted to him. He made sure Joy's mother knew that it was not reciprocated. He never discussed with her mother a desire to date Joy. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never went to see Joy Perez at home. He stated that he would take students home after practice or games, especially after away games when they returned to the school at 11 p.m. It was not uncommon for players or trainers to need a ride home, and Mr. DeWitt would take them if no one else was coming for them. Mr. DeWitt believed he gave Joy Perez a ride home under such circumstances on at least one occasion. Mr. DeWitt recalled phoning Joy Perez' home after she graduated, but stated he was returning a call from Ms. Perez' mother regarding the schedule of Joy's younger sister Gigi, who was still a student at Miami Sunset. He did not recall if he had any assigned responsibilities for Gigi. Mr. DeWitt stated that because he had known her mother and sister for some time, Gigi felt comfortable approaching him for assistance and that their relationship was very cordial. He denied calling the Perez residence after Gigi graduated. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had no contacts with Joy Perez after he moved to Sarasota. He denied ever showing divorce papers to Joy Perez. He denied ever telling anyone that he and Karen were divorced or separated, or separated but still living together. He stated that he might have run into Joy Perez at a mall when he went back to visit Miami, but denied ever arranging a meeting with her. Mr. DeWitt speculated that Joy Perez' motive for lying about him may have been his declining to attend her graduation party. He recalled that she came by his office with a "fancy" invitation to a gathering with her family, something that "sounded like a big to-do." She wanted to introduce Mr. DeWitt to her friends and family. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never went to graduation parties with students, so he told her that he was not interested in going. He stated that she gave him a cold look and said, "It doesn't mean that much to you, does it?" Mr. DeWitt testified that he had meant to convey a general disinterest in attending such functions, but that Ms. Perez appeared to take his refusal personally. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Perez then said something like, "Some day you will know," or "You will realize." Mr. DeWitt stated that it was a "chilling" comment. She then turned and walked out of his office. Prior to obtaining her statement, the Sarasota investigators told Joy Perez that Mr. DeWitt was under investigation for sexual misconduct with students. Prior to her testimony at the hearing, Ms. Perez was provided with a copy of the police report of the Sarasota investigation. As noted above, Joy Perez claimed that one of her sexual liaisons with Mr. DeWitt occurred in his mother's house. Mr. DeWitt claimed that Ms. Perez had never been inside the house with his or his mother's permission. Petitioner offered in evidence a diagram that Joy Perez drew of the floor plan of Marilyn DeWitt's house in Miami. Marilyn DeWitt has since sold the house and moved to Sarasota, living in a house on her son's property. Marilyn DeWitt also drew a diagram of her Miami house, and offered extensive testimony as to its layout. Ms. Perez' diagram indicates that she came in the front door and went down the hallway directly to the first bedroom on the left. She testified that Mr. DeWitt told her this was his bedroom. Her diagram details only what she saw of the living area from the front door, and the bedroom she went into. The diagram does not correspond entirely to the actual layout set forth by Marilyn DeWitt. Keeping in mind that Ms. Perez saw the living area only once, eight years ago before drawing her diagram, it cannot be found that the disparities conclusively demonstrate that she was never in the house. However, it must also be noted that Ms. Perez' diagram could as easily be derived from peeking through the front window of the house, or from a description provided to her by someone who had been there. Ms. Perez' diagram indicates that there was a photo on the mantel of the living room of Mr. DeWitt wearing a tuxedo. Mr. DeWitt was alone in the photo. Marilyn DeWitt testified that the only photograph of David DeWitt wearing a tuxedo that she owned was his wedding photo, which also included Karen DeWitt. Further, Marilyn DeWitt testified that there was no mantel in her living room. Ms. Perez' description of the bedroom is problematic. Her diagram indicates a full or queen size bed and dark wood furniture in the room. Marilyn DeWitt testified that she had converted this room into a nursery a couple of months before Ryan's birth in October 1990, well before Ms. Perez alleges she was in the house with David DeWitt. Mrs. DeWitt testified that the room contained a full-size crib, a playpen, a chest painted off-white, toys, and a rocking chair. The next room down the hallway was a guest room with twin beds. The only room with a full-size bed was the master bedroom, which Ms. Perez' diagram labels a "possible bedroom," indicating she never went into the room. The testimony of Marilyn and Karen DeWitt further established that Marilyn DeWitt's house would not have been a convenient place for an assignation. Marilyn worked during the day, but Karen had a key to the house and went there with Ryan almost every day during her maternity leave. Marilyn's nephew lived there during that period. He was looking for work and spent a great deal of time around the house. Marilyn DeWitt also had a maid who came at least once a week and spent the entire day at the house. No witnesses were produced to corroborate Joy Perez' claim that she had an affair with Mr. DeWitt, or even to establish that she and Mr. DeWitt had anything more than a student-teacher relationship. Especially significant is the lack of testimony from Joy Perez' mother, who Joy claimed knew about her dating Mr. DeWitt and approved heartily of it. In contrast, several witnesses who knew Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez in Miami during the relevant period testified on behalf of Mr. DeWitt. These included Barbara Silver, who at the time was the principal of Miami Sunset; Dennis Davis, who at the time was an assistant principal at the school; and George Phaelen, who was the athletic director. These three witnesses consistently denied any knowledge of an affair or even rumors of an affair between Mr. DeWitt and any student. They also consistently stated that the report filed by Det. Iorio and Det. Bang distorted what they told the detectives. Also testifying on behalf of Mr. DeWitt were Andrew Chiles and Deborah Fries-Furton, both of whom were deeply involved with the basketball team during the 1990-91 school year. Their testimony merits detailed findings. Andrew Chiles was the head coach of the junior varsity team and the sole assistant coach of the varsity team during the season that Mr. DeWitt served as head coach. Mr. Chiles had known Mr. DeWitt since 1978, when they played basketball together for Miami Sunset. They were best friends then, and have remained close throughout the subsequent years. Mr. Chiles has also known Karen DeWitt (then Karen Burmeister) since 1978, becoming friends with her even before he learned that she was David DeWitt's girlfriend. Mr. Chiles began teaching at Miami Sunset in 1987, one year prior to Mr. DeWitt's joining the staff. They were both assistant coaches in the basketball program. When the head coach quit abruptly prior to the 1990-91 season, Mr. Phaelen, the athletic director, named Mr. DeWitt the interim head coach. Mr. Chiles testified that this decision was based on the fact that Mr. DeWitt had been working mostly with the varsity team, while Mr. Chiles was the head coach of the junior varsity. Mr. Phaelen believed that it would be best for the players if Mr. Chiles remained the junior varsity coach and assisted Mr. DeWitt with the varsity team. Mr. Chiles attended all varsity practices, and all varsity games, home and away. He knew Joy Perez as a trainer for the basketball team. Mr. Chiles stated that Ms. Perez was supervised at all times, by the main trainer, Mike McGowan; by Deborah Fries-Furton, who had given up her official position as head trainer but still performed many of those duties; and by the coaches. Mr. Chiles stated that he and Mr. DeWitt would take players home after late games, but that it was more common for them to have the player call a parent and to wait with the player until his ride arrived. Mr. Chiles did not remember either he or Mr. DeWitt giving a female trainer a ride home during the 1990-91 season. Mr. Chiles testified that he never saw Mr. DeWitt do anything improper with any student, including Joy Perez. He was aware of no student complaints against Mr. DeWitt. No member of the faculty or administration ever said anything to Mr. Chiles about Mr. DeWitt engaging in any improper conduct. Mr. Chiles heard no rumors, though he conceded that he would be the "last person" to hear such things because it was commonly known at the school that he was Mr. DeWitt's best friend. Mr. Chiles testified that Karen DeWitt was at all the home games, and sat with his fiancée, Julie. Marilyn DeWitt came to some of the games, and sat with Karen and Julie. They sat across from the bench. Mr. Chiles recalled Joy Perez asking him if Mr. DeWitt was married. He told her that Mr. DeWitt was married. This was toward the beginning of the basketball season, in October or early November, when she came aboard as a trainer and everyone got to know each other. Mr. Chiles stated that he had no idea why Joy Perez would now claim not to know Mr. DeWitt was married. Mr. Chiles met Joy Perez' mother, who attended "quite a few" basketball games. He saw her talking with Mr. DeWitt in the gym after basketball games. Mr. Chiles testified that Joy Perez never indicated to him that she had had sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt. Joy's mother never indicated such a thing to Mr. Chiles. Mr. Chiles testified that he saw no signs of Joy Perez having a crush on Mr. DeWitt. After games, the coaches were in charge of closing the concession stand, cleaning the court, and putting away the score clock, scorer's table, the team's chairs and the bleachers. After cleaning up, they would go into the locker room and talk to the team. Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Chiles would then adjourn to the office and talk about the game. Mr. Chiles stated that the trainers were responsible for all the athletic gear. The trainers ran a training room separate from the locker room. He stated that it was not unusual for the trainers to stay after the game and help with the clean- up. Mr. Chiles stated that he and Mr. DeWitt would emerge from the locker room after their post-game meeting to speak with Julie and Karen, perhaps making dinner plans. He testified that Joy Perez would be there on the court when Mr. DeWitt came out to speak with his wife. The only way Ms. Perez could have missed this regular occurrence would have been if she happened to go upstairs to the training room after the game, because the gym floor was not visible from the training room. Deborah Fries-Furton was the athletic trainer until June 1990. The head trainer's job was to take care of all injuries, the injury-reporting system, and serve as a liaison between the coach and athletes regarding injuries. Though she was not officially the head trainer when Mr. DeWitt became head coach, she performed most of the same functions. Mr. DeWitt testified that he was unaware that Ms. Fries-Furton was not the head trainer, because he went to her with any problems or questions he had in that area. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she usually rotated between four to six student trainers within any given sport. There were male and female trainers. They worked year-round, in different sports. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that she spent "countless" hours with Joy Perez, so much that Joy's mother jokingly called her Joy's "second mother." Ms. Fries-Furton observed Mr. DeWitt interact with the trainers, and never saw anything inappropriate. None of the female trainers ever complained about Mr. DeWitt. When Mr. DeWitt was head coach, Ms. Fries-Furton went to all home and some away games. She sometimes traveled on the team bus. The trainers would go to away games if there was an injured player on the team. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that the trainers and the cheerleaders would ride on the team bus. Joy Perez was one of her student trainers. Ms. Fries- Furton characterized Joy Perez as a good student and a hard worker. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she maintained Joy's acquaintance, and that of her family, until four years after Joy's younger sister Gigi graduated from Miami Sunset. She became friends with Joy's mother. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy Perez' mother was extremely happy with the role Mr. DeWitt had played in her daughter's life as a teacher and confidant for her problems, someone who gave her good solid advice. She recalled Joy's mother talking about Mr. DeWitt being "wonderful" in helping Joy to resolve the issues surrounding her father's death. Joy Perez herself told Ms. Fries-Furton that she confided in Mr. DeWitt and that it was very helpful to discuss her father's death with a man. Ms. Fries-Furton saw Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez together, but never witnessed any inappropriate behavior by either of them toward the other. Joy Perez never expressed to Ms. Fries-Furton any feelings for Mr. DeWitt beyond a normal teacher-student relationship. Ms. Perez was dating a boy she was "very involved with," and expressed no romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy had concerns about the type of relationship her boyfriend wanted. She counseled Joy to maintain her attitude, which was abstaining from any sexual relationship while in school. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that Joy Perez was always "very clear" about the fact that she had abstained from having sex with her boyfriend or anyone else. Ms. Fries-Furton said that, during the basketball season, she heard a rumor about Mr. DeWitt and Joy Perez, but that it was stated jokingly by other students, who said that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez had "a thing" for each other. There was no mention of any sexual impropriety. She recalled discussing with the trainers the rumor about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez. She stated that they all laughed about it because they thought it was very funny. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that there are always rumors about coaches and any females around them. Ms. Fries-Furton heard rumors that she herself was involved with Mr. DeWitt and with Mr. Chiles. Her student trainers told her the rumor about herself and Mr. DeWitt, because they thought it was funny. She took all these rumors as part of working with teenagers in the school system. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that had she taken these rumors seriously, she would have reported them immediately to Mr. Phaelen, and stated that she had done so in the past. She did not positively recall talking to Mr. DeWitt about the rumor, but she did remember Joy Perez telling her that there was no relationship between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Perez told her that she simply valued Mr. DeWitt's willingness to listen to her. Ms. Fries-Furton did not talk to Ms. Perez' mother about the rumor, because Joy had told her there was nothing to it and she had no reason not to believe her. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she never saw Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez together outside of school functions. She stated that she always stayed after basketball games until the trainers were picked up, and that she would take Joy home if her mother asked. Ms. Fries-Furton never saw Mr. DeWitt or Mr. Chiles taking Joy Perez home. Ms. Fries-Furton was the scorekeeper at all home games during the 1990-91 season, sitting at a table next to the team bench. She saw Karen DeWitt at the games, and would talk to her before the games and at halftime. She saw Marilyn DeWitt at some of the games. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that Joy Perez would have been in a position to see Karen and Marilyn DeWitt together at the games, and that most of the trainers knew them and would speak to them. She could not specifically recall Joy Perez having a conversation with Karen DeWitt, but knew that Karen spoke to most of the trainers at the games. Ms. Fries-Furton never had an understanding that Karen and David DeWitt were separated, nor did she hear any rumors of marital problems between them. Joy Perez never asked Ms. Fries- Furton if Mr. DeWitt was separated or having problems, or if he was married. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she simply understood that Joy knew David DeWitt was married to Karen DeWitt. Joy Perez never gave her any indication that she doubted Mr. DeWitt's marital status. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she continued to see Joy Perez even after her younger sister Gigi graduated, because they had been very close and Joy was a young woman she admired and respected. Ms. Fries-Furton would attend craft shows with Joy's mother, and stated that she had been to the mother's home more times than she could count. She never heard any member of the Perez family complain about the conduct of David DeWitt, or ever so much as insinuate that Joy Perez had an affair with David DeWitt. Joy Perez testified that she "knew of" Ms. Fries- Furton, but that she never confided in her or talked to her about personal problems. She became friendly with Ms. Fries-Furton only after she graduated. Ms. Perez stated that she could not recall whether she discussed her father's death with Ms. Fries- Furton. She flatly denied seeking counsel with Mr. DeWitt about her father's death. She conceded that Ms. Fries-Furton became friends with her mother, but claimed not to know when this friendship began or to know much else about it. Ms. Perez' denial of her friendship with Ms. Fries- Furton cannot be credited. Ms. Perez' denial that she sought the counsel of Mr. DeWitt regarding her father's death cannot be credited. Post-Suspension Stalking Mr. DeWitt was suspended with pay on February 17, 1999, after the Sarasota police completed their investigation of events at Riverview. Their report indicated that they had been unable to locate the former student in Miami with whom Mr. DeWitt was alleged to have had a sexual relationship. The Sarasota County School Board hired a private investigator to look into the Miami allegations. The investigator found Joy Perez and obtained a statement from her confirming that she had had a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt while she was a student at Miami Sunset. The investigator filed a report on April 15, 1999. On April 16, 1999, Mr. DeWitt's employment was terminated. Mr. DeWitt offered extensive testimony on events that transpired after his suspension and termination. While these events have no bearing on the charges that were lodged against Mr. DeWitt, they are relevant in that they call into question the veracity and credibility of Kendra Simpkins, one of Mr. DeWitt's primary accusers. Mr. DeWitt testified that after the trespassing incident, Jennifer Bonelli ceased her practice of following him around town. However, Kendra Simpkins began engaging in what Mr. DeWitt termed "stalking" behavior at about the time she began to drive a car. Her stalking intensified at the time Mr. DeWitt was suspended on February 17, 1999. On February 18, 1999, the day after Mr. DeWitt's suspension, an incident occurred at Ashton Elementary School, where Karen DeWitt worked as the instructional technology facilitator. Mari Usher was a technology support person at the school and worked closely with Karen DeWitt. Ms. Usher testified that late that morning, a girl came into the hallway between her office and that of Karen DeWitt. The girl stated that she was looking for Mrs. DeWitt. Ms. Usher told the girl that Mrs. DeWitt was off campus, and asked what reason she had to see her and whether she could be of assistance. The girl became nervous and said there was nothing Ms. Usher could do for her. The girl then asked Ms. Usher to give a message to Mrs. DeWitt. She asked Ms. Usher to tell Mrs. DeWitt that she would be picking up her brother at the end of the day. Ms. Usher testified that this made her suspicious, because as technology facilitator Karen DeWitt did not have a regular class of students and would not ordinarily be in charge of dismissing students at the end of the day. Ms. Usher asked the girl the name of her brother. The girl responded that his name was Clayton and he was in the second grade. Ms. Usher told her she would give the message to Mrs. DeWitt. The girl then turned and walked out of the school. Ms. Usher followed her, because she was suspicious. After the girl was gone, Ms. Usher spoke to the receptionist. The girl had not signed in or been given a hall pass. Ms. Usher then went to the school registrar and asked whether there was a student named Clayton in the second grade. There was no such student. Ms. Usher testified that the school's principal had told her that morning to be careful of high school students or reporters asking for Karen DeWitt, because of the press coverage of David DeWitt's suspension. Ms. Usher went to an assistant principal and reported the incident. The assistant principal sent her to the school's SRO, who wrote up a report. Ms. Usher also reported the incident to Karen DeWitt, who appeared concerned. Ms. Usher testified that her children attend Riverview, and that when she went home she looked for the girl's picture in the Riverview yearbook. She testified that she found the girl's picture, and that the girl was Kendra Simpkins. Kendra Simpkins has a brother named Clayton, though he did not attend Ashton Elementary School. On February 27, 1999, David DeWitt and his son Ryan were driving to Sports Authority to buy Ryan a new baseball glove. As they turned from Clark Road onto Proctor, Mr. DeWitt saw Kendra Simpkins driving on Clark Road. She saw him, made a U-turn in the middle of Clark Road, then followed Mr. DeWitt's car to Sports Authority. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan went into the store, soon followed by Ms. Simpkins and another girl. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan looked at the baseball gloves. Ms. Simpkins also looked at baseball gloves while talking with her friend. They stood near Mr. DeWitt and his son. Mr. DeWitt made no eye contact and did his best to ignore Ms. Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan chose a glove, paid for it, and walked out of the store. Ms. Simpkins and her friend were standing outside next to Simpkins' car. They looked at Mr. DeWitt and his son, and laughed. Mr. DeWitt drove out of the lot, followed by Ms. Simpkins. Soon thereafter, Ms. Simpkins ceased following them. Later the same day, Karen DeWitt saw Ms. Simpkins at Twin Lakes Park during Ryan's little league game. Ms. Simpkins walked past Ryan's field several times. This was not an uncommon occurrence. David DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins often came to Ryan's games, which DeWitt coached. She would stand at the fence and stare at Mr. DeWitt. She would park her car near that of the DeWitts, and would sit in her car and stare at them as they left the park. The DeWitts' story was confirmed by Teresa Flannelly, whose son played little league baseball and soccer with Ryan DeWitt. She testified that on the first day of the 1999 season, her son's team was playing against Ryan's. Ms. Flannelly was sitting in the bleachers, and Mr. DeWitt was coaching first base. Mr. DeWitt motioned her over to the fence. When she came to the fence, Mr. DeWitt pointed out a girl standing at the fence opposite them, and told Ms. Flannelly that this was Kendra, the girl who had been following him and accusing him. Ms. Flannelly watched Ms. Simpkins for the rest of the game. Ms. Simpkins was alone, and stood by the fence and stared at Mr. DeWitt for the greater part of the game. Ms. Flannelly testified that she later looked at the Riverview yearbook and confirmed that the girl she saw at the field was Kendra Simpkins. She also reviewed the roster of her son's team and confirmed that Ms. Simpkins' brother, Clayton, was not on the team. The DeWitts testified that at about the time of David's suspension, Kendra Simpkins also began to appear at their church, Sarasota Baptist. David DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins' appearances at the church were sporadic. He stated that there were times when she appeared in the parking lot but did not go into the church. When she did go into the church, she always sat in a place that allowed her to observe the DeWitts. Karen DeWitt testified that she spoke to Ms. Simpkins at church in early March 1999, after they became aware that Ms. Simpkins seemed to be following them in and out of the church. Karen DeWitt testified that she stopped Ms. Simpkins by placing her hand lightly on Ms. Simpkins' arm, to let her know she wasn't there as a threat. Karen told Ms. Simpkins that she was David DeWitt's wife. Karen DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins' reaction was "kind of strange." Ms. Simpkins said, "Oh, my God, oh, my God, oh, my God. I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry." That was the extent of their conversation. Ms. Simpkins actions would vary from week to week, but followed the same general pattern. She would find a parking space next to the DeWitts' car. She would seat herself in the church so that she could watch the DeWitts. Both David DeWitt and his mother testified that the family changed its regular pew to try to avoid Ms. Simpkins, but she would move to their vicinity. Sometimes Ms. Simpkins would circle the parking lot in her car, waiting for the DeWitts to leave, then follow them home. Vicki McClenathen was a neighbor of the DeWitts. Her son played baseball with Ryan DeWitt, which led to a friendship between the boys. Ms. McClenathen's son attended a youth group at Sarasota Baptist Church with Ryan DeWitt. Ms. McClenathen visited the church one Sunday, and witnessed Kendra Simpkins following Mr. DeWitt and staring at him during the social period after the church service. She also witnessed Ms. Simpkins driving her car up and down the rows of the parking lot, apparently so that she could drive past the DeWitts as they walked to their car. She saw Ms. Simpkins drive out of the lot, then make a U-turn over a curb and come back just in time to follow the DeWitts' car as it pulled out of the lot. Mr. DeWitt and his son were fans of the University of Miami's football team, and Mr. DeWitt had a Miami Hurricanes license plate border on his car. On Sunday, November 7, 1999, Ryan noticed that the border was gone. Mr. DeWitt told Ryan that someone must have needed it and taken it. Ryan was not satisfied with this answer. He wanted to know why someone would come up to their car and take the license plate border, and wondered who would do such a thing. Mr. DeWitt testified that he tried to "make a positive" out of the situation, telling Ryan that at least there was now one more person driving around with a Miami Hurricanes border. He told Ryan they would go buy a new one. When they arrived at church that morning, Ms. Simpkins pulled in right behind them. When they got out of their car, Ryan looked over at Ms. Simpkins' car and said, "Dad, there's your Miami Hurricanes plate. How can your plate be on that car? Do you think that's the person who stole your plate?" Mr. DeWitt testified that he knew the border on Ms. Simpkins' car was his, because it was faded at the bottom. Mr. DeWitt tried to minimize the matter for Ryan's benefit, but discussed with his wife the fact that matters had now reached the point where Ms. Simpkins was stealing the license plate border from his car. There were various other instances of Ms. Simpkins following the DeWitts around town during 1999. Mr. DeWitt recalled a second incident at Sports Authority. He was there buying a baseball bat for Ryan, and Ms. Simpkins appeared. She asked him if he minded her going to his church. Mr. DeWitt answered that it wasn't "his" church, but that she needed to speak to his attorney before she had any conversation with him. Ms. Simpkins said that she hoped Mr. DeWitt could return to Riverview, because she needed a letter of recommendation for college. Mr. DeWitt thought her statement odd under the circumstances, but gave her his attorney's card and told her she would have to speak to the lawyer before having any conversations with him. Ms. Simpkins asked if she would have to tell the lawyer that she lied about Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt told her "that would be a start," but that he wasn't comfortable having this conversation with her at the moment. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins read the attorney's card, which included the word "counselor." Ms. Simpkins said, "Counselor? Why do you think I need a counselor? People think I need counseling. Everybody's telling me." Mr. DeWitt testified that he could not follow exactly what Ms. Simpkins was saying, and he walked out of the store. On one occasion, Ms. Simpkins followed Mr. DeWitt and his mother as they drove to pick up his daughter Megan from preschool at Concordia Lutheran Church. The DeWitts were driving down Clark Road to Proctor when Ms. Simpkins spotted them and made a U-turn. Mr. DeWitt testified that he was concerned because he didn't want Ms. Simpkins to know where his daughter went to school. He drove up and down various roads, leading Ms. Simpkins on a wild goose chase while trying to lose her. He pulled into a parking lot and waited for her to pass. She quickly picked him up again when he pulled out of the lot. Eventually, Mr. DeWitt managed to lose her long enough to pick up Megan, though Ms. Simpkins again found them as they headed home. She followed them all the way home. On August 3, 1999, Ms. Simpkins followed David and Karen DeWitt home as they left a school board meeting. On August 28, 1999, Karen DeWitt drove to Publix in her husband's car. David DeWitt was out of town that day, and encouraged Karen to use his car because it is newer and he feels it is safer. Karen was in the deli section of Publix, and saw Kendra Simpkins come rushing around the corner. As Ms. Simpkins rounded the corner, she stopped and looked at Karen DeWitt, who called it a "bone chilling" kind of stare. Ms. Simpkins then turned on her heel and ran out of the store. As noted above, Vicki McClenathen's son played baseball with Ryan DeWitt. In Spring 1999, Ms. McClenathen would sit with Karen DeWitt at the baseball games. The boys were becoming best friends, spending time at each other's houses, and Karen DeWitt felt she needed to make Ms. McClenathen aware of the situation involving Kendra Simpkins. Karen gave Ms. McClenathen a physical description of Ms. Simpkins, gave her the license plate number of Ms. Simpkins' white Honda, and told her the car had a "Mercedes" plate on the front. The DeWitts asked Ms. McClenathen to feed Marilyn DeWitt's dogs twice a day for a week while the family went to their house in North Carolina. Marilyn DeWitt had retired from her teaching job in Miami and now lived in a house on David DeWitt's property in Sarasota. The DeWitts gave Ms. McClenathen a list of phone numbers where they could be reached, including their North Carolina number. Ms. McClenathen placed the list of numbers on a table in Marilyn DeWitt's garage, and put a can of insect repellant on top of it to keep it in place. One day, Ms. McClenathen came to feed the dogs and noticed that the can of insect repellant was on the ground and the list of phone numbers was gone. She told the DeWitts about it when they returned. The DeWitts told her that on the day she found the phone numbers missing, they began receiving hang-up phone calls in North Carolina. On September 16, 1999, Ms. McClenathen saw a car fitting the description given to her by Karen DeWitt as she drove out of the Saddle Creek subdivision. The white Honda was parked off the side of the road just past the DeWitts' house. Ms. McClenathen checked the license plate on the car. The number matched that given to her by Karen DeWitt. She drove past the car, and could see in her rear-view mirror that there was a Mercedes tag on the front of the car. Ms. McClenathen called the DeWitt house on her cell phone and spoke to David DeWitt, who told her that Ryan was playing outside and he needed to go check on him. David asked her to come back, so she drove back to the DeWitts' house and pulled into the driveway. The DeWitts walked out to meet her. The white Honda was parked just past the southeast corner of the DeWitts' property. No one was in the car. Ms. McClenathen stayed at the DeWitts' house for about 30 minutes. At length, she saw a young girl, teenaged, with medium length brown hair, in the bushes in the corner of the property near the Honda. The girl's head came up from the bushes, and she looked around. Ms. McClenathen pointed her out to the others. David DeWitt testified that they watched her for about ten minutes, but she waited them out. They all went into the house, and the girl drove away. Ms. McClenathen later consulted the Riverview yearbook and confirmed that the girl she saw was Kendra Simpkins. David DeWitt testified that on September 20, 1999, he was playing catch with Ryan in the front yard and saw Kendra Simpkins' car parked at the front gate of his property. She looked at them, then sped away. David DeWitt testified that on September 22, 1999, he was leaving his house at about noon. He stated that he and Karen were now in the habit of looking around the yard for Kendra Simpkins when they went outside. He did not see her in any of her "usual places." Then as he drove out of his driveway, he saw Ms. Simpkins' car backed into a culvert across the street from his house, apparently stuck in the mud. He circled back around to make sure it was her. He confirmed that it was Ms. Simpkins' car, but did not see her near the car. He turned around and drove back into his driveway, and saw Ms. Simpkins hiding in the bushes on the front of his property. Mr. DeWitt called Ms. McClenathen and asked her to drive by and take a photo of the car stuck in the ditch. She did so. When she drove by, she saw Kendra Simpkins sitting in the driver's seat of the car. On October 23, 1999, Ryan DeWitt was playing in the yard with a friend. Ryan and the friend came running into the house, upset, and told David DeWitt that somebody was watching them in the yard. Karen and David DeWitt both ran outside, in different directions. Karen could see Kendra Simpkins hiding behind the trees just off their property. Later, Karen tried to calm Ryan by telling him that it was probably just someone riding down the horse trail. Ryan said, no, she was hiding behind the tree watching them. The above findings are illustrative, not an exhaustive listing of the stalking activities of Kendra Simpkins during 1999. There were numerous instances of hang-up phone calls, of her following David and Ryan DeWitt to Twin Lakes Park and back home again, of her following the DeWitts to church and Bible studies, of her following Marilyn DeWitt when she drove David's car, of a general pattern of what can only be termed an obsessive stalking of David DeWitt and his family. The DeWitts warned their circle of friends, their co- workers, their church, and their children's caretakers about Kendra Simpkins. They made inquiries of the authorities, but did not seek a protective order, injunction, or other legal protection to end Kendra Simpkins' stalking. However, it must be noted that Ms. Simpkins had already signed a trespass warning on April 29, 1998, at the conclusion of the investigation into the egging incident. Ms. Simpkins admitted that she had "stalked" Mr. DeWitt along with Ms. Bonelli during the period leading up to the trespassing incident in 1998, but denied the allegations that she continued to trail Mr. DeWitt and his family around Sarasota up to and including the time of this hearing. Ms. Simpkins denied ever going to Ashton Elementary School. Ms. Simpkins testified that she has attended Sarasota Baptist Church since March or April 1999, but said she began going there because her grandparents attend the church. She testified that she didn't know Mr. DeWitt attended the church when she began going there. She stated that she was surprised to see him there, and tried to avoid him. She denied choosing her seat based on the DeWitts' location, denied waiting for them in the parking lot, and denied following them in her car after church. Ms. Simpkins denied going to Mr. DeWitt's house or trespassing on his property after she signed the trespass warning. She testified that she has a friend in the Saddle Creek subdivision whose house she goes to "all the time." This friend lives a "couple of houses down" from Mr. DeWitt, on the other side of the street. Ms. Simpkins admitted driving a white Honda. She stated that she got the car in Summer 1998, on her 16th birthday. Ms. Simpkins denied ever parking her car on Mr. DeWitt's property or in front of his property. She admitted having her car in a ditch near Mr. DeWitt's property, but stated that this was the result of attempting to teach a friend to drive with a stick shift. The friend ran the car into the ditch. Ms. Simpkins testified that her younger brother plays baseball at Twin Lakes Park, and she goes there often to watch him play. She stated that Mr. DeWitt saw her at the games, but never asked her to leave or even talked to her. Ms. Simpkins admitted seeing Mr. DeWitt twice at the Sports Authority. She stated that the first time, she was there with her friend and their younger brothers. They were buying a hat for her friend's brother. Ms. Simpkins stated that she saw Mr. DeWitt there with a "little kid" she assumed was his son. She stated that she did not try to talk to Mr. DeWitt or otherwise bother him. She denied having followed Mr. DeWitt to the store. Ms. Simpkins stated that the second meeting at Sports Authority occurred in June 1999. She was alone, buying workout clothes. She did not approach him, but when he walked by and said hello, she started talking to him. They talked about church, and she asked him if he minded that she was going there. Mr. DeWitt said that he didn't. Ms. Simpkins asked him about his situation with the School Board, and Mr. DeWitt told her that he was not upset with her. They talked about his termination. Mr. DeWitt never became angry, never asked her to leave him alone, never accused her of stalking him. Mr. DeWitt asked her why she "told them everything," and told her that she could have lied. Ms. Simpkins answered that she could not have lied. The DeWitts' version of the stalking incidents, supported by independent witnesses, is credited. Ultimate Facts Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Jennifer Bonelli. Counsel for both parties correctly observed that the essence of this case is "he said/she said." The primary consideration is the credibility of Mr. DeWitt and of his accusers. An important secondary consideration is the corroborating evidence, which includes the credibility of the testimony offered by other witnesses. Mr. DeWitt took some actions that were questionable. He confronted Ms. Spielman without involving SRO Foster or Det. Price. He remained involved in the investigation well after he should have recused himself. However, these actions are as consistent with outraged innocence as with a scheme to conceal the facts. Aside from his freelance effort with Ms. Spielman, Mr. DeWitt consistently involved SRO Foster and/or Det. Price in his investigative activities. Each time a new rumor circulated or other event occurred, Mr. DeWitt's first act was to call SRO Foster and involve him. At the appropriate times, SRO Foster would call in Det. Price. These actions are inconsistent with an effort by either Mr. DeWitt or SRO Foster to cover up Mr. DeWitt's activities. Mr. DeWitt's actions were in the main consistent with his professions of innocence. If he had engaged in sexual improprieties with Jennifer Bonelli and wished to keep them concealed, it seems the last thing he would do is involve the police in the relatively minor matters of his being followed around town or the egging of his house, and thus provide Ms. Bonelli with an official platform to air her accusations. Petitioner suggests that Mr. DeWitt called in the police to provide himself with leverage against Ms. Bonelli by way of the threat of prosecution, thus ensuring that she would remain quiet. No evidence supported this suggestion. At the time the investigation of the egging commenced, Ms. Bonelli had given no indication to Mr. DeWitt that she had any intention of coming forward. Even if he were guilty, Mr. DeWitt had no motive to precipitate a crisis that might cause Ms. Bonelli to break her silence. Even prior to the egging, Mr. DeWitt had discussed the suspected trespassing and stalking with both SRO Foster and Mr. Flynn. He named names to both men. It makes no sense that Mr. DeWitt would go out of his way to link himself with these students in the minds of his boss and a police deputy if he were engaged in illicit activities with them. Not only the three main accusers, but Melissa McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt was at least coy about his marriage, if he did not outright deny being married. On the other hand, Katy Seib testified that Mr. DeWitt told her he was married. Jennifer Rizi knew he was married. Mr. DeWitt testified that he maintained a strict separation between his business and private life, and would not discuss family matters with students. Even if he said such things to these girls, Mr. DeWitt plainly could not have intended actually to convince anyone that he was unmarried. The actual facts could be ascertained by asking any adult and many students at the school. Mr. DeWitt was seen all over town with his family. They shopped together. He coached his son's baseball and soccer teams with his wife in attendance. The family attended church together. No one who was genuinely curious could possibly remain ignorant of Mr. DeWitt's marital status, even if he denied it. Mr. DeWitt's testimony that he never told anyone that he was not married must be credited. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it cannot be found that Mr. DeWitt engaged in the sexual activities alleged by Ms. Bonelli, including the "dirty talk." This failure of proof rests largely on the fact that Ms. Bonelli was not a credible witness. Ms. Bonelli freely admitted lying to the detectives, teachers, and school officials on the several occasions when she denied a relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Petitioner contended that these lies were motivated by fear of reprisal from Mr. DeWitt. Even crediting this rationale for Ms. Bonelli's lies to the authorities, the fact remains that Ms. Bonelli was also less than truthful in her testimony at the hearing. She testified that she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt while she worked with him in the guidance office. Two other witnesses testified that she actually became romantically interested in Mr. DeWitt the previous year, before she had ever met him. Blair Johnson testified that during the summer before she began work in the guidance office, Ms. Bonelli was already jealously referring to Mr. DeWitt's wife as a "bitch" and a "slut." Ms. Bonelli testified that when she was working in the guidance office, she was unsure of Mr. DeWitt's marital status. In fact, she not only knew he was married, she knew the names of his wife and children, the ages of the children and where they went to school. As early as the summer before she started working in the guidance office, she was sending e-mails to Blair Johnson stating that "we need to get rid of Karen." Ms. Bonelli denied going to Sarasota Middle School to "stalk" Mr. DeWitt. Kendra Simpkins testified that she accompanied Ms. Bonelli there for that purpose on at least one occasion. Ms. Bonelli denied following Mr. DeWitt in her car. Kendra Simpkins, Christine Ross, and Blair Johnson all testified that they were with her when she did so. Ms. Bonelli denied sending e-mails to Blair Johnson or Linda Brooks purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt, though the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that she was the culprit. It is also noted that sending an e-mail to Ms. Brooks required Ms. Bonelli to sneak into Mr. DeWitt's office and copy the e-mail address from his daily planner. Ms. Bonelli's description of Twin Lakes Park as dark and semi-deserted was contradicted by the testimony of several witnesses, who described a well-lighted and very busy park. Though she testified that she did nothing more than "talk dirty" to Mr. DeWitt while he masturbated, Ms. Bonelli at various times told people that she had given him a "hand job," that she had performed oral sex on him, and that she had engaged in full sexual intercourse with him. She told Jennifer Rizi that she had done nothing at all with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli denied spreading rumors of her sexual activities with Mr. DeWitt. Blair Johnson testified that she would brag about her alleged exploits to virtually anyone who would listen. Dominique McAnn testified that the 40 or so people in her circle of friends at Riverview were well aware of Ms. Bonelli's alleged exploits. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt raised the issue of "cybersex" with her in an office discussion. Dominique McAnn credibly testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she believed she had actually engaged in "cybersex" with Mr. DeWitt, using AOL. Ms. Bonelli testified that she was merely the driver for the egging incident, and that she did not even know what Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross were doing after she dropped them off at Mr. DeWitt's house. This was patently untrue. While there was conflict as to which girl had the idea to egg Mr. DeWitt's house, there was no question that Ms. Bonelli was present when the eggs were purchased and well knew why they were going to Mr. DeWitt's house that evening. Ms. Bonelli testified that she had no idea how Mr. DeWitt learned of her conversations with Ms. Spielman. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Bonelli herself told Mr. DeWitt. Some of Ms. Bonelli's untruths regarded inconsequential matters; others went to the heart of her alleged relationship with Mr. DeWitt; all demonstrated that Ms. Bonelli's accusations against Mr. DeWitt cannot be accepted, without corroboration, in light of Mr. DeWitt's steadfast denial of each and every particular. Several witnesses testified that they heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt, or that Ms. Bonelli herself told them some version of the story she related at the hearing. However, the only witness who attempted to corroborate Ms. Bonelli's story with eyewitness testimony was her friend Christine Ross. As noted above, Ms. Ross was not a credible witness. Her testimony changed significantly between her deposition and the hearing, and changed in ways that conveniently eliminated discrepancies between her story and that of Ms. Bonelli. Details that were wrong in Ms. Bonelli's testimony, such as the type of car driven by Mr. DeWitt, were wrong in the same way in Ms. Ross' testimony. Another factor undercutting Ms. Bonelli's credibility is that she was unwilling to stand behind her story until she was cornered by Principal Flynn and threatened with expulsion. Petitioner argues that up to that point, Ms. Bonelli's chief concern was to avoid being responsible for Mr. DeWitt's termination, and that she was willing to lie to protect him. Under the facts of the case, it is more plausible to state that Ms. Bonelli found herself in a situation in which she had no choice but to assert the truth of her story, regardless of whether or not it actually happened. Finally, the key witness against Ms. Bonelli was Blair Johnson, one of her best friends at Riverview. Mr. Johnson was entirely credible, and testified that Ms. Bonelli admitted to him more than once that her story about a relationship with Mr. DeWitt was an invention. In summary, Mr. DeWitt was a much more credible witness than was Ms. Bonelli, and the corroborating evidence also tended to support Mr. DeWitt's denial of the sexual relationship with Ms. Bonelli, including the alleged "dirty talk." Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Mr. DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Ms. Bonelli, except insofar as his manner may have served to encourage Ms. Bonelli in her pursuit of him. