Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert L. Collins has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida as a teacher for the last twenty-four years and is on continuing contract. For approximately the last seven of those years, Respondent has been teaching Industrial Arts at Miami Killian Senior High School. Between late September 1983, and November 23, 1983, Jonathan Wright was a student in Respondent's Plastics class. On November 23, 1983, Wright came into Respondent's Plastics class wearing a hat, which is against school rules. Respondent directed Wright to remove his hat which he did. Later in that same class Respondent saw Wright sitting by the engraver again wearing that hat. Respondent removed the hat from Wright's head and advised Wright that if he put the hat on another time Respondent would send him to the principal's office. At approximately 5 minutes before the end of the class period, Respondent instructed the students that it was time to clean up the shop area. Wright and some of the other students began gathering at the door. Respondent motioned to those students to come back into the classroom and away from the door, which some of them did. Wright, however, did not. Respondent then specifically directed Wright to get away from the door. Instead of obeying, Wright put up a hand and a foot in a karate type posture but clearly in a playful manner. As a normal reaction in the context of the situation, Respondent did likewise. Respondent then turned back toward the class at which time Wright grabbed him by the legs and pulled him down to the floor. Respondent and Wright were rolling around on the floor in a small alcove area, and Respondent was unable to get loose from Wright's grip. Respondent was afraid that he, Wright, or the other students might be severely injured in the small alcove by the door or on some of the machinery located in the Plastics shop classroom. Unable to free himself, Respondent bit Wright on the back. Wright released Respondent and got up off the floor. After the bell rang, Wright left the classroom. Wright was transferred to the Plastics class of teacher Gerald Krotenberg where he remained for the rest of the school year. On several occasions Krotenberg was required to admonish Wright because Wright often resorted to "horse play" with other students. On occasion Wright would come into the classroom and would "bear hug" the girls, "jostle" the boys, and be disruptive so that Krotenberg could not take attendance or conduct the class. Although Krotenberg followed his normal technique of chastising the student in public, and then chastising the student in private, those techniques did not work and Krotenberg was required to exclude Wright from class on probably two occasions, for two days each, due to Wright's inappropriate behavior with other students. During the two months that Wright was in Respondent's class, Wright had come up behind Respondent on one or two occasions and lightly put his arms around Respondent in the nature of a bear hug. Respondent counseled Wright that that was not appropriate behavior. The only touching of Wright that was initiated by Respondent himself occurred in the form of Respondent placing his hand on Wright's shoulder while discussing a project being worked on at the moment or perhaps a light slap on the back in the nature of encouragement or praise for a job well done. Not all teachers, however, agree that it is appropriate to occasionally give a student an encouraging pat on the back. Although Wright had on one or two occasions given Respondent a playful hug and although Respondent had on several occasions given Wright an encouraging pat on the back or touch on his shoulder, no physical combat ever occurred between them. Although Wright often engaged in "horse play" with other students, no "horse play" occurred between Wright and Respondent. None of Respondent's annual evaluations during the years he has been teaching in the Dade County public School, including the annual evaluation for the the 1983-1984 school year, indicates that Respondent has had any problems with either maintaining good discipline in his classes or that Respondent is anything other than acceptable in the area of classroom management.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reversing Respondent's suspension, reinstating him if necessary, and reimbursing him for back pay-if he was suspended without pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire 111 SW Third Street Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Michael D. Ray, Esquire 7630 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33138 Phyllis 0. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated specified Miami- Dade County School Board rules, giving Petitioner just cause to suspend Respondent for five work days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes.1/ Respondent is a 27-year teacher employed by the Miami- Dade County Public Schools ("M-DCPS"). For the first 24 years of his career, Respondent taught adult vocational classes. For the past three years, Respondent has taught at Miami Lakes Educational Center ("Miami Lakes"). He is a television production teacher, teaching students entry-level television production skills to prepare them for careers in the television industry. Background of this Proceeding At all times material, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and the United Teachers of Dade, Petitioner's rules and policies, and Florida law. This matter had its genesis in late 2010, when two or three female students complained to Miami Lakes Assistant Principal Michael Tandlich that they felt uncomfortable in Respondent's classroom, specifically because Respondent touched them. In response