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Kendra Simpkins. When Ms. Simpkins began working in the guidance area, she drew the attention of Ms. Bonelli, who initially spread offensive rumors about Ms. Simpkins, then drew Ms. Simpkins into her own obsessive orbit. Once Ms. Simpkins admitted that she, too, had a crush on Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Bonelli regaled her with stories of her adventures with Mr. DeWitt, including kissing and masturbating him. Ms. Simpkins apparently felt the need to match Ms. Bonelli's stories, because she told Ms. Bonelli that she, too, had "talked dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. At the hearing, Ms. Simpkins denied "talking dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. Blair Johnson's testimony provided the most accurate assessment of the Bonelli/Simpkins relationship: they were engaged in a contest, attempting to one-up each other with their stories of intimate encounters with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins credibly testified that she believed Ms. Bonelli's stories. The first allegation by Ms. Simpkins was that Mr. DeWitt grabbed her crotch in his office. Even Ms. Simpkins admitted this may have been an accident. The tenor of her testimony left the impression that she hoped it was not an accident. Mr. DeWitt denied that the incident occurred at all. Mr. DeWitt's testimony is credited. It must be noted that Ms. Simpkins' story of the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, is similar in its particulars to Ms. Bonelli's story, involving "dirty talk" and Mr. DeWitt's masturbating in a car at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Simpkins story includes the additional elements of some kissing and fondling during the second episode. It is noted that Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she had kissed and masturbated Mr. DeWitt, indicating that the similarities were virtually complete in Ms. Simpkins' mind. Petitioner argues that this similarity demonstrates a pattern in Mr. DeWitt's predatory behavior. It would be at least as plausible to find that the similarity demonstrates Ms. Simpkins' susceptibility to Ms. Bonelli's stories and her desire to match or exceed Ms. Bonelli's alleged experiences with Mr. DeWitt. Based on the evidence presented, and the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, it is no less plausible that Ms. Simpkins invented her story than that it actually happened. Ms. Simpkins' story regarding her sexual encounters with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park ultimately founders on the dates she chose. The DeWitts convincingly recreated the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, and showed that Mr. DeWitt's whereabouts during the critical times were accounted for and did not include Twin Lakes Park. Petitioner argues that Karen DeWitt's alibi testimony should be discarded on the basis of bias and a lack of independent corroboration. Potential bias is an element to consider for nearly every fact witness in this proceeding, and Karen DeWitt's relationship with David DeWitt must obviously be taken into account. Nonetheless, Karen DeWitt was a credible witness. Petitioner offered no particular instances of untruthful or even inconsistent testimony by Karen DeWitt. The undersigned declines Petitioner's invitation to presume she is lying because she is married to Mr. DeWitt. As to the lack of "independent corroboration," it is assumed that Petitioner refers to the fact that the DeWitts were able to produce only a single receipt from their December 22, 1998 shopping trip, and the sign-in sheet from Concordia Lutheran and the canceled check from Papa Johns to support their version of events on January 4, 1999. To the contrary, it is found that these items were sufficient to support the generally consistent and credible testimony of the DeWitts. Innocent people going about their daily business do not take great care to document their every move. Innocent people are generally unable to recall every minute of a randomly selected day nearly a year ago. The DeWitts remembered what they could and produced what they could find, several months after the fact, and what they found was consistent with their recollection of those dates. Kendra Simpkins, on the other hand, was plainly untruthful when she denied stalking the DeWitt family in 1999. David DeWitt, Karen DeWitt, Marilyn DeWitt, and Vicki McClenathen all offered credible and consistent testimony regarding Ms. Simpkins' activities. Petitioner argues that even if Ms. Simpkins is disbelieved on this point, her stalking activities have no bearing on her allegations against Mr. DeWitt. As noted above, the undersigned agrees that her stalking activities are not relevant to the allegations. However, her lying about her stalking activities is relevant to her overall credibility and veracity. Ms. Simpkins also lied to Mr. DeWitt twice about her participation in the egging of his house. After she admitted her involvement, she lied about the extent of that involvement. The evidence, including Ms. Simpkins' own testimony and demeanor, established that she was extremely susceptible to the manipulations of Ms. Bonelli. She joined Ms. Bonelli in the rifling of Mr. DeWitt's desk for photos of other students. She participated in the egging of Mr. DeWitt's house at a time when she had no grievance against Mr. DeWitt, simply because Ms. Bonelli suggested it. Her stories about events between her and Mr. DeWitt closely track those of Ms. Bonelli. She, too, claimed that she had a "cybersex" conversation with Mr. DeWitt. Her story that Mr. DeWitt hinted that "something’s going to happen" was similar to Ms. Bonelli’s story about Mr. DeWitt’s hinting about a "problem." Ms. Simpkins, too, claimed she went to Twin Lakes Park, and in that busy, bustling public place committed sex acts with Mr. DeWitt in a car. Petitioner’s theory that these stories confirm Mr. DeWitt’s guilt because they indicate a pattern in his predatory behavior would be more persuasive if Petitioner’s chief witnesses were at all credible. The only witnesses to the alleged sexual episodes were Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins. It is too much to ask that Mr. DeWitt be found guilty based on the word of two witnesses who were untruthful about so many other facts, important facts as well as trivial, in their testimony and in their dealings outside the courtroom. There is no choice but to find it equally as likely that these stories are fantasies invented by two girls with competing obsessions for the same man, as that they actually happened. The burden of persuasion rests on Petitioner, and it could not carry that burden with these highly dubious witnesses. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Joy Perez. Ms. Perez’ allegations present the most plausible case against Mr. DeWitt, because they are straightforward. Ms. Perez’ story does not include the obsessive elements that rendered Ms. Bonelli’s and Ms. Simpkins’ stories questionable even aside from their many outright falsehoods. Ms. Perez’ story is simple: she met Mr. DeWitt; they liked each other; they began to date; dating progressed to sex; and she ended the relationship because he lied to her about his marriage. Further, unlike Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins, Ms. Perez had no obvious motive to lie about her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. She was not wildly jealous of another girl, or threatened with expulsion from school. Ms. Perez kept her silence for more than eight years, and had to be sought out to tell her story. Even on the witness stand, Ms. Perez appeared somewhat reluctant to go into the details of her alleged relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Perez was vague on the origin of her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. He flattered her, she liked it, and they began going out after school. She recalled going to a Pizza Hut more than once, and a lunch at the Sizzler, and a dinner at Tony Roma's. Mr. DeWitt denied taking Ms. Perez out for meals. His testimony and that of his wife cast doubt on whether Mr. DeWitt would have taken Ms. Perez to eat at Pizza Hut or the Sizzler, because the former was frequented by students from Miami Sunset, and the latter was virtually next door to the DeWitts' home. The DeWitts also agreed that David had lunch with Karen virtually every day during the period in question. However, the DeWitts did not definitively rule out the possibility that he could have sneaked away for late lunches with Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez recalled that she had sex with Mr. DeWitt during the school day at various hotels, but she could not recall their names. This could be a genuine failure of memory, but the vagueness of her recollection also had the convenient benefit of depriving Mr. DeWitt of any opportunity to prove he was never at a particular hotel during the relevant period. Ms. Perez testified that she had sex with Mr. DeWitt at his mother's house, but was unable to draw a convincing diagram of the interior of the house. Her view of the general layout of the rooms was credible as the recollection of someone who was in a house once several years ago. However, the particular details she recalled, such as the photo of Mr. DeWitt, the mantel, and the furniture in the bedroom, were all wrong. There were disturbing discrepancies in Ms. Perez' testimony. She attempted to leave the impression that she hardly knew Deborah Fries-Furton, who credibly testified that they were so close that Ms. Perez' mother called her Joy's "second mother." Ms. Perez denied having discussions with Mr. DeWitt about her father's death. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did counsel her in dealing with the tragedy. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Ms. Perez' mother expressed her gratitude for Mr. DeWitt's counseling and helping her daughter through her problems. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy Perez herself stated that she found it helpful to discuss matters with a man. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt "might" be married. Then, under cross-examination, she admitted that Mr. Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt definitely was married. Mr. Chiles recalled telling Ms. Perez that Mr. DeWitt was married, and was puzzled that she would say anything else. Ms. Perez testified that she never saw Karen or Marilyn DeWitt at a basketball game, or even knew that Karen DeWitt was David DeWitt's wife. The weight of the evidence established that Ms. Perez would almost certainly have seen these women at the games, and would have known that Karen DeWitt was David DeWitt's wife. Ms. Perez denied ever seeing Karen or Ryan DeWitt at the pottery class taught by Marilyn DeWitt. It is possible, but very unlikely, that Ms. Perez happened to miss Karen DeWitt's every visit to the class. The key discrepancy involves Ms. Perez' mother. Ms. Perez testified that her mother knew she was dating Mr. DeWitt and approved of it. She testified that Mr. DeWitt had discussions with her mother about the relationship. In contrast, Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Perez' mother told him that Joy was fond of and attracted to him, and that he made sure her mother knew those feelings were not reciprocated. Ms. Fries-Furton was a close friend of Ms. Perez' mother, and testified that she praised Mr. DeWitt's helping her daughter and never gave any hint that there was a romantic relationship. Ms. Perez' mother could have resolved these discrepancies by testifying. She did not testify. No reason was provided for Petitioner's failure to elicit direct testimony from this important corroborating witness. The weight of the evidence, including Ms. Perez' testimony and the odd reticence in her demeanor, failed to establish that the alleged affair occurred. Mr. DeWitt was unable to prove the physical impossibility of Ms. Perez' allegations in the manner he was able to do with Ms. Simpkins' Twin Lakes Park allegations, because Ms. Perez' allegations were too vaporous to admit of precise refutation. No testifying witness had a clue that an affair was going on. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she heard some joking rumors among students that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez had a "thing" for each other. Ms. Fries-Furton took this joking no more seriously than she did the rumors about herself and Mr. DeWitt, or herself and Mr. Chiles. This was part and parcel of the atmosphere in a high school locker room. The allegations of Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins had some support from other witnesses. Ms. Perez stood alone, and thus Petitioner's case rested entirely on the credibility of the accuser, as against the accused and a panoply of supportive witnesses. Ms. Perez' testimony, in essence, was that a sexual relationship occurred, some time, some place. At every point that she offered specifics, those specifics were credibly if not conclusively rebutted. Petitioner failed to carry its burden of proof as to the allegations of Joy Perez. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior and comments with other students or a teacher at Riverview High School. Petitioner presented the testimony of Katy Seib, Melissa McBride, and Lori Gully in an effort to demonstrate a pattern in Mr. DeWitt's behavior toward females at Riverview. Petitioner did so apparently because of the lurid statements attributed to these women in the investigative report of Det. Iorio and Det. Bang. As found above, this report was wholly unreliable. Ms. Seib testified that Mr. DeWitt never behaved unprofessionally toward her. Ms. Gully testified as to vague feelings she had about Mr. DeWitt, but conceded that his behavior with her was always professional. Ms. McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt hugged her in a way that made her uncomfortable, but that there was nothing sexual about it. She, too, had a "feeling" about Mr. DeWitt's intentions, but no concrete allegations. All of Mr. DeWitt's statements and actions could have been nothing more than friendliness and concern. Aside from the three accusers, and a statement attributed to Bethany Donato by the less than credible Det. Iorio, no witness testified that Mr. DeWitt actually propositioned her. Katy Seib and Jennifer Rizi described Mr. DeWitt as a person they could confide in and to whom they went with a variety of personal problems. The weight of the evidence showed that Mr. DeWitt was a good counselor to Ms. Perez during a time of distress. A consistent thread in the testimony, from witnesses testifying for and against Mr. DeWitt, was that he was an atypical administrator, approachable and concerned, willing to sit down with students and counsel them on their problems whether or not he was formally assigned to do so. Even Ms. Gully noted his extraordinary activity with students and his focus on their achievements. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his actions masked any ulterior motive.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and reinstating Respondent as an assistant principal with the Sarasota County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Bowman, George, Scheb, Toale & Robinson 22 South Tuttle Avenue, Suite 3 Sarasota, Florida 34237 James E. Aker, Esquire Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A. 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 4195 Sarasota, Florida 34237 David Bennett, Superintendent School Board of Sarasota County 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in humanities at the College's Clearwater campus. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1996. He began as an adjunct professor and has been a full-time instructor since 1998. Respondent works under a continuing contract of employment, which is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent had never been subject to disciplinary proceedings during his employment with the College. At Respondent's July 2004 annual evaluation meeting, Provost Stan Vittetoe and Program Director Anne Cooper expressed concerns about Respondent's failure to keep office hours and the fact that he did not show up for a class he was scheduled to teach. Respondent attributed these problems to his ongoing divorce proceedings. Dr. Vittetoe lectured Respondent on the importance of not allowing "life issues" to affect his work, but did not otherwise discipline Respondent. In the fall semester of 2003, Respondent taught three humanities courses: Humanities I, Humanities II, and East/West Synthesis. Humanities I and II consist of a chronological study of Western civilization. East/West Synthesis focuses on non- Western cultures, such as those of India, China, Japan, Africa, and the Middle East. Pamela Socorro has been a student at the College since 2002. She enrolled in Respondent's East/West Synthesis class in August 2003. The class was scheduled to meet twice a week, on Monday and Wednesday evenings, for the length of the fall semester. Each class period lasted one hour and 45 minutes. Respondent also played keyboards for a local jazz and rhythm and blues band called Bus Stop. Respondent was not a regular member of the band, but sat in for the band when its regular keyboardist was unavailable. Bus Stop played at nightclubs and bars in the Tampa Bay area. In his humanities classes, Respondent would announce the dates of his engagements with Bus Stop and invite the students to come out and hear the band. In response to one such general invitation in late October 2003, Ms. Socorro and a group of friends went to a bar called the Rare Olive in Ybor City to see Respondent perform with Bus Stop. The Rare Olive did not admit persons under 21 years of age. Ms. Socorro was 19 years old at the time, and her friends were also under 21. Respondent intervened with management, asking if Ms. Socorro could come into the bar provided she did not drink alcoholic beverages. Ms. Socorro was allowed to come into the bar, though at least one of her friends, Rian Salmun, was not admitted. During a break from playing, Respondent spoke with Ms. Socorro for five-to-ten minutes. This was their first one- to-one conversation. During this conversation, Respondent asked Ms. Socorro her age. She told Respondent that she was 19 years old, and he told her that he was 33 years old. In November 2003, Ms. Socorro and Respondent had a conversation on the College campus during which Respondent mentioned that Bus Stop would be playing at the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg on November 21, 2003. Because Respondent was sitting in with the band on short notice, he did not have an opportunity to announce this performance to his humanities classes. On November 21, 2003, Ms. Socorro went to the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg with her mother, her aunt, and a group of friends. Ms. Socorro used a friend's identification card to obtain admittance to the bar. Respondent joined Ms. Socorro and her party during a break. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro if she wanted a drink, and she told him that she liked "fruity drinks" and shots. Respondent walked to the bar and came back with two shots. They downed the shots together.2 After about an hour at the Rare Olive, Ms. Socorro's mother wanted to leave. Respondent did not want Ms. Socorro to leave and asked what she would be doing later, after she took her mother home. Respondent gave Ms. Socorro his cellular telephone number, and she said she would call him later. She entered the number into her mother's cellular telephone directory. Ms. Socorro and her group left the bar. Once outside, Ms. Socorro realized that she had neglected to save Respondent's phone number into her mother's cell phone directory. Maria Albornoz, one of Ms. Socorro's friends, went back into the bar and obtained Respondent's cell phone number again for Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro did not call Respondent later on the night of November 21, 2003. She did call him on the afternoon of November 22, 2003, and left a message on his cellular telephone. Respondent returned the call that evening. From this point forward, Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of that evening's events differ in several particulars. According to Ms. Socorro, Respondent asked her if she would like to attend the Fall Dance Concert at the College with him that evening. Respondent testified that he had mentioned the concert in class that week, and asked Ms. Socorro whether she was planning to attend, but did not ask her to go with him. Ms. Socorro testified that they arranged on the telephone to meet outside the theater, met as planned, went in together, and sat together in the back row of the theater. Respondent testified that they happened to arrive at the same time and that they sat together in the back of the theater because the recital had already started when they entered. Ms. Socorro testified that, after the recital, she and Respondent arranged to meet at the Marble Slab, a local ice cream shop. Respondent testified that he mentioned that he was going for ice cream but that he did not ask Ms. Socorro to join him. Before proceeding to the ice cream shop, Respondent spoke to several performers of his acquaintance, while Ms. Socorro went across the street from the College to the residence of her friend, Mr. Salmun, and spoke with him for a few minutes. At the hearing, Mr. Salmun testified that Ms. Socorro told him she was meeting Respondent for ice cream at the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro recalled walking past Respondent's car in the Marble Slab's parking lot and seeing two child car seats in the back. At the time, she was unaware that Respondent was involved in divorce proceedings or that he was the father of twin three-year-old daughters. Respondent was already seated at a table in the Marble Slab when Ms. Socorro entered. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Socorro ordered ice cream. They sat at the table and talked about their families, their astrological signs, Pilates and dance teachers they had in common, yoga, and Latin dance. They eventually felt self- conscious about sitting at the table in the ice cream shop without making a purchase, and they continued their conversation outside the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she was a good student and was doing very well in his class. He asked Ms. Socorro not to "announce" that she had seen him play at the Rare Olive or had gone with him to the dance recital, "because he could get in trouble." He told her that he should not see her again while she was in his class, but he did not tell her that he was forbidden to see her. Respondent urged Ms. Socorro to complete her class assignments and exams as quickly as possible, the implication being that they could begin dating once she had completed the class and received a final grade. Despite his cautionary statements, Respondent also discussed going out to a Latin club with Ms. Socorro so that she could help him with his dance technique. Respondent testified that he was surprised to see Ms. Socorro arrive at the Marble Slab, especially given that she did not order ice cream. He stated that this was the first clear signal that Ms. Socorro might have a romantic interest in him. Respondent recalled that Ms. Socorro asked him to go out with her to a dance club, but that he told her that was "out of bounds." However, he also told Ms. Socorro that he was interested in pursuing a relationship once she was out of his class. To the extent that Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of events on November 22, 2003, differ, Ms. Socorro's version is credited. Even in his own version of events, Respondent agreed that he returned Ms. Socorro's telephone call. He denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the dance recital. However, Respondent admitted telling Ms. Socorro that he was going to the recital and asking Ms. Socorro if she was going. Similarly, Respondent denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the Marble Slab, but there could be little other reason for him to tell her that he was going there. Finally, Respondent admits that he made it clear to Ms. Socorro that he was very much interested in pursuing a relationship with her, as soon as the formality of having her as a student in his class could be dispensed with. On the evening of November 29, 2003, Ms. Socorro attended a performance of the play "Miss Saigon" at Ruth Eckerd Hall in Clearwater. When she came home after the play, she learned that Respondent had telephoned her. She returned the call the next day, while shopping in Orlando with her mother. Ms. Socorro talked to Respondent about "Miss Saigon," because the play was related to the East/West Synthesis course Respondent was teaching. They discussed the Thanksgiving break, then made plans to see the movie "Gothika" that evening at the AMC Woodlands 20 theater complex in Oldsmar. Respondent and Ms. Socorro attended a late showing of "Gothika," then sat and talked in the theater's parking lot until approximately 5:30 a.m. Respondent testified that this was his first "real talk" with Ms. Socorro and that they began to get to know each other at this time. They also shared their first kiss, described by both principals as a "French kiss." Ms. Socorro was scheduled to report to her job as a nanny at 5:45 a.m. on December 1, 2003. She went straight to work from the movie theater parking lot, but arrived late to her job. Because she was unable to change clothes before work, she ended up reporting to Respondent's class that evening wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date the night before. When she arrived at class, Ms. Socorro noted that Respondent was also wearing the same clothes he had worn the previous evening. While Respondent agreed that he went with Ms. Socorro to see the movie "Gothika," and accepted her version of what happened that night after the movie, Respondent contended that this date occurred on December 9, 2003, the day after he gave out the final grades for Ms. Socorro's East/West Synthesis class. Respondent contended that he did not speak with or see Ms. Socorro on November 30, 2003. He denied any recollection of seeing Ms. Socorro in his class wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date. Ms. Socorro testified that she did go to the movies again with Respondent on December 10, 2003, but that they saw "The Last Samurai." Respondent denied ever having seen "The Last Samurai." Ms. Socorro's version of the chronology of these events is more credible and is accepted. Ms. Socorro's recollection of the events of November 30, 2003, was precise in its detail, belying Respondent's contention that she was somehow confused or mistaken as to when they saw "Gothika" together. On December 8, 2003, Ms. Socorro took her last exam in Respondent's class. The exam was a multiple choice "fill in the bubble" test that Respondent machine graded that evening while the students waited. Respondent was able to tell Ms. Socorro that she had made an "A" in his class before she left his classroom on December 8th. However, Respondent did not officially post the grades for his class until December 16, 2003. The semester officially ended on December 19, 2003. Prior to the end of the fall semester, Ms. Socorro told Respondent that her friends Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun knew that she and Respondent were dating. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she should tell Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun not to speak to anyone about their relationship. Ms. Socorro and Mr. Salmun were best friends. They saw or spoke to each other every day, and they prepared their schedules for spring semester together before the end of fall semester. Mr. Salmun told Ms. Socorro that he intended to take a class from Respondent, because he needed one more humanities course and Respondent's class fit into his schedule. Ms. Socorro explained to Mr. Salmun that she had discussed this matter with Respondent, who had told her that they could not socialize with any friends of Ms. Socorro's who were taking classes from Respondent. Mr. Salmun nonetheless signed up for the class, though he dropped it for a humanities class taught by another instructor prior to the close of the fall semester. Ms. Socorro told another friend, Teona Gogoladze, that she should not enroll in Respondent's class for the spring semester, due to Respondent's concerns about his relationship with Ms. Socorro becoming widely known. Ms. Gogoladze registered for Respondent's class anyway, because it fit her schedule better than any other humanities class, and she had done well in a previous class taught by Respondent. Ms. Gogoladze told Ms. Socorro that it would not be "the end of the world" if she had to avoid seeing Ms. Socorro with Respondent for one semester. As it happened, Respondent and Ms. Socorro did socialize with Ms. Gogoladze once during the spring semester, attending a party at her house for the airing of the last episode of the television show "Friends." During the Christmas break between fall and spring semesters, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went out to clubs at least twice. On December 19, 2003, they went with a group of College students to an "end of semester" party at Terra, a Latin club in Ybor City. The next weekend, they went to 10 Beach Drive, a piano bar in St. Petersburg. The couple spoke on the telephone on Christmas Day, exchanged Christmas gifts, and spent New Year's Eve together. Respondent introduced Ms. Socorro to his sister and his father. Respondent and Ms. Socorro continued to see each other during the spring semester of 2004. Ms. Socorro had registered for classes, but withdrew from the College for the semester in order to visit her sick father in Venezuela. Ms. Socorro testified that, although Respondent did not press her to withdraw from the College, their relationship improved when she was not in school because Respondent felt less stress about students seeing him on his dates with Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent "constantly" bought her alcoholic beverages during their relationship, though he knew she had not reached the legal drinking age. Ms. Socorro went to the bars at which Respondent was playing with Bus Stop. Respondent would "hang out" with Ms. Socorro during breaks and buy her drinks. At a bar called J.B.'s in Sarasota, Respondent used his credit card to open a tab for a group of people, including Ms. Socorro. At the end of the evening, Respondent was startled at the amount of the bill. Everyone in the group except Ms. Socorro reimbursed Respondent for their drinks. Ms. Socorro did not register for classes at the College for the 2004 summer semester. She cited her relationship with Respondent as her main reason for staying out of school: I knew that when I went back to school, I knew it was going to be a little difficult, because when we would go out to anywhere around town, restaurants, Gary knew everyone. His students were everywhere. He felt uncomfortable. He always asked if the person knew me. So, I knew it was going to be difficult. * * * At that point, by the summer, we were a couple and we had been together for months. I knew it was going to be stressful again and I was working at-- I believe I was beginning to work at a bank and the bank, if I was there long enough, was going to pay for school. And I decided that, putting all these things together, that I would not go in the summer, either. Respondent taught classes during the 2004 summer semester. Margaret Gunn was a student enrolled in one of his classes. Once while Ms. Gunn was in his office, Respondent asked her to come out to a bar to hear his band play. Ms. Gunn declined the offer. Respondent asked her again in September 2004, and Ms. Gunn again declined. Ms. Gunn testified that Respondent's requests made her somewhat uncomfortable, but that she nonetheless maintained a cordial relationship with him. During the annual fall semester orientation in 2004, College president Dr. Carl Kuttler spoke about sexual harassment during a faculty and staff meeting attended by Respondent. Dr. Kuttler stressed that relationships between instructors and students were not allowed if the instructor could in any way affect the student's grade, academic progress, or academic environment. Ms. Socorro described Respondent's reaction to Dr. Kuttler's presentation: He was upset and that was the first time I heard the name "Dr. Kuttler." I remember him saying that they had emphasized the subject of teacher and student relationships. And it was kind of like, "you see, I told you" kind of thing. He said that now he needed to be very, very careful. He was actually concerned, because me and Rian [Salmun] were having problems in our friendship and he was concerned that now Rian was going to be upset and he might say something to people out of spite. He was just-- he was scared. He was paranoid. He told me about a teacher that was fired. And he said, you know, they don't even know if he did it, they just think he did it and he was fired or he left or something happened and he was just scared. Ms. Socorro, who was planning to return to the College in fall 2004, offered to take her classes at a different campus, or at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, to assuage Respondent's fears. Despite the offer, she eventually registered to take classes at the College's Clearwater campus. Ms. Socorro also asked Respondent why their being seen together remained a concern, given that she was no longer his student. Ms. Socorro stated, "And he kept saying that it just looked bad, it just looked bad that I was his student at the school, because people would wonder how we met. It would be too much of a coincidence that we met, where we met or how." Respondent and Ms. Socorro agreed to give a false story to anyone curious about how they met. Ms. Socorro testified: He would ask me, please, just tell people that you met me at the bar or we would come up with kind of like a script of what I was going to say to [Respondent's] friends. It was usually I met Gary while he was playing out [with the band]. That's what I told everybody. * * * I was protecting him from anyone at all finding out. I don't know if-- I don't know. I don't know if he felt bad himself about it and he just didn't want people to know. He said people don’t-- he would say people don't know our relationship, they don't know us, they don't know how we are, and it doesn't look good that you're so young, it doesn't look good that I was your teacher and people perceive things differently, so let's not let them do that. Throughout their relationship, Respondent stressed to Ms. Socorro that she should not befriend students enrolled in his classes. Respondent testified that he did so not out of fear for his job but because he wanted to keep his professional and personal life as separate as possible. More credibly, Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that he was "risking everything" to continue his relationship with Ms. Socorro. During the 2004 fall semester, Ms. Socorro met and befriended Ms. Gunn, who had taken a class from Respondent during the summer semester and was taking a second class from Respondent in the fall. When they discussed their classes and teachers, Ms. Socorro pretended she did not know Respondent. Respondent became concerned that Ms. Socorro was seeing too much of Ms. Gunn, because he was afraid Ms. Gunn might "put things together." Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to stay away from Ms. Gunn. Ms. Gunn testified that it took only a few weeks for her to determine that Respondent was the "boyfriend" that Ms. Socorro described in their conversations. Respondent told Ms. Socorro that she should just go to her classes, sit through the lectures, then get in her car and leave the campus. Respondent demanded that Ms. Socorro decide between her relationship with him and the life of a "typical student," because he was "risking too much" to have Ms. Socorro jeopardize it by "hanging out" at school. Ms. Socorro testified that "things got really bad" between Respondent and her during the 2004 fall semester, due to their conflicts concerning Ms. Gunn and the pressure of hiding their relationship. They had "a lot of fights," some so bad that they would decide to "take breaks from each other" for as long as one week. Ms. Socorro recalled three such "breaks" before their final breakup in late November and early December 2004. On November 30, 2004, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went to the AMC Woodlands 20 movie complex to see a movie, but never made it past the parking lot because an argument commenced. Ms. Gunn had told Ms. Socorro that Respondent had quizzed her regarding her whereabouts on certain evenings, with the idea of ascertaining whether Ms. Socorro had lied to him when she promised to stop seeing Ms. Gunn. Ms. Socorro confronted Respondent about his questioning of Ms. Gunn. Respondent called her a "compulsive liar" and said that he was "torn" about their relationship and needed time to decide what to do. Ms. Socorro described this fight as "sad" and "horrible." Respondent testified that, despite her promise not to see Ms. Gunn during the fall semester, Ms. Socorro had surreptitiously gone over to Ms. Gunn's house on at least one occasion of which he was aware. He agreed that the confrontation over Ms. Gunn occurred on November 30, though he placed it at a Ruby Tuesday's restaurant.3 Respondent assured Ms. Socorro that they would talk things over the next day, but testified that he also made it clear to her that the romantic relationship was over. On December 1, 2004, Ms. Socorro repeatedly phoned Respondent, who did not answer her calls.4 She sent several e- mail messages to which Respondent did not respond. Respondent was staying at his father's house because relatives were visiting from out of town. That evening, Ms. Socorro went to Respondent's father's house. Respondent did not want a confrontation with Ms. Socorro because his children were with him. He promised to speak with her the next day. On the morning of December 2, 2004, Ms. Socorro drove over to Respondent's house. She had concluded that her relationship with Respondent was over, and she wanted to retrieve some possessions that she kept at his house. Respondent was not at home, but Ms. Socorro knew that the lock was broken on Respondent's sliding glass back door, and she let herself in the house.5 While looking for some of her jewelry on Respondent's bedroom dresser, Ms. Socorro found a letter from and photographs of one of Respondent's former girlfriends, a former College student named Marianna Csongova. She read the letter, and concluded that Respondent was having a relationship with Ms. Csongova at the same time he was dating Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro recalled having seen an e-mail exchange between Respondent and Ms. Csongova earlier in 2004. Respondent had explained away this e-mail, but Ms. Socorro now wondered if there were more e-mails between Respondent and Ms. Csongova. She went into Respondent's computer room and checked his e- mails. She found "tons and tons" of e-mails from Ms. Csongova, and responses from Respondent.6 Ms. Socorro continued searching Respondent's e-mail and found correspondence between Respondent and several other female students at the College. She printed "tons" of the e- mails. Respondent's printer ran out of paper before all of the e-mails printed. Ms. Socorro began forwarding the e-mails to her own e-mail account, but then got worried that Respondent would come home and catch her. She turned off Respondent's computer and left the house, taking a half-inch thick stack of printed e-mails with her. Respondent had spent the night at his father's house. He woke up on the morning of December 2, 2004, and drove to his own house to shower and dress for work. He noticed that the sliding glass door had been opened. He went to check his e-mail and noticed that the printer was out of paper. Respondent surmised that Ms. Socorro had been in his house and on his computer. As he had promised Ms. Socorro the previous evening, Respondent phoned Ms. Socorro and arranged for her to come over to his house early in the afternoon to discuss their relationship. Ms. Socorro had a doctor's appointment that afternoon to which Respondent had planned to accompany her. During their phone conversation, Respondent told Ms. Socorro that he would not accompany her to the appointment because he was driving to Orlando to see his brother, who was down from Atlanta on business. Ms. Socorro arrived at Respondent's house at approximately 12:30 p.m. She went in and they sat down to talk. They talked for nearly an hour about Ms. Gunn and the other issues between them. They did not discuss Ms. Socorro's having gone into Respondent's house that morning and printing his e- mails. Ms. Socorro testified that they both "pretended" not to know what she had done. At about 1:15 p.m., Respondent reminded Ms. Socorro of her doctor's appointment at 1:30 p.m. Respondent was also anxious to begin his trip to Orlando. Ms. Socorro again asked Respondent to accompany her to her doctor's appointment, but Respondent again declined. Ms. Socorro told Respondent that she still wanted things to work out. Respondent said that he did not think it would work, but agreed to talk with her again. Respondent walked Ms. Socorro out of his house and to her car. Respondent was the first to reach Ms. Socorro's car. He looked inside. Ms. Socorro then recalled that she had placed the stack of e-mails on the back seat of her car and that they were plainly visible from outside. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to unlock the car so that he could retrieve a CD that he claimed to have left in her car. Ms. Socorro used her keyless entry device to open the front door. Before Ms. Socorro could get in the car, Respondent reached in and opened the back door. He grabbed the stack of e- mails. Ms. Socorro threw herself onto Respondent's back, and they struggled over the e-mails on the back seat of the car. The papers were falling to the ground outside the car.7 Ms. Socorro pressed the "panic" button on her keyless entry device, setting off the car's alarm system. Respondent took the keys from her, stopped the alarm, and threw the keys outside the car. They continued to struggle inside the car, until Respondent managed to get out of the car. Neighbors were beginning to notice the struggle. Respondent told Ms. Socorro to calm down, that they both needed to act normal. They stopped fighting and picked up the e-mails. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to go back into the house and talk about matters.8 They walked to the front door. Respondent opened the door, slipped part way into the house, then tossed his stack of e-mails into the house, with the apparent attempt to deny entry to Ms. Socorro. She ran inside the house before Respondent could close the door. They began yelling at each other again. Respondent demanded to know what Ms. Socorro intended to do with the e- mails and threatened to kill her if she tried to "do anything to destroy everything I've worked for all of my life." Respondent tried to force Ms. Socorro out of the house. He pushed her against the wall near the front door and hurt her arm. As Ms. Socorro held on to the jamb of the open front door, Respondent hit her in the chest with his head and shoulder, shoving her off the front porch and into a bush below.9 Respondent took advantage of Ms. Socorro's fall to lock his front door from the outside. Ms. Socorro became hysterical. She began to laugh, unnerving Respondent, who tried to calm her down. As Ms. Socorro quieted, they discussed the e- mails. Respondent explained that he stayed in touch with Ms. Csongova because he needed to keep his options open. She asked him about the e-mails to the other girls. Respondent replied that the College would not care if he "flirted" with a couple of his students. Ms. Socorro asked Respondent why he went to such lengths to keep their relationship a secret, if the College didn't care. According to Ms. Socorro, the exchange proceeded as follows: He said, why do you want to do this? You're going to hurt my kids. . . . He said, you have to understand that I'm 34 years old. I'm not a child like you. You have your whole life ahead of you and I need to find a role model. I need to find a good woman for my kids to marry. And I knew that you and I were rocky and I had to do this and I was leading more than one life, more than one relationship and if I had to do it, I did it for my kids, that they need a mother. He said, I can't be alone when I'm 44. I remember telling him that he was sick. I said that you're just sick. That's sick. He said, do you want me to tell you the truth. He said, from the moment you told me that you had an eating disorder, I knew that you and I weren't going to work. And I kept yelling at him, if it was that long ago, why didn't you stop the relationship, because you have known that forever. He said, I thought you would change, but you never did. Ms. Socorro got into her car and started to drive away. Believing that Ms. Socorro was in no condition to drive, Respondent tried to talk her into waiting while he called her mother or some other person to come over and help her. Ms. Socorro declined any assistance from Respondent. She told him that she was hurt and needed to get to the hospital. She drove away. From her car, Ms. Socorro phoned her doctor's office, because she had missed her appointment. The doctor's receptionist was so alarmed that she stayed on the phone with Ms. Socorro until she reached her mother's office. Ms. Socorro's mother, Patricia Mills, drove Ms. Socorro to the emergency room of Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, where she was treated for scrapes, an injured wrist, and a slightly cracked rib. Due to the injured rib, Ms. Socorro had to take time off from her job as a waitress at Applebee's. She also wore a splint on her wrist for a time. The emergency room staff at Morton Plant Hospital notified the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which dispatched deputies to interview Ms. Socorro while she was still at the hospital. The Sheriff's deputies also interviewed Respondent. No arrests were made and no charges were filed in the matter. The Sheriff's Office reported the incident to the College. Ms. Mills phoned the College's security office to inform the College of the altercation between Respondent and Ms. Socorro. The security office passed the complaint to Clearwater campus Provost Dr. Stan Vittetoe. The College's standard procedure is to lock the computer of any instructor who is the subject of a complaint. Dr. Vittetoe locked Respondent's computer. On December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent to inform him that Ms. Socorro had lodged a complaint against him and to provide Respondent with an opportunity to give his side of the story. Respondent told them that during the physical confrontation with Ms. Socorro, he was merely trying to protect himself. He showed them a scratch on his cheek and stated that he had been trying to retrieve some papers that belonged to him. Respondent admitted that he had been involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro. This initial meeting with Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper lasted only about 15 minutes, because Respondent had a class to teach. Also on December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe met with Ms. Socorro and her mother. Ms. Socorro told Dr. Vittetoe that she began dating Respondent during the fall semester of 2003, when she was a student in his class. She told Dr. Vittetoe that she and Respondent often discussed the need to hide their relationship, because of its impropriety. She told Dr. Vittetoe that Respondent often bought alcoholic drinks for her when they went out to bars. Ms. Socorro admitted that she had printed e- mails from Respondent's computer and that it was Respondent's seeing those e-mails that triggered their physical altercation. Dr. Vittetoe requested a formal written statement detailing the facts of her relationship with Respondent. Ms. Socorro furnished a written statement to the College on December 8, 2004. On December 7, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent again. At the outset of the meeting, Dr. Vittetoe made clear the gravity of the situation, letting Respondent know that his job was in jeopardy. Dr. Vittetoe questioned Respondent about his involvement with female College students other than Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted that he had been involved with Ms. Csongova. Dr. Cooper, as Respondent's immediate supervisor, expressed concern at what appeared to be a pattern of romantic involvement with students.10 Dr. Cooper noted that Respondent was not following college procedures and appeared to view the female student population as potential candidates for relationships. Dr. Cooper recounted the meeting as follows: I raised questions with him in regards to his ability to maintain his professional boundaries and expressed great concern over the fact that he didn't seem to recognize that, in his position as an instructor, he had a position of authority and power and could easily use that to influence students' decisions. I remember that he said that, well, they weren't students in my class at the time that he had become involved with them. My concern was that if you say to a young, impressionable individual, well, I don't date students if they're in my class, well, then what you're saying is, well, just get out of my class and then we can have a relationship. And I tried to express that concern over the fact that he was not maintaining his professional boundaries. And then he shared that, well, he didn't want students to dislike him and, you know, he didn't know how to respond when a student came on to him. Dr. Cooper attempted to explain that the student/teacher relationship should not be a matter of "liking" or "disliking," but a matter of respect based on the teacher's knowledge of his subject matter and ability to foster the student's quest for knowledge in the teacher's field of expertise. Dr. Cooper was extremely concerned that Respondent seemed unable to understand or respect basic professional boundaries established between students and teachers. Dr. Cooper was also concerned that Respondent issued invitations to students to come watch his band play in bars that served alcoholic beverages, when most of those students were underage. She did not agree with Respondent's contention that a band playing in an Ybor City bar constituted a "cultural event." She suggested that, if Respondent wanted to share his music with his classes, then he should have the band come to the class and play. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to defend his relationship with Ms. Socorro, first by denying that it commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, then by pointing out how careful he had been to instruct Ms. Socorro not to discuss their relationship with other students and not to make friends with students on the Clearwater campus. At the conclusion of this meeting, both Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper concluded that Respondent had breached College rules and could not be trusted with the safety of College students. Dr. Vittetoe gave Respondent the option of resigning before completion of the investigation and a possible recommendation for termination. Respondent declined the offer of resignation. On December 14, 2004, Ms. Socorro met with associate provost Maria Edmonds. Because she was also an Hispanic female, Ms. Edmonds believed that Ms. Socorro might be more comfortable discussing the issues with her than she had been with Dr. Vittetoe. After the meeting, Ms. Edmonds drafted a memorandum summarizing her conversation with Ms. Socorro, the substance of which was consistent with the findings of fact above. Ms. Socorro executed a sworn affidavit attesting to the accuracy of Ms. Edmonds' memorandum, which was forwarded to Dr. Vittetoe. Dr. Vittetoe investigated Respondent's relationships with Socorro and other female College students. Associate Provost Jeff Davis interviewed students at the Clearwater campus to determine their knowledge of Respondent's relationships with various female College students. The investigation disclosed that Respondent had been involved with College students other than Ms. Socorro and Ms. Csongova. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Harmony Holt, who had been a student in his class during the 1999 fall semester. However, Respondent's romantic relationship with Ms. Holt did not commence until 2002, after she had graduated. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Kimberly Kimball. Ms. Kimball was in Respondent's class twice, first in the 2004 spring semester, then in the 2004 summer session. The summer session ended in July 2004, then Respondent dated her for a short time in September 2004, during one of his periodic breakups with Ms. Socorro. Respondent testified that he stopped dating Ms. Kimball because he was not over Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted to a "friendly, casual" dating relationship with his former student Kelly McGill in 2003. Respondent testified that, although there was a mutual attraction, no sexual relationship occurred with Ms. McGill. On December 13, 2004, Respondent submitted to Dr. Vittetoe his written statement concerning his relationship with Ms. Socorro. This document is a remarkable mixture of rationalization, self-pitying emotional immaturity, and self- centered moral obtuseness.11 Respondent commences with an irrelevant narrative of his divorce proceedings. He next describes his first contacts with Ms. Socorro. Respondent states that there was a "decision to meet and get to know each other on a more personal level." Though he "can't remember exactly how or when it happened," he is absolutely certain that it occurred after the conclusion of the 2003 fall semester. Respondent notes that he stopped dating other women after he had sexual intercourse with Ms. Socorro, on "about the 5th date." Respondent writes that he was concerned about the age difference, but that such differences are the norm in Ms. Socorro's Latin American culture. Respondent states, "Ultimately I was able to handle it because she seemed mature for her age." Respondent devotes a long passage to a discussion of Ms. Socorro's bulimia, notable for its emphasis on the impact her disease was having on its real victim, Respondent: "She could tell the bulimia was putting a strain on me to know what she was doing to herself everyday and that it was hurting me." Respondent writes that he accompanied Ms. Socorro to a therapist whose name he could not recall. This therapist, whom Ms. Socorro never saw again, apparently introduced the concept of "borderline personality disorder" to Respondent. The therapist also commended Respondent on how well he was dealing with Ms. Socorro. Respondent now realized that the borderline personality disorder was responsible for Ms. Socorro's "pathological lying," the fact that she could not hold a job, and the fact that she spent all her money on "binge foods and/or shopping." Respondent described the impetus for the final breakup as follows: The relationship problems came to a head this past month when she continued to socialize in the student population instead of with friends outside the school which was a boundary we set in the relationship and it made it uncomfortable for us to go out. I was too worried someone would see the two of us together. Eventually she met someone in a class that was in one of my classes and I asked her not to pursue the friendship until after the class was over so that there would be no possible problems. She continued to pursue a close relationship with the woman and lied about it on at least a couple of occasions. I wanted to look beyond it and even began to question why I asked her to do it and felt guilty that I might be negatively affecting her college experience and knew it needed to end quickly. Once again I was being manipulated and didn't realize it. I also was having difficulty because although this would only be an issue until she graduated in May of '05, I still felt it was something she knew was important to me but she didn't see it and just ignored it and lied to me about it. I couldn't see being in a relationship where a set boundary was ignored. Respondent concludes by alleging that Ms. Socorro "is retaliating against me for ending our eleven month long relationship and this retaliation is a form of sexual harassment." From the beginning to the end of the relationship, Respondent claims he was victimized, manipulated, and finally smeared by Ms. Socorro. Respondent claimed his only failing was being too nice for his own good. On December 16, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe issued a memorandum to Dr. Kuttler, the College president, stating as follows, in relevant part: The evidence, which we have received to date, causes us to have great and immediate concerns for our female students' safety and freedom from sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships. We have evidence that he has been assisting under age students with unlawful drinking, which is a serious violation of the law. With the evidence presented thus far, I have no choice but to recommend his suspension, effective immediately. Because of the above matters, I further recommend he not be allowed to come on campus or have any contact or conversations with students. Any retaliation by Mr. Rodriguez should be a separate cause for disciplinary action. I further recommend his dismissal be presented to the Board of Trustees. On December 17, 2004, Dr. Kuttler issued a memorandum adopting Dr. Vittetoe's recommendations. Respondent was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Dr. Kuttler anticipated that he would petition the College's Board of Trustees for the suspension without pay and dismissal of Respondent at the Board's next meeting, on January 18, 2005. Dr. Kuttler filed the Petition for Dismissal on January 12, 2005. By Order dated January 18, 2005, the Board of Trustees voted to suspend Respondent without pay and to forward the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, should Respondent request a hearing. Through counsel, Respondent filed an Answer on January 20, 2005, asserting his right to a hearing. As noted above, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 24, 2005. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did aid and abet at least one student under the age of 21, Ms. Socorro, in the unlawful drinking of alcoholic beverages. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did improperly use his position and abuse his power to encourage and induce female students to come to a nightclub in an attempt to establish a personal relationship, by giving female students inappropriate attention, which Respondent knew could lead to romantic and/or sexual relationships. The evidence established that Respondent would make blanket invitations to his entire class, male and female. However, Respondent would also select individual females, such as Ms. Socorro and Ms. Gunn, for personal invitations. The evidence established that Respondent knew, or should have known, that he was using his position as an instructor to manipulate impressionable young female students into attending his performances, whereby he hoped to impress them sufficiently to make them susceptible to his romantic overtures. As Dr. Cooper said to Respondent at one of their meetings, "[I]t seems like what's more important is for you to organize a set of groupies to follow your band," than to maintain the proper professional relationship with students. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did cause a female student, Ms. Socorro, with whom he had a romantic and sexual relationship, to stop her academic progress by inducing her not to continue her schooling at this College, adversely affecting the student's academic progress for Respondent's sole benefit. The evidence did not establish that Respondent made a direct demand that Ms. Socorro quit school. By her own testimony, Ms. Socorro did not attend classes during the 2004 spring semester because she wanted to visit her father in Venezuela. However, she also testified that her relationship with Respondent was much improved when she was not in school, because Respondent felt less pressure about students seeing him on dates with her. Ms. Socorro also testified that her relationship with Respondent was her main reason for not enrolling during the 2004 summer session. Respondent testified that he encouraged Ms. Socorro to complete her education, but only on his terms: that she stay on the campus only long enough to attend classes and that she socialize with none of her classmates. The unreasonable pressure placed on her by Respondent was unquestionably the cause of Ms. Socorro's decision not to attend classes for at least one semester during their relationship. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did have a sexual and/or romantic relationship with a female student, Ms. Socorro, during a time when the student was enrolled in Respondent's class or when Respondent was in a position to determine the student's grade or otherwise affect the student's academic progress or environment. The weight of the evidence leads to the finding that the romantic relationship between Ms. Socorro and Respondent commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, when Ms. Socorro was a student in Respondent's class. By the time the semester ended, Respondent and Ms. Socorro had attended a dance recital and a movie together. Their romantic relationship was well underway while Ms. Socorro was still a student in Respondent's class. Even if Respondent's testimony were fully credited, the couple went on their first "date" (not counting the dance recital and the Rare Olive meeting) on the night after Ms. Socorro took her final exam in his class. This fact, coupled with Respondent's admission that on November 22, 2003, the night of the dance recital, he told Ms. Socorro that he was very interested in pursuing a relationship with her, indicates that the romantic relationship between Respondent and Ms. Socorro did not blossom suddenly after she completed Respondent's class. Respondent's rationalization appears to be that it was perfectly acceptable for him to use his classes as a dating service, planning romantic relationships with his female students while they were in his class, so long as the actual dating did not begin until the semester ended. The College naturally and reasonably disagreed with Respondent's reading of the applicable rule, discussed in the conclusions of law below. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed an assault and battery upon Ms. Socorro. While their testimony about the events of December 2, 2004, differed in many particulars, both Ms. Socorro and Respondent agreed that she initiated the physical confrontation by jumping on Respondent's back as he attempted to get the e-mails out of the back seat of her car. It could be reasonably contended that matters then cooled off and that the second physical altercation at the front door of the house was initiated by Respondent and did constitute assault and battery. In any event, the facts of the situation were ambiguous enough that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office did not charge either party after completing its investigation. Though Respondent's conduct during the events of December 2, 2004, was an embarrassment to himself and the College, the specific allegation of assault and battery was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated that Respondent made untruthful or deceitful statements to College representatives during the investigation. At worst, Respondent appeared to suffer convenient lapses during which his memory became "fuzzy" or "foggy" when the thrust of his testimony varied from that of other witnesses. The evidence established that Respondent was deceitful to the various women in his life, but failed to establish that he said anything to College officials that he did not believe was true. The College's allegation that Respondent was married while some of the alleged misconduct occurred was technically proven but should have no bearing on the discipline imposed. Respondent had been separated from his wife for well over a year at the time he met Ms. Socorro and was in the process of finalizing his divorce and custody arrangements. For all the good reasons Respondent had to avoid a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro, remaining faithful to his wife was not one of them.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from any and all employment by the Board and/or the College and canceling his contract status retroactive to January 12, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has for twelve years been an instructional employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida. She currently holds a continuing contract as a classroom teacher, and is assigned to Perry Elementary School in Miramar, Florida. During the same time period, Harold McKahand, Respondent's husband, and Peggy Freeman were instructional employees of the Broward County School Board assigned to Perry Middle School, adjacent to Perry Elementary where Respondent taught. From as early as 1979, Respondent had suspected that her husband and Mrs. Freeman were having a love affair. These suspicions were a frequent topic of conversation between Respondent and her husband. In fact, Respondent had indicated to her husband her intention to seek a divorce. Notwithstanding Mr. McKahand's assurances that he did not want a divorce and would no longer see Mrs. Freeman, he continued to do so, and Mrs. Freeman on many occasions made telephone calls to the McKahand residence, which Respondent apparently considered harassing in nature. All of this culminated in a discussion between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman in August of 1981 in which Respondent requested that Mrs. Freeman cease making telephone calls to her home because they disturbed her and her two children. After this discussion between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman, there was little or no personal contact between them until the act which gave rise to this proceeding. On December 12, 1981, Respondent, her husband and two children attended a racquetball tournament. After the tournament, they returned to their home and Respondent busied herself with work around the home. Respondent's husband, unbeknownst to Respondent, took the family car and proceeded to Perry Middle School to obtain some work folders from his office. Upon arriving at Perry Middle School, Mr. McKahand discovered Mrs. Freeman conducting a Saturday afternoon basketball practice with the school's girls basketball team, which she served as coach. Mr. McKahand and Mrs. Freeman conversed briefly, and Mr. McKahand departed the school and returned home. Meanwhile, Respondent's oldest son had left the family home without performing certain chores which had been assigned to him by Respondent. Upon discovering her son's absence, Respondent took her bicycle and began to search the neighborhood for him. Her search carried her ultimately to the gymnasium at Perry Middle School. Respondent had no knowledge that her husband had gone to his office at Perry Middle School, nor did she know that Mrs. Freeman was conducting a basketball practice at the school. When Respondent arrived at the school, she walked into the gymnasium to see if her son was there. Upon entering the gym, she saw the basketball practice in session, and noticed Mrs. Freeman. When she did not see her son, Respondent started walking from the gym. A member of the girls basketball team advised Mrs. Freeman that Mrs. McKahand was at the door. Although there is some conflict in the testimony on this point, it appears that Mrs. McKahand did not beckon to Mrs. Freeman to follow her outside the gym, but that one of the team players told Mrs. Freeman of Respondent's presence, and indicated to Mrs. Freeman that Respondent wanted to talk to her. Upon being advised of this, Mrs. Freeman walked across the basketball court, picked up her purse from a table, and proceeded to the gym door through which Respondent had exited. By this time Respondent was outside the gym. Mrs. Freeman forcefully opened the gymnasium door behind which Respondent was standing, striking Respondent on the arm. As Mrs. Freeman exited the door, she and Respondent grabbed one another and a fight ensued. The girls basketball team members were at various positions inside the gymnasium at the time the scuffle between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman started. It is clear from the record, however, that each of the students were located behind Mrs. Freeman and, therefore, were not in the best of positions to observe the precise manner in which the conflict started. It is also equally clear that the physical confrontation between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman occurred quickly and spontaneously, and, as a result, the various eye-witness accounts contained in this record predictably contain varying and conflicting versions of the events leading up to and culminating in the scuffle between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman. During the course of their physical confrontation, Mrs. Freeman placed one of her hands on Respondent's throat and the other in Respondent's hair, and Respondent reciprocated, pushing Mrs. Freeman against the gymnasium wall. Several blows were exchanged between the two women. Although the gymnasium door had closed behind Mrs. Freeman, several of the basketball team members followed the two teachers out the door and attempted to separate them. After the fight began, there is no evidence that Respondent acted other than in defense of the actions of Mrs. Freeman. When the students were finally successful in separating the two combatants, Respondent began looking for her sunglasses, which had fallen off, and Mrs. Freeman retrieved her purse, which she had dropped during the altercation. Upon finding her purse, Mrs. Freeman called to several of the students to stand back, whereupon she removed a .22 calibre pistol from her purse, and fired at least two shots. Respondent, upon observing Mrs. Freeman to be armed, began to run from the school premises, retrieved her bicycle, and retreated to her home. Apparently unsatisfied with these results, Mrs. Freeman incredibly loaded several of the team members, including some of the students who testified in this proceeding, into her car, where she reloaded her weapon. Mrs. Freeman then proceeded to drive in a reckless manner, including running several stop signs, to Respondent's home. Upon arriving at Respondent's home, Mrs. Freeman pulled her car into the driveway, took her pistol, got out of her car, and again confronted the Respondent who was standing in her driveway with her two children. Respondent picked up a broom in her garage and got her two children to stand behind her in an attempt to shield them from Mrs. Freeman. Mr. McKahand, who was inside the home during this time, came outside, and ultimately was able to get Respondent inside their home. Mrs. Freeman then departed the McKahand residence, but shortly thereafter began making harassing telephone calls to the McKahand home. Later that afternoon, Mr. McKahand attempted to take Respondent to her part-time job in a local department store, but was prevented from doing so when Mrs. Freeman attempted to run the McKahand car off the street with her vehicle, and further fired upon the McKahands with her pistol. As previously indicated, Petitioner has charged Respondent with referring to Mrs. Freeman as a "bitch" during the course of their fight. Respondent denies making such a statement, and the only testimony in the record which would establish a finding that such a statement was made is contained in the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Freeman and Rachel Geathers, one of the student basketball players. Mrs. Freeman's testimony in this regard, which the Hearing Officer hereby finds unworthy of belief, was that Respondent referred to her as a "filthy bitch" as Mrs. Freeman exited the gymnasium door. Ms. Geathers' testimony was that Respondent referred to Mrs. Freeman as a "bitch" after the two combatants had exited the gym and enough time had passed to allow all of the basketball players to run through the door and outside the gym. Ms. Geathers' testimony in this regard is also rejected, in that several of the other students who were in a better position to observe and hear Respondent and Mrs. Freeman testified that they heard no such statement made. Accordingly, it is specifically concluded that the evidence in this case fails to establish Respondent's use of profanity in the presence of students as alleged in the Petition. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding to indicate the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Broward County School System has in any way been adversely affected by the above-described events. In fact, Respondent's principal and grade chairman both testified that Respondent is a good teacher, and they would welcome her back on the faculty of Perry Elementary School should she be absolved of the allegations involved in this proceeding. Even a cursory review of the record in this case will reveal sharp divergencies and conflicts in the testimony of several witnesses. In attempting to resolve these conflicts, the Hearing officer has observed the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, their interest, if any, in the outcome of this proceeding, together with any motive, bias or prejudice which might affect their credibility. Further, the Hearing Officer has also taken into account the conditions existing at the time of the incident observed by the witnesses in weighing the credibility to be attached to the various accounts contained in this record. In so doing, the Hearing Officer has concluded that Respondent did not go to the Perry Middle School gymnasium seeking a confrontation with Mrs. Freeman. Indeed, the record clearly establishes that Respondent did not know Mrs. Freeman was even at the gymnasium on the date in question. Further, it is concluded, despite some evidence to the contrary, that Respondent did not summon Mrs. Freeman to follow her outside the gymnasium, but that Mrs. Freeman was induced to do so as a result of a student telling her that someone was outside the gym to see her. Finally, the quality as opposed to the quantity of the evidence in this case does not support a factual conclusion that Respondent, in fact, initiated the physical confrontation with Mrs. Freeman. Because of her conduct at the time of the incident, and further because of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Mrs. Freeman's testimony at the final hearing in this cause, her testimony, in its entirety, is worthy of little credibility. Because of this, her testimony that Respondent initiated the fight has been found unworthy of belief. The testimony of Mrs. Freeman's students, several of whom testified that the first aggressive gesture they saw was made by Respondent, is tainted both by their admitted allegiance to their teacher, Mrs. Freeman, and by their physical positioning which would not admit a particularly clear view of the incident. Conversely, the factual version of this incident given by Respondent in her testimony was, in every particular, more plausible than that contained in the testimony of either the students or Mrs. Freeman. At the time of the above- described incident, almost three and one-half months had passed since Respondent had last spoken in person with Mrs. Freeman. The Respondent did not know that Mrs. Freeman was at the gymnasium when she arrived there looking for her son. As a result, there could not have been any premeditated design on the part of Respondent to assault Mrs. Freeman and, due to the passage of time since her last contact with Mrs. Freeman, there is no apparent motive of record to explain a spontaneous assault. As a result, the only way to resolve the conflict in the testimony concerning how this altercation originated is to weigh the credibility of the various participants. Making such a choice is perhaps the most difficult task a finder of fact must face in a proceeding such as this, but by applying the aforementioned factors, the Hearing Officer has determined that in the areas of conflict, the testimony of the Respondent is more credible than that of either Mrs. Freeman or her students.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Will H. McRaney has been employed by petitioner Bay County School Board at Rutherford High School since 1965. In the past, he has worked as a coach and as a classroom teacher at Rutherford. During the current school year, respondent was job entry coordinator; in this capacity, he had responsibilities in connection with the vocational counseling of Rutherford seniors. Darlene Ann Peeples is an eighteen year old senior at Rutherford High School. In her junior year, she had been a student in a class respondent taught. On January 17, 1977, when she arrived at her fourth period class, friends told her that respondent had come by looking for her and for another student, and wanted to see them in his office. Her friends also told her that the other student summoned by respondent had gone to lunch, so Ms. Peeples went to respondent's office by herself. When she arrived, respondent was seated behind a desk in his office, facing sideways. He invited her in, asked her to close the door behind her, and told her to take the empty seat beside him. Respondent's office at Rutherford High School was small and windowless, except for a window in the door which was covered over from the inside. There were only two chairs in the office on January 17, 1977. The chair to which respondent directed Ms. Peeples was very near his; when she sat down one of her knees touched respondent. She asked why she had been sent for, and respondent mentioned some job possibilities. Conversation turned to the school's Christmas ball, at which Ms. Peeples had been chosen Christmas ball queen. Respondent allowed as how her selection did not surprise him, because she had a nice personality and a nice body. In the course of discussing Ms. Peeples' plans for the future, respondent learned that her family was slated to move to England and offered to let Ms. Peeples live with him in his home, when her family left. Respondent took one of Ms. Peeples' hands in his, and remarked on its warmth. Then he cupped one hand round the back of her head, and drew her head down to the vicinity of her knees, doubling her over. When she succeeded in sitting up straight again, respondent kissed her full on the mouth. Immediately afterwards, he said he was sorry, and he repeated the apology when the interview concluded. Within a half hour of their occurrence, Ms. Peeples gave tearful accounts of these events to her boy friend, and to her fifth period teacher, Mrs. Gail Fischer. In 1975, respondent worked in petitioner's summer recreation program as a swimming instructor at the swimming pool at Mosley High School. Among the children he taught was Macy Ellis, who was born on October 7, 1965. There were from 10 to 25 children in Macy's swimming group. Some 40 other children in other groups and at least two other adults used the swimming pool at the same time respondent taught Macy's group. On July 2, 1975, respondent was supervising an underwater swimming drill. Macy and the other children in her group stood in the water along the edge of the swimming pool; they took turns doing "fish dives" and swimming through respondent's spread legs, while he stood in the middle of the pool in about five feet of water. When Macy went underwater, she noticed that respondent's swimming trunks, although fastened at the waist, were unzipped, and she saw respondent's penis. As she swam face down between respondent's legs, respondent placed his hands on her back to steady her. Otherwise, there was no physical contact between them. Respondent did not intend that any of the children see his genitalia, and it was only by accident that they happened to be visible to Macy Ellis. Statement Required By Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) The first paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been adopted, in substance. The second paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been rejected because the only witness whose testimony tended to establish the occurrence, Debbie Holt, was not worthy of belief, in the hearing officer's opinion. She was adamant about such details as the color of respondent's bathing suit, even though her testimony contradicted that of the other witnesses. She and Macy Ellis were playmates who confided in one another and, according to Macy Ellis, it was when Debbie learned what Macy had seen that Debbie made her accusations against respondent. Finally, testimony was adduced to the effect that Debbie Holt's reputation for truth and veracity is not good. The substance of the third paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been largely adopted, except that the proof failed to establish any intent on respondent's part, and except for the date, which is immaterial. The number of people in the pool area, the size of the pool, the fact that other children were lined up waiting their turns, the fact that Macy told her father that she saw respondent tuck his penis back in his swimming trunks, all persuaded the hearing officer that the incident was accidental.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is entitled to an athletic coaching certificate, as described in section 1012.55(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(4).
Findings Of Fact Early Life: 1960-1978 Petitioner was born on December 22, 1960. Petitioner is the youngest of five sons born to a Bahamian mother, who worked as a beautician, and a Jamaican father, who worked as a custodian. Petitioner's four older brothers have all earned college degrees. Petitioner's oldest brother served as an Army psychiatrist. Two other brothers also served in the military: one as a comptroller and the other as a Navy pilot. Petitioner's youngest brother is the executive director of a well-known hotel on Miami Beach. Petitioner grew up in the Liberty City section of Miami and graduated from Miami Beach Senior High School in 1978. Liberty City was a dangerous area in which to live with gunfire a familiar sound to residents. Two years after Petitioner graduated, Liberty City and other parts of Miami were torn by race riots. Unlike all of his siblings, Petitioner has never attended college. After high school, Petitioner worked as a washer and cook at a local hospital, but continued to pursue his real interest, which was performing as a disc jockey (DJ). Interning nights at a local radio station, Petitioner acquired enough experience to start a mobile DJ business in Liberty City and Miami Beach, where he worked on weekends. Criminal History: Essentially 1979-1986 Respondent's characterizations of Petitioner's criminal history as "extensive," in the Amended Notice of Reasons, or, worse, "storied," in his proposed recommended order at page 7, are unsupported by the record. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, only two criminal incidents are relevant, and they are misdemeanors that occurred over 25 years ago. The rest of Petitioner's criminal history consists entirely of arrests for which the charges were later dropped, except for a 1986 case in which the court withheld adjudication on a felony weapon charge to which Petitioner's plea is not in the record and a 2009 arrest for unpaid child support for which the purge amount was about $10,000. On August 28, 1979, Petitioner, then 18 years old, was arrested in Dade County for reckless display of a firearm and possession of over five grams of marijuana, both felonies. The marijuana charge--Petitioner's only arrest for drugs or alcohol--was dismissed, but Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and fined $25. This incident will be referred to as the "1979 Misdemeanor." In a letter dated May 7, 2009, to the Miami-Dade School Board Executive Director of Fingerprinting, Petitioner stated that he was in the backyard of his parents' home with one of his brothers and in possession of a bb gun. The small fine corroborates Petitioner's explanation. It is therefore found that a "bb gun" was the weapon in question, although Petitioner's letter misstated that all charges were dropped. On February 12, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for loitering and prowling and carrying a concealed weapon, the former a misdemeanor and the latter a felony. By operation of a deemed admission to Respondent's Requests for Admission, Petitioner, while a passenger in a vehicle, was found in possession of a semi-automatic weapon concealed in a ski mask. The misdemeanor charge was dismissed, but the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the felony charge and imposed a fine of an unspecified amount. The record does not disclose Petitioner's plea to this charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that, while he was DJing in a park without a permit, he had a concealed weapon without a permit, but misstated that both charges were dropped. On November 18, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for inciting rioting, a felony. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that he was DJing in a park and was arrested because the music was too loud. On October 4, 1986, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with grand larceny with a firearm, a felony. Based on a guilty plea, Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and sentenced to time served. This incident will be referred to as the "1986 Misdemeanor." In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was DJing a party in Tampa when a group of men started to beat a young woman in the parking lot. When security refused to intervene, Petitioner displayed a firearm to break up the crowd. Petitioner's letter misstates that the charge was dismissed. His explanation fails to account for the portion of the charge involving grand larceny, but makes sense when applied to the charge of which Petitioner was convicted. On December 13, 1987, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for two or three counts of aggravated assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon to commit a felony, all felonies. These charges were dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a large fight broke out at a skating rink, but surveillance video revealed that he had not been involved in the fight, nor had he possessed a weapon. On or about June 15, 1993, Petitioner was arrested in Cook County, Illinois, and charged with disorderly conduct. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was staying at the Ritz in Chicago. While shopping along the riverfront, a law enforcement officer asked him if he could afford to shop there. A confrontation ensued, and the officer arrested Petitioner, but the charge was later dropped. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon, a felony. The charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight had broken out at a house party, and the police arrested everyone in attendance. There is no record of a 1997 arrest for battery. There is an arrest in July or October 1996 for battery in Louisiana, but Petitioner pleaded not guilty, and the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner mentioned a 1997 case involving a nightclub fight with which he had not been involved. A week later, a complainant claimed that Petitioner had hit him, but the charge was dismissed. On July 5, 1999, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with battery, a misdemeanor, which may have been raised to aggravated battery, a felony, by the prosecutor. Either way, the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight broke out at a nightclub, but witnesses verified that Petitioner had not hit the complainant, who originally said that another person had hit him. On October 6, 2002, Petitioner was arrested in Dorchester County, South Carolina, and charged with aiding or procuring a person to expose private parts in a lewd and lascivious manner--namely, the insertion of a soda bottle by two strippers into the vagina of a member of the audience who climbed onstage during a performance, as well as several acts of unspecified obscenities by two male members of the audience with the aforesaid strippers. The charge was that these unlawful acts were in the presence of and with the encouragement of Petitioner. The South Carolina documentation is contradictory as to disposition. The most plausible rendering of the disposition comes from the general sessions docket, which reports that, on October 13, 2003, this charge was dismissed with leave to restore, if Petitioner violated an agreement not to appear in South Carolina for five years at a revenue-producing event. Another document completed by the court clerk states that Petitioner was sentenced to six months in the state Department of Corrections, based on a plea not otherwise described, but the sentence was suspended for five years, pursuant to the agreement identified above. A partial transcript of the October 13, 2003, court proceeding quotes the judge as saying that the state was nolle prossing two charges, and the court was sentencing Petitioner to six months on apparently a third offense, even though nothing in the other documents describes three charges, but the judge suspended the sentence for five years, subject to the above-identified agreement. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the burden of establishing what took place in South Carolina falls on Respondent. Nothing in the record supports the judge's reference to three charges, which renders the judge's description of events unreliable. The most that can be said of the South Carolina incident is that a lone charge was dropped, subject to reinstatement, if Petitioner made a revenue-producing appearance in South Carolina for five years. The evidence fails to establish any finding of guilt by the court, plea of guilty by Petitioner, or subsequent reinstatement of the charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that the club owner had performers on stage, but Petitioner had nothing to do with their performance. Petitioner testified that he had been paid merely to appear at the club and sign autographs. On February 17, 2009, Petitioner was arrested on a writ of bodily attachment in connection with a finding of contempt of court for failing to pay child support. The purge amount was $10,223.36. The disposition of this matter is unclear, although it is obvious that Petitioner was arrested for an unpaid child-support obligation and was released, presumably after paying the purge amount or such lower amount as the court deemed fit. Luke Records and 2 Live Crew: 1987-1992 After graduating from high school, Petitioner grew his DJ business to the point that, by 1987 or 1988, he had started Luke Records, Inc., a record company devoted to the production and sale of hip-hop music. Using funds provided by his brothers, Petitioner eventually employed over 40 persons in Miami and elsewhere around the United States. The growth of Luke Records was largely the result of its association with 2 Live Crew (2LC), a hip-hop group known for its sexually explicit songs. Not yet under contract with a record company, 2LC visited Petitioner in Miami, where the parties agreed to a recording contract. Petitioner appears to have quickly assumed substantial business and performance roles with 2LC and wrote some of the songs that the group performed. Serving as the frontman for 2LC, Petitioner was prominent in the group's performances, which, according to Petitioner, featured dance music informed by the twin themes of sex and comedy. Clearly, 2LC's songs were dance music that featured sex. Regardless of the role of comedy in 2LC's music, Petitioner himself acknowledges that its sexual themes rendered the music inappropriate for minors. The evidentiary record does not include the lyrics to 2LC's songs, but the more offensive titles include vulgar references to male and female genitalia and a reference to women as "hoes," meaning "whores, as well as at least one album cover featuring Petitioner surrounded by scantily clad women. Given the explicit sexual content of the titles and lyrics, Petitioner helped promote the use of parental advisory stickers to be applied to albums, tapes, and CDs, including those of 2LC, that contained lyrics inappropriate for minors and thus constituted a form of adult entertainment. On the other hand, two unimpeachable sources--the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--found serious elements in at least certain of the 2LC songs of this era. In a copyright infringement case that arose after Luke Records had sold over 250,000 copies of 2LC's adaptation of Roy Orbison's, "Oh, Pretty Woman," the Supreme Court held, in a case of first impression, that commercial parody could be protected under the fair-use exception to copyright law. Describing the song itself, the Supreme Court opinion states: While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies. It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 583 (1994). In Luke Records v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1022 (1992), Petitioner and others won a reversal of a district court declaratory judgment that the 2LC musical recording, "As Nasty As They Wanna Be," was obscene under state and federal law. In another case of first impression--this time applying the obscenity test in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), to a musical composition containing instrumental music and lyrics--the appellate court relied on the testimony of two newspaper music critics that the subject music possessed serious musical or artistic value. More interestingly, the court relied on the testimony of a Rhodes scholar who was soon to undertake employment as an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. This testimony, which focused on the lyrics, traced "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" to three oral traditions of African-American music: the "call and response," "doing the dozens," and "boasting." Noting that the lyrics of "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" reflected many aspects of poor, inner-city blacks, this witness added that some of the lyrics contained statements of political significance or used literary devices, such as alliteration, allusion, metaphor, rhyme, and personification. Assuming without deciding that the trial judge had correctly determined that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" met the first two prongs of the Miller test--i.e., the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest based on contemporary community standards and the work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law--the appellate court rejected the trial court's determination that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" fails the third prong of the Miller test--i.e., that it "lacks serious artistic, scientific, literary or political value." 960 F.2d at 138 (citing Miller, 413 U.S. at 24). After 2LC: 1992-2008 Petitioner and 2LC parted ways in 1992. Three years later, Petitioner and Luke Records, Inc. filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in the assignment of all masters and copyrights owned by Petitioner or Luke Records, Inc., to a company formed by a former in-house counsel of Luke Records. Thompkins v. Lil' Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1299-1301, and 1314n.22 (11th Cir. 2007). To some extent, perhaps due to the bankruptcy, Petitioner lost exclusive use of names associated with him, such as "Uncle Luke." As an asset of Petitioner, the Luther Campbell brand suffered a loss in value. The evidentiary record provides an incomplete picture of what Petitioner did during the ten years following his departure from 2LC. The arrests and Petitioner's explanations suggest that he DJed at house parties, made paid appearances at autograph-signing events, and attended nightclubs, although whether as a performer, audience member, or promoter is not clear. Petitioner released four hip-hop albums from 1992-2006. As always, Petitioner remained in Miami. In 1991 or 1992, Petitioner was among the persons who started the Liberty City Optimist youth football program. Competing with the local John Doe gang, Petitioner and other founders of the Optimist youth football program got kids off the dangerous streets and onto the football field. During the early years of his involvement with the youth football program, Petitioner invested considerable time and money, contributing at least $80,000. Petitioner helped lobby the Miami-Dade County Commission for what was eventually an expenditure of an estimated $14 million in facilities to serve organized football at local parks. Now, the Liberty City Optimist youth programs serve 6000 boys and girls, from 4-16 years of age, through a variety of sports and academic programs. Petitioner's wife, a local attorney and former FSU cheerleader, chairs the Liberty City Optimist youth cheerleading program. Although there have been some football-famous graduates of the program, such as Chad Johnson, the program's larger success is that 90 percent of the first group of youth to complete the program started college. Until 2005, Petitioner was not directly involved with the children in the Optimist youth programs. In 2005, realizing that his entertaining career had "taken a turn," Petitioner began coaching an Optimist youth football team. As he dialed up his involvement with youth, Petitioner tapered off his performances and appearances. Petitioner's two most recent albums are Somethin' Nasty, which was released in 2001, and My Life and Freaky Times, which was released in 2006. In contrast to the earlier cover art of 2LC, the cover art for the last album depicted Petitioner surrounded by fully clothed women. But some of Petitioner's titles would fit easily among the oeuvre of 2LC in its heyday. Somethin' Nasty includes "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," and "Hoes," and My Life and Freaky Times includes "Pop That Pussy" and "South Beach Bitches." In 2008, Petitioner made his last appearance, to date, with 2LC, at what was limited to an autograph-signing event. At the beginning of this period of Petitioner's life, in 1993, he became acquainted with James Harbor, Jr. Mr. Harbor was working for a state representative and met Petitioner through Congressman Alcee Hastings. Mr. Harbor later did an internship with Petitioner. Still later, Mr. Harbor was elected as a state representative from Palm Beach County and enlisted Petitioner in get-out-the-vote campaigns throughout Florida. Interestingly, Mr. Harbor testified that, as part of a voter-recruitment campaign, Petitioner appeared "in character." Mr. Harbor stressed repeatedly the distinction between the public persona of Petitioner and his private personality. Not a party person, during the time that Mr. Harbor has known him, Petitioner has always been "structured," hard-working and responsible, respectful toward women, and a firm disciplinarian when it came to his children. Mr. Harbor's testimony about the distinction between Petitioner's public persona and private personality finds support throughout the record, including a careful examination of the timelines. The 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor both involved weapons, not sex, and 2LC's main theme appears to have been sex, not violence or weapons. Whatever image of garish defiance that Petitioner may have cultivated during his 2LC-era, by the start of that era, he was never arrested again on charges that resulted in an admission of guilt, a no-contest plea, or a finding of guilt, except for the child-support arrest. Although the certification of Petitioner must take into consideration his public persona, to the extent that it still derives from his short-lived career with 2LC, there is no indication over the past 20 years that, outside of his performances and appearances, Petitioner has resembled the sex- song impresario, whom he portrayed with 2LC and in his later albums. High School Football: 2009-Present Starting in the 2009-10 school year, Petitioner turned from coaching Optimist youth football to coaching local high school football. During the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Central Senior High School, where his wife teaches a law class. For the 2011-12 school year, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Northwestern Senior High School. Although he would be willing to work as an unpaid volunteer, Petitioner has been required, due to insurance requirements in the school district, to accept the pay of a part-time contract football coach, which is $1000-$1200 per year. No longer living in Liberty City, Petitioner lives closer to another Miami-Dade County high school whose students are less exposed to violence and less at-risk than the students attending Miami Central or Miami Northwestern. Nearby Broward County public high schools do not require an athletic coaching certificate because school district policy allows a volunteer to coach. But Petitioner has decided to help the most vulnerable, most at-risk students from the inner-city neighborhood where he grew up. Petitioner has served these students in ways that other persons would find difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Trying to combat the sense of hopelessness that sometimes afflicts at-risk youth, Petitioner has worked at both schools to install a sense of school pride in football and academics. When he arrived at Miami Central, the school was an F school, but Petitioner joined a school-wide effort to improve learning conditions, and, when he left two years later, the school was a B school. Similarly, when Petitioner arrived at Miami Northwestern, it was a D school, but it earned a B during the most recent school year. Miami Northwestern is located directly across the street from housing projects, and its students are regularly the targets of violence, often involving weapons. About one-quarter of its students are required to attend gun programs. The football team includes many homeless children and children with children. In the month preceding the hearing, two Miami Northwestern students had been killed. On a positive note, about 70 percent of the 95 students on the Miami Northwestern football team are graduates of the Optimist youth football program. Also, as many as 90 percent of the students who played on the high school football teams that Petitioner has coached are attending college. The students with whom Petitioner works appreciate his dedication and hard work. They know that Petitioner has spent his entire life in Miami and has known some hard times. Generally, they know that, before they were born, Petitioner had been a celebrity as a member and promoter of a hip-hop group, itself known for its frank defiance of convention, at least in terms of graphic sexual language. As Petitioner testified, his students' mothers know Petitioner from when he was a DJ on a streetcorner, through his association with 2LC and discovery of new talent, such as the hip-hop artist Pitbull, and now from his work with youth. This familiarity presents unique mentoring opportunities to Petitioner. For instance, Petitioner knew one student's father, who later went to prison where he was murdered. One day, the student's mother approached Petitioner and asked him to tell her child about the good things that his father had done before he went to prison and died. Reflecting Petitioner's dedication to at-risk youth, for at least the past four years, Petitioner has rented one or two 15-passenger vans and, at his expense, transported interested players to schools in the southeast where they might be able to attend college. Petitioner does not reserve his attention to potential stars; instead, he tries to find colleges and junior colleges at every level that might be interested in admitting an individual student. Steven Field, the head coach of the Miami Northwestern football team, testified on Petitioner's behalf. Coach Field, who has most recently coached at University of Miami and Hampton University in Virginia, also coached at Miami Central from 2000- 2004. Coach Field testified that Petitioner is an "essential" member of his coaching staff, not for his name or past career, but for his way with the students. Petitioner leads by example and always fulfills any promises that he makes to the students--things that may otherwise be lacking in the lives of some of these inner-city youth. According to Coach Field, Petitioner's "no-nonsense, professional" style of dealing with the students commands their attention and respect. For example, as the coach in charge of the weight room, Petitioner does not allow swearing. When one student became disrespectful to another coach, Petitioner ordered the student to leave the premises. Neither Petitioner nor Coach Field would allow 2LC music to be played in the weight room due to its inappropriate adult content. Petitioner testified that, in trying to save students, he will "talk 'till I'm blue in the face," revealing not only the necessary dedication, but, more importantly, the insight that that there are no shortcuts or quick fixes in trying to communicate with at-risk children. Reinforcing the realism evident in Petitioner's testimony, Coach Stevens described his and Petitioner's efforts with the students as not much more than reinforcing the notions of living right at home and "getting your books at school." Coach Stevens stressed that he and Petitioner do not concentrate exclusively on the students who are talented enough to play football in college. At least a half dozen students are in felony programs. With these students, Coach Stevens testified that he and Petitioner do not speak about "getting into Georgia Tech"; they speak about finishing high school and getting a job. Coach Stevens has never heard Petitioner speak to the students about mistakes that he has made, nor does he wish Petitioner to do so. Coach Stevens, Petitioner, and the other coaches try to set a positive tone, so they talk to the students about what they need to do, not about mistakes that the students--or coaches--may have made in the past. However, if the school resource officer tells Petitioner about problems that an individual student is having, Petitioner will talk to the student one-on-one. In such conversations, Petitioner does not shy away from relating personally to what the student is going through. The Application Received on April 27, 2010, the Application answers "yes" to the following questions: Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offense? Have you ever had adjudication withheld on a criminal offense? Have you ever pled guilty to a criminal offense? The Application answers "no" to the following questions: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense? Have you ever pled nolo contendere to a criminal offense? The Application lists the following arrests and states that the disposition of all charges was dismissal, except for the South Carolina charge, which is reported as "guilty/adjudication withheld": Miami--8/79--reckless display of firearm Miami--2/85--loitering/prowling Miami--11/85--inciting riot Miami--12/87--aggravated assault Hillsborough--12/87--aggravated assault Miami--5/94--aggravated assault Miami--7/99--battery Dorchester County--10/22--"dissem promote" The Application is flawed in its disclosure of Petitioner's criminal history. As alleged in the Amended Notice of Reasons, the disclosure of the "loitering/prowling" arrest fails to mention the felony weapons charge, which was part of the same incident, and thus fails to note that the court withheld adjudication on this charge. Also, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Hearing, the Application fails to disclose the 1986 Misdemeanor, which occurred in Hillsborough County. Although the Application discloses a Hillsborough County arrest, it seems to confuse the incident with a later arrest in Dade County, but, more importantly, omits mention of the finding of guilt on this misdemeanor weapon charge. However, these flaws do not prove that Petitioner intentionally concealed information or was less than honest in completing the Application. Obviously, he has had many arrests, so the potential for confusion or even omission exists, and there are comparatively few inaccuracies. On these facts, it is found only that Petitioner filed an inaccurate application, but not that he filed an application with fraudulent or dishonest intent. Petitioner: At Present Petitioner does not pose a risk to the safety of the students entrusted to him. For the past seven years, Petitioner has had significant direct contact with vulnerable youth without any reported problems. In light of this critical fact, the 1979 Misdemeanor, 1986 Misdemeanor, and Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC and the adult entertainment industry lose whatever contrary predictive value that they might otherwise have. Simply put, Petitioner does not resemble the youth who committed the 1979 Misdemeanor or 1986 Misdemeanor or the man who performed with and promoted 2LC 20 years ago. Petitioner resembles the middle-aged man who released sexually explicit songs in 2001 and 2006, but this is addressed below. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, good moral character requires consideration of a person's honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and the law, so consideration of student safety, although important, is not sufficient. But the 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor, as old misdemeanors, provide insufficient support for a finding that, today, Petitioner lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law. Nor do these criminal offenses support findings that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude, as those terms are defined in the Conclusions of Law. Likewise, Petitioner's 2LC career 20 years ago and even his more recent releases of 2LC-like albums in 2001 and 2006 do not support a finding that he lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law or that he is guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude. For the reasons noted above, the redeeming value to be found in the releases means that they do not violate the law, provided they also conform to any laws restricting their dissemination, such as not to minors or not on television during certain hours of family viewing. Absent an attempt to market the offensive material in some broadly accessible fashion, such as on billboards or the sides of public buses, such non-obscene works similarly do not violate the rights of others. As noted above, the flaws of the Application do not support a finding of dishonesty or fraud. But, in his proposed recommended order, Respondent fairly questions Petitioner's initial refusal to identify his Application at the hearing. This failing of Petitioner, as well as the two others discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, cannot serve as standalone grounds for denial because: 1) they arose at the hearing and thus were not available as grounds in the Amended Notice of Reasons and even if alleged, they do not rise to the level of a lack of good moral character, as in a lack of honesty or fairness. But they do provide part of the justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner. Petitioner's failure at the hearing initially to identify his Application was not due to any confusion. There were not multiple versions of applications from which to choose. There was one Application on the table, and Petitioner initially testified, more than once, that he could not identify it. The temptation appeared palpable for Petitioner to off-load the responsibility for an obviously flawed application onto someone else who may have completed it for Petitioner, who nonetheless signed it. Cannily, Respondent's counsel moved for a summary order. The Administrative Law Judge warned Petitioner that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction in the absence of an application. Petitioner and his attorney made good use of a short recess to confer. After the recess, Petitioner identified Respondent Exhibit 1 as the Application that he had filed for an athletic coaching certificate. Petitioner's second failing of this type, also noted in Respondent's proposed recommended order, consists of his unwillingness to own up to his role or roles in any of the salacious songs that he has performed or produced. While it is possible that Petitioner might not have been responsible for the more salacious songs performed by 2LC, he clearly was responsible for the five sexually graphic titles on the two most recent, post-2LC albums, which, as discussed above, were released in 2001 and 2006. Petitioner's third failing of this type occurred when he testified about his bad period from 1979 to 1986. Petitioner admitted only to not living a "perfect" life and associating with bad persons. This seems a little lean for two misdemeanor weapons convictions and a withholding of adjudication of guilt on a felony weapon charge--all in the span of seven years. As Respondent points out, Petitioner has displayed minimal contrition for the bad choices that he made during this period. At minimum, he missed an opportunity to describe how he has changed when he "admitted" only that he was not perfect or implied that his legal problems were caused by bad associations. In these three instances, Petitioner sought to escape personal responsibility by claiming or implying that other persons prepared the flawed Application that he was somehow compelled to sign, other persons forced him to perform songs with five salacious titles in 2001 and 2006, and other persons got him into trouble during the bad period over 25 years ago. Although not evidence of a lack of honesty, Petitioner's failure to affirmatively own up to these acts suggest a lack of self- insight and perhaps even a misapprehension of the extent to which he must subject himself to the regulatory oversight that is imposed on applicants for certificates and, later, certificateholders. The other justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner is the prospect of his return to adult entertainment. In addition to part-time coaching at Miami Northwestern, Petitioner also owns a company, Luke Holdings, which deals in movie scripts and produces elements of television commercials, among other pursuits in the entertainment industry. In recent years, extreme examples of adult entertainment, such as pornography, have emerged bearing the Luther Campbell brand, but Petitioner denied that he has been involved in the production of such material. His denial is credited, although it would have been more persuasive, absent Petitioner's failings described in the preceding paragraphs. As noted above, Petitioner lost exclusive control of his brand after the bankruptcy in 1996, and, presumably, given the shadowy nature of the pornography industry, illegal use of his name is not out of the question. The distinction between past and present involvement in adult entertainment is an important one. In a recent case, EPC did not treat past involvement in the adult entertainment industry the same as involvement while a certificateholder. See In re: The Denial of the Application for Teacher's Certificate of Shawn J. Loftis, EPC Case No. 11-0464D (April 5, 2012) available at http://www.myfloridateacher.com/discipline/icmsorders/101-2590- FO-040512155402.pdf). In Loftis, Respondent denied Mr. Loftis's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate on the grounds of a lack of good moral character, gross immorality, and moral turpitude, as well as personal conduct that seriously reduces one's effectiveness as a school board employee, which violates section 1012.795(1)(g). The factual bases for the denial was that, between 2006 and 2008, Mr. Loftis had appeared in over 20 pornographic films featuring him engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the films were still available for viewing, including on the internet, although this employment had ended prior to Mr. Loftis's temporary employment as an instructor in Miami-Dade County public schools. After an informal hearing, EPC ordered that Mr. Loftis be allowed to continue to pursue certification. EPC stated that, if "found qualified," Mr. Loftis would be issued a Florida Educator's Certificate, subject to the conditions that he obtain from an approved, Florida-licensed provider written verification that he poses no risk to children and is capable of assuming the responsibilities of an educator and that, upon employment that requires possession of a Florida Educator's Certificate, Mr. Loftis be placed on probation, subject to the following conditions: 1) he immediately notify the DOE investigative office upon employment or termination of employment requiring a Florida Educator's Certificate; 2) his immediate supervisor send annual performance reports to the DOE investigative office; he pay EPC $150 for the costs of monitoring his probation; and 4) he violate no law or rules, satisfactorily perform all assigned duties in a professional manner, and bear all costs of compliance with the final order. The Loftis final order illustrates EPC's ability to issue a conditional certificate, even without a finding that the applicant had failed to meet the qualifications for certification. In considering the requirement stated in section 1012.795(1)(g) concerning personal conduct that seriously reduces the effectiveness of the certificateholder as a school board employee, the Notice of Reasons in Loftis, when compared to the Amended Notice of Reasons in the subject case, more closely approaches the most elastic requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that a certificateholder (or applicant) "[s]hall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety." Juxtapose this broader, objective requirement of protecting the student from conditions harmful to learning or harmful to the student's mental health with: 1) Petitioner and Coach Field's efforts to inculcate in their at-risk students such values as strength of character, perseverance, dedication, and hard work in the pursuit of ambitious goals and 2) the future release of more artistic or entertainment efforts along the lines of "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," "Hoes," "Pop That Pussy," and "South Beach Bitches." Consider the bewildering effect on students if, one afternoon, in the weight room and on the field, Coach Campbell were to promote rectitude and grit and, that night, the same man were to don the garb of the sex-song impresario and promote the escapist pursuit of sexual gratification. The addition of music or elements of African boasting and literary allusion in, say, "Pop That Pussy" or "Suck This Dick," which would rightfully spare these works from successful prosecution as obscenity, would not have any bearing on the extent to which the superficial appeal of this form of adult entertainment could undermine the hard, patient work of these students' coaches, teachers, and parents in trying to shape them into responsible young men. Impressionable inner- city youth might be easily confused by these competing messages, as they compared the paltry sums paid their contract coaches and modest sums paid their regular coaches and teachers with the riches lavished upon the producers of adult entertainment. Although the Loftis final order emphasizes that the applicant no longer is engaged in the making of pornographic films, neither that authority nor the record in this case provides a sufficient basis for attaching a condition to Petitioner's certificate prohibiting his engaging in the adult entertainment industry. Such litigation awaits another day and, one hopes, another certificateholder than Petitioner or Mr. Loftis. However, conditions attached to Petitioner's certificate could focus his attention on the ethical obligations that he has assumed as a certificateholder and the very real possibility that that his return to the performance or production of adult entertainment, while a certificateholder, would be at crosspurposes with the broad mission of education and expose his certificate to suspension or revocation. Petitioner should receive an athletic coaching certificate because he generally meets the substantive certification requirements that call for consideration of such broad criteria as good moral character and the absence of gross immorality and moral turpitude, he possesses unique attributes for reaching at-risk, inner-city youth, and he has demonstrated his commitment to, and effectiveness with, working with these children for at least seven years.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that EPC issue an athletic coaching certificate to Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: The certificateholder shall be placed on probation for five years, immediately upon issuance or, if later, employment that requires a certificate. Upon issuance of the certificate and on each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, EPC or its agent shall contact the Department of Revenue and inquire if Petitioner owes any child support arrearages. Upon receipt of written notice of such arrearages from the Department of Revenue or a circuit court, EPC shall immediately suspend the certificate until the arrearages are paid in full. The payment of a purge amount that leaves an arrearage owing does not satisfy this condition. Within six months of issuance of the certificate and within six months of each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, Petitioner shall complete 10 hours in coursework in the area of ethics with emphasis on the Principles of Professional Conduct, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 and shall deliver to the DOE investigative office written proof of such coursework. At the start of every school year, during the term of probation, Petitioner and his immediate supervisor will sign a statement certifying that each has read the Principles of Professional Conduct and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 20 days of the first day of school. The supervisor's statement shall confirm that he or she understands that his or her professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(l) that he or she "shall not assist entry into or continuance in the profession of any person known to be unqualified in accordance with these Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and other applicable Florida Statutes and State Board of Education Rules." Petitioner's statement shall confirm that he understands that his professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that he "shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/ or physical health and/or safety." If Petitioner's immediate supervisor changes during the school year, the new supervisor shall sign a supervisor's statement within 30 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 60 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner. Within 30 days of the preparation and delivery of an evaluation to Petitioner, during the term of probation, he shall submit a copy to the DOE investigative office. During the term of probation, if Petitioner becomes actively involved in the adult entertainment industry, in any manner, he shall notify the DOE investigative office, in writing, within 30 days of first involvement. For the purpose of this paragraph, the performance or production of a sexually explicit song that would be inappropriate for the football team weight room or the appearance at an autograph- signing event promoted on the basis of Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC is active involvement in the adult entertainment industry. During the term of probation, the certificateholder shall reimburse EPC or its agent its reasonable costs of monitoring. If any of these conditions, except for the condition stated in paragraph 2, are not timely performed by Petitioner or, if applicable, his supervisor, EPC may suspend the certificate until Petitioner demonstrates compliance (or the term of the certificate expires) or, at its discretion, revoke the certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael John Carney, Esquire Kubicki Draper, P.A. Wachovia Bank Building, Suite 1600 One East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 mjc@kubickidraper.com Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 charles@ctwpalaw.com
Findings Of Fact Clarence Dixon, Respondent, holds Teacher's Certificate No. 435879, Rank III, covering the area of physical education, which expires on June 20, 1984. At all times material hereto Respondent was employed by The School Board of Broward County at its facility known as Piper High School located at 800 Northwest 44th Street, Sunrise, Broward County, Florida. In that cause of action styled School Board of Broward County v. Clarence Dixon, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 81-1223, the Honorable R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered his Recommended Order directing [sic] that the Respondent, Clarence Dixon, be discharged as a teacher by The School Board of Broward County. Before the Broward County School Board acted on the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, Respondent submitted his resignation, further proceedings against him were terminated and no final order was entered by the Broward County School Board regarding the charges that had been preferred against Respondent. Exhibit 2, the Recommended Order in Broward County School Board v. Clarence Dixon, was admitted into evidence over objection by Respondent, for the limited purpose of showing that the hearing was held. Respondent's stipulation of admitted facts (Finding No. 3 above) admits more than that for which Exhibit 2 was admitted into evidence. The investigation of Respondent's conduct started when Sandra J. Brown, a security officer at Piper High School, overheard some students in the hall discussing Respondent. She then called one of these girls to her office to inquire into any contacts she had with Respondent. When it became evident that Respondent's statements or conduct towards the student may have been inappropriate, the student was taken to the Assistant Principal who, after hearing the story, directed Brown to investigate. As a result of this investigation, the School Board brought charges against Respondent, and, after those charges were disposed of, the proceedings here involved were instituted. Although Respondent disputes the testimony of the three complaining witnesses, McGee, Johnson and Snelling, their testimony was credible and believable, Some testimony was presented to show that Ms. Brown was carrying out a vendetta against Respondent in conducting the investigation; that at least one of the complaining witnesses had a "bad" reputation, meaning that she "came on to men"; that Dixon had told Ms. Brown about a dream he had about her involving sex; that Respondent, like other coaches specifically, was looked up to and frequently approached by students to discuss their problems; and that these incidents had been blown out of proportion to their seriousness. Evidence of misconduct unrelated to the specific charges involving McGee, Johnson and Snelling, has been disregarded as irrelevant to the charges here under consideration. On one occasion during the 1980-1981 school year at Piper High School Respondent approached Lesia McGee, a 16-year-old sophomore, in the hall between classes and commented on the clothes she was wearing and said the next time he saw her in purple slacks he would, as she testified, "tongue me to death." By that, McGee understood that he meant to kiss her. Valynda Johnson was a junior at Piper High School during the 1980-1981 school year and she had no classes under Respondent. She and Respondent talked on campus about how she dressed and various things unrelated to school. On several occasions he sent passes to her to leave class to come talk to him. Some of these times she was excused by her teacher and the conversation did not relate to school work. On one occasion Respondent asked Johnson when she was going to let him do it to her. When she replied "What do you mean?," he responded "You know what I mean." Johnson understood him to be talking about sex. Respondent asked Johnson to meet him at the 7-11 store down the street from the school and called her at her home on one or two occasions. She never went out with Respondent and no physical contact was made between Respondent and Johnson. Respondent had a gold chain delivered to Johnson from him by one of the football players. Respondent's testimony that he found this chain under a garbage can at school and, when he held it up in class to ask whose it was, Johnson claimed it, is not believed. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges Respondent gave a gold bracelet to Renee Snelling and this complaint was amended at the close of the hearing to change the bracelet to a chain to conform to the evidence. No evidence was submitted that Respondent gave Snelling either a chain or a bracelet. Renee Snelling was an 18-year-old student at Piper High School during the 1980-1981 school year. On one of the first occasions she talked to Respondent he told her she should be a model. Her career as a model was the dominant theme of most of their subsequent conversations. Respondent suggested she go to college and become a model. On one occasion he asked if they had sex would she tell anybody. On another occasion he told her he had a necklace for her. He never cave her the necklace but showed it to her one time when he removed it from his wallet. He called Snelling at her home on one or more occasions to ask her to go out. When Respondent returned from a trip to Moorhead College in Kentucky with some of the football players he took there in his own car to increase their interest in college, he brought back a T-shirt which he had delivered to Snelling by one of the football players. On one occasion Respondent sent a pass to Snelling but she does not recall if she left class to see him in response to the pass. The only occasion Respondent mentioned sex to Snelling was when he inquired if she would tell. The policy at Piper High School regarding passes is that they are used only with respect to school business, and rarely. If a student is in a class he cannot leave that classroom without the permission of that classroom teacher even if he receives a pass from another teacher. Respondent graduated from Pahokee High School in 1974 where he was a football star and a campus leader. With the ecouragement of his coaches, Respondent obtained a football scholarship at Bethune-Cookman College, from where he graduated in 1979. He is appreciative of the help and encouragement he received from his coaches and teachers and desires to repay that debt by helping others as he was helped. In doing this, he encourages all of the kids he talks to to go to college and get an education. When Respondent resigned from Broward County School System, he obtained a job at Pahokee High School in the Special Education Department teaching students with learning disabilities. His principal feels Respondent is doing an excellent job at Pahokee and that he is an asset to the school. During his year at Pahokee Respondent volunteered to coach and led the girls' track team to runner-up position in the state championships. He also took over the cross-country track team, which had been cancelled, and led this team to the district championship. He has continually encouraged students to continue their educations throughout high school and has gone out of his way to help them get scholarships, grants and other assistance towards this goal. Both Respondent and his wife have taken students, with parental consent, to out-of-town games, have had students over for dinner, have driven them to athletic contests, have provided transportation home from football practice which extended beyond the bus schedule, and generally have devoted considerable after-school-hours time to helping and encouraging students to attain higher standards in life.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Conduces Club, Inc., is entitled to the issuance of a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Conduces Club, Inc., a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the State of Florida, has applied to the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, for the issuance of a series 11-C alcoholic beverage license. This license is described in Rule 7A-1.13, Florida Administrative Code, as a club license to sell to members and nonresident guests only. The terms and conditions for the issuance of such a license are as set forth in Subsection 561.20(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 565.02(4), Florida Statutes. The Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco has denied the application of the Petitioner premised upon the assertion that the Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements set out in the aforementioned sections of the Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has disagreed with that interpretation and a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing was scheduled and held on April 10, 1979. The crucial language to be considered in determining whether or not the Petitioner should be extended the privilege of operating under a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license is found in the Subsection 561.20(7)(a), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: "(7)(a) There shall be no limitation as to the number of licenses issued pursuant to 565.02(4). However, any licenses issued under this section shall be limited to: Subordinate lodges or clubs of national fraternal or benevolent associations; Golf clubs and tennis clubs municipally or privately owned or leased; Nonprofit corporations or clubs devoted to promoting community, municipal, or county development or any phase of community, muni- cipal, or county development; Clubs fostering and promoting the general welfare and prosperity of members of showmen and amusement enterprises; Clubs assisting, promoting, and de- veloping subordinate lodges or clubs of national fraternal or benevolent associa- tions; and Clubs promoting, developing, and main- taining cultural relations of people of the same nationality." (Although the introductory phrase in the above-quoted Subsection makes reference to Subsection 565.02(4), Florida Statutes, as being involved in the process of issuing a license, Subsection 565.02(4), Florida Statutes, true function is the establishment of the requirement that chartered or unincorporated clubs pay an annual state license tax of $400.00, and it is this Subsection 561.20(7)(a), -- Florida Statutes, which establishes those categories of candidates who may receive a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license.) Of the possible categories for licensure, the one which appears to be the focal point of the controversy is that provision found in Subsection 561.20(7)(a)3., Florida Statutes. In support of its request, the Petitioner presented certain witnesses and items of evidence. Among those items was the testimony of Mrs. E. R. Atwater, Social worker Supervisor with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Management Division, assigned to the Blodgett Community in Jacksonville, Florida. The Blodgett Community is a housing development of some 53 acres which contains 628 housing units with a breakdown of that population containing 301 senior citizens and 1,069 juveniles, with cost of the heads of the households being female. Those persons living in the Blodgett development are described as having a poor economic circumstance. Mrs. Atwater indicated that the Conduces Club, Inc., had on occasion sponsored girls softball teams and boys basketball teams for those young persons living in the Blodgett Community and she had expressed her appreciation in the form of correspondence of January 17, 1979, which is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. In addition, Mrs. Atwater indicated that the Conduces Club, Inc., had provided transportation for a trip for the residents of the Blodgett Community to Six Gun Territory located near Ocala, Florida. Arrangements were made for three busses; two of the busses which transported residents on July 16, 1977, and the third bus transported them on August 11, 1977. The trips involved both young people and adults as participants. The letters requesting the assistance of the Conduces Club, Inc., and the confirmation of that request may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, admitted into evidence consecutively. The president of the Conduces Club, Inc., Mr. Cornell Tarver, testified in support of the petition. He indicated that the club had been originally formed as the Pacesetter Club but its name was changed in September, 1976, because of a conflict concerning the utilization of the name, which had been preempted by another club. The club was chartered as a nonprofit corporation by the State of Florida on September 22, 1976, under the name, "Conduces Club, Inc." A copy of the Articles of Incorporation may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Mr. Tarver indicated that the purpose of the club was to help the youth and senior citizens and principally the kids of the Blodgett Community, to include organizing softball and baseball and providing uniforms. He also testified that a certain banquet was hold for these young persons and the parents of those children were invited to attend, and enough food was prepared to food cost of the individuals who reside in the Blodgett Community. He produced certain plaques and trophies awarded to the club. The plague was given by the mothers of the children in the sports programs and the trophy was presented by an unaffiliated club that the Conduces Club had helped to organize. The witness, Tarver, indicated that the club was financed by functions such as dances, fish fries, food sales in their club house, dues of the members and fines. The club itself has twenty-seven members. Other projects the club has participated in, were the contribution of money to local churches and the donation of an organ to one of those churches. On December 16, 1977, the club contributed $500.00 to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The club house is open every day and there are certain activities through the week, to include club meetings and entertainment for the benefit of club members. The members run the club without compensation and the club does not maintain any regular employees. The official statement of the club's purposes may be found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. This is a composite exhibit which contains part of the application for the license and a copy of the Bylaws. The objectives of the corporation may be found in Article II of the Bylaws and the activities of the corporation may be found in Article VIII of the Bylaws. Article II states: "The objectives of this organization shall be as follows: To unite fraternally all persons who the membership may from time to time take into the club. To promote brotherhood, sportsmanship, friendship and charity for the membership and their families. To strive at all times to promote and protect the welfare of every member. To promote a spirit of cooperation between its members and the public. To honor outstanding individuals in the City of Jacksonville for their achievement. To do anything necessary, including, but not limited to, the ownership of property, real and personal, for the accomplishment of the foregoing objectives, or those which may be recognized as proper and legal objectives of this club, all of which shall be consistent with the laws, the public interest and the interest of its mergers. To sue or to be sued as a natural person. To bear a seal to be placed on all of the club's official correspondence." Article VIII states: "COMMITTEES Section 1. The following standing committees and such other committees as the directors may, from time to time deem necessary, shall be appointed by the president of the association. Social Committee Athletic Committee Scholarship Committee The duties of the standing committee shall include the following, which shall not, however, prelude other activities by such committees. Section 2. The social committee shall be composed of six members. It shall be the duty of this canted to supervise the use of club room and to plan such club meetings of a purely social nature as it may deem necessary. These may include parties, picnics, and other such social or athletic events sponsored by the organization. Section 3. The athletic committee shall be composed of three members. It shall be the duty of this committee to supervise and manage all athletic activities for the association, including but not limited to management of various athletic teams sponsored by the club. Section 4. The scholarships committee shall be composed of six members. It shall be the duty of this committee to screen applicants for scholarships and deserving students in Duval County, Florida, and to make recommendations to the general membership of its findings of worthwhile recipients of scholarships, or awards." It can be seen that the Petitioner's members have a commendable concern for the community in which the club has its principal base of operation and this concern has been expressed through the activities of the club members which have been described in the course of this Recommended Order; however, it appears from an examination of the testimony in this hearing and the official statement, that is, the Bylaws of this corporation, that the principal purpose of the club is as stated by the Article II B. of the Bylaws, which language states, "To promote brotherhood, sportsmanship, friendship and charity for the membership and their families," and this attitude carries over to foster good relations between those members and the members of the general public. Therefore, the Petitioner is not perceived as being a club which meets the criterion, "devoted to promoting community, municipal or county development or any phase of community, municipal or county development." See Subsection 561.20(7)(a)3., Florida Statutes. This conclusion is reached in examining the definition of the word "devoted," as found in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition. That definition states that to be devoted one must be, "1. vowed; dedicated; consecrated. 2. very loyal; faithful." and although the community concern of the Petitioner is very high, it does not reach the level of devotion. Consequently, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco was correct in denying the application for a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco deny the Petitioner, Conduces Club, Inc.'s request for a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jennings H. Best, Esquire 3410 North Myrtle Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Francis Bayley, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. M. Ogonowski Richard P. Daniel Building, Room 514 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue This case is presented based upon an administrative complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, against Lloyd T. Cooper. The allegations set forth in this complaint pertain to the Respondent's conduct of serving alcoholic beverages to students and other minors below the age of 19 years. Respondent is also accused of inviting a student into his home, and while they were alone, serving an alcoholic beverage to her, which she drank in his presence. On this same occasion, Respondent is alleged to have given the student marijuana and to have kissed the student while in his apartment. These acts by Respondent purportedly are in violation of Subsection 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent is guilty of gross immorality and acts involving moral turpitude and has been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the Nassau County School Board. Respondent's acts are said to be contrary to Rule 6B-1.01, Florida Administrative Code, by his failure to achieve and sustain ethical conduct. Finally, Respondent is accused of a violation of Rule 6B-1.06(3)(a)(e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, in that he has failed to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety; has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and has exploited a professional relationship with a student for professional gain or advantage.
Findings Of Fact This case was heard based upon Respondent's request for a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing to allow him to dispute the facts that underlie the administrative complaint. Respondent holds Teacher's Certificate No. 306317, which allows him to teach in secondary education in the areas of physical education, health education, and science. The teacher's certificate issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, is valid through June 30, 1986. Respondent has been certified as a teacher in Florida since 1971. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. From August 20, 1971, until his resignation in June, 1982, Respondent was employed as a classroom teacher by the Nassau County School System in Nassau County, Florida. In 1982, a week prior to the graduation of members of the senior class of Fernandina Beach High School, various graduation parties were held. Respondent held one of those parties at his apartment. That party occurred on Friday, May 21, 1982. There were no other teachers or adults in attendance at the party. A number of students who were still attending high school were invited to the party and Terri Jones, now Terri Coleman, was among those students. She attended the party, having been provided a map by Respondent to enable her to find his home. The location of Respondent's home at that time was in Fernandina Beach, Florida. This was the first occasion that Coleman had visited Respondent in his apartment. Coleman arrived at the Respondent's apartment around 8:00 p.m. on May 21, 1982. She stayed for approximately 45 minutes. When she entered, there were approximately 10 other high school students in attendance. Respondent was mixing alcoholic drinks for those students during the party. He offered to give Coleman an alcoholic beverage, but she declined. Cooper and other students were also smoking marijuana, which was retrieved from a container on a coffee table in his apartment. On the following Monday, May 24, 1982, Coleman attended another house party given by fellow students in the high school. There were approximately 50 persons at this party, including students of Fernandina Beach High School and other students. Respondent was in attendance; however, other teachers were not involved in the festivities. Coleman arrived at the party around 9:00 p.m. and stayed for approximately 30 minutes. Cooper was again observed mixing drinks which contained liquor. These drinks were served to students at the party. On Wednesday, May 26, 1982, Coleman attended another party for students in her high school. This date was prior to her graduation from Fernandina Beach High School. Coleman arrived at this party at around 7:00 p.m. Once there, she had someone purchase a six-pack of beer, and she drank two or three of those cans of beer while at the party. She remained at the party for approximately 2 hours. Later on, the evening of May 26, 1982, at approximately 9:00 p.m., she went to the home of the Respondent. She was uninvited. [In the way of background, Respondent did not teach classes in which Coleman was a student. He had coached an athletic team in which Coleman was a participant in her junior year in high school. He had also expressed his desire to ask her out for a date when she reached her majority. This had occurred while she was a student attending high school prior to May 26, 1982. On one other occasion, when Respondent had arrived at the high school under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, Respondent saw her and took her from the room where she had been observed and walked around the school grounds with her. Finally, in that instance, they went to the Respondent's classroom in the back portion of that area and he kissed her.] Respondent admitted Coleman to his apartment on the night of May 26, 1982. Once inside, she explained that she had just stopped by to "say hello for a minute". While in the apartment, Respondent and Coleman watched television, and he asked her if she wanted a mixed drink. She replied that she did not because she would drink her beer. Nonetheless, Respondent mixed a drink for Coleman which contained an alcoholic beverage. She drank part of the mixed drink. The container with the marijuana was still located on the coffee table, as was the case on May 21, 1982. Respondent removed marijuana from that container and began smoking the substance and offered it to Coleman who accepted the marijuana. The marijuana was being smoked through an apparatus containing water. Coleman also drank two more cans of beer while at the apartment. Finally, while seated on the couch, Respondent kissed Coleman as many as five times on the mouth. After staying for approximately an hour, Coleman took her leave. At no time during her visit to the apartment, did Respondent ask Coleman to leave or attempt to contact her parents. When she left his apartment, she was substantially influenced by the effect of substances consumed. Notwithstanding her condition, Respondent allowed her to drive. Coleman went home after stopping at the house where she had attended the party earlier in that evening. She stayed in that house for approximately 10 or 15 minutes on her second visit. Coleman was confronted by her mother after arriving home on the evening of May 26, 1982, and her mother found her to still be suffering from the effects of substances consumed. After questioning, Coleman's mother ascertained that her daughter had been to the home of Respondent and learned of the events that had transpired while Coleman was there. As a result, Mrs. Jones went to the high school and spoke to the Respondent. She identified herself as Coleman's mother, and gave her rendition of the events of the evening of May 26, 1982, which had been told to her by her daughter. At that time, Coleman was 18 and Respondent, in the face of that fact, did not seem impressed with the possible consequences that might occur if members of the Nassau County School Administration learned of his indiscretion. Jeanette Jones, Coleman's mother, advised Cooper that she was going to speak to the Superintendent of Schools, Craig Marsh, concerning the liaison between Respondent and Coleman. Mrs. Jones spoke to superintendent Marsh, and Marsh conducted an interview with Coleman. In that interview, Coleman related the events that transpired in the apartment of Respondent on May 26, 1982. In a subsequent conversation with the Respondent, Cooper told Marsh that Coleman had gone to his house on the night in question and he had invited her in and mixed her a drink and they smoked marijuana and sat on the couch and "smooched". Out of this conversation, Respondent submitted his resignation from his position with the Nassau County School Board. Marsh correctly asserts that Cooper's acts with Coleman have caused Respondent to lose his effectiveness as a teacher in the Nassau County School System. Furthermore, Marsh would not recommend that the Respondent be allowed to teach in high school either in Nassau County or any other school system in the State of Florida.