to the complaints, Mr. Tandlich took written statements from approximately ten students in Respondent's class.2/ He took the statements to the Miami Lakes principal. As a result, the school initiated an investigation of Respondent's actions regarding the students in his class. Once the investigation was complete, the matter was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") for a comprehensive review of all information related to the matter. On March 1, 2011, Milagros Hernandez, District Director for OPS, sent Respondent a letter stating that as a result of the investigation, "[t]he initial investigative findings indicate that Probable Cause has been established for the allegation of violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4.109, Employee Student Relationships. Probable cause is defined as '[b]ased upon an evaluation of the evidence, it is more likely than not the alleged act occurred.'" On March 8, 2011, OPS conducted a Conference-for-the- Record ("CFR"). Respondent and Ms. Hernandez were among the attendees. The CFR is a fact-finding conference held to discuss the incident and to afford the subject of the investigation the opportunity to tell his or her side of the story. Following the CFR, OPS sent a letter to Respondent, dated May 4, 2011, advising him that OPS recommended that he "be suspended without pay for 5 workdays for violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics " On May 11, 2011, Petitioner suspended Respondent for five work days without pay for alleged violation of the above- stated rules.3/ Incidents Giving Rise to Alleged Violations A.S. is a female student in Respondent's television production class. She is in her junior year of high school at Miami Lakes. A.S. testified that Respondent touched her on the shoulders on more than one occasion, the touching made her feel uncomfortable, and she told him to stop. On one occasion when Respondent touched her on the shoulders, A.S. yelled at Respondent, "Stop touching me, you pedophile!" or something to that effect. She testified that Respondent did not touch her on any part of her body other than her shoulders, and has stopped touching her. Testimony was elicited from A.S. and another student, J.G., establishing that A.S. is overly-dramatic, blows things out of proportion, and acts out in class in order to be the center of attention. The evidence also established that A.S. may have some animus toward Respondent because he is much stricter and has set much higher academic and behavioral standards than did his predecessor, and does not tolerate A.S's disruptive behavior in class. J.C. is a female student in Respondent's class, and is A.S.'s friend. She is in her junior year of high school at Miami Lakes. J.C. testified that Respondent sometimes touched her on the shoulders, and that once, Respondent touched her dress at about mid-thigh level. The touching made her uncomfortable, but she never asked him to stop. Respondent did not touch her on any other part of her body. She acknowledged that Respondent's conduct likely was meant as complimentary and encouraging. J.C. testified that Respondent had made the class much more demanding than had his predecessor, and that her classmates and friends had discussed their unhappiness with the change. She acknowledged that around that time, some students went to the assistant principal and complained that Respondent was touching students and making them feel uncomfortable. J.G. is a male student in Respondent's class. J.G. testified that Respondent is a very strict teacher and that his class is very demanding "in a good way." J.G. testified that Respondent is very respectful of his students and encourages them during class, verbally and by patting them on the back or touching them on the shoulders. He treats male and female students the same in that regard. J.G. has never seen Respondent touch any of his students, male or female, in an inappropriate manner. J.G. stated that Respondent is a very professional teacher. Respondent also presented the testimony of Dr. Angela Thomas Dupree, Vice Principal at Lindsay Hopkins Technical Education Center. Before assuming her current position, Dr. Dupree served at Miami Lakes for 12 years as an assistant principal and a vice principal. For approximately ten of her 12 years at Miami Lakes, she worked with Respondent as his direct supervisor and observed Respondent interacting with his students. She testified that he was very knowledgeable and always engaged in the classroom, and that he treated students with respect and dignity. She never observed, and was not aware of, any instances in which Respondent did not honor the integrity and retain the respect of his students. During her time in working with Respondent, he always conducted himself in a manner that reflected credit on him and on the school system. Respondent testified on his own behalf. Respondent's goal in teaching the television production class is to prepare his students to enter the workforce in the television production industry. His classes are structured according to the grade level of the students in the class. For his higher level classes (i.e., junior and senior classes), students are given assignments for the day, then move into different areas to work on their specific assignments. Respondent supervises the students by walking back and forth between the work areas to make sure everyone is on task. One studio is very small, so it is not unusual for Respondent to walk up behind students when they are working and to touch them as he is showing them how to perform a task or use the computer. Respondent also encourages his students, verbally, by patting them on the back or touching their shoulders, and by giving them "high five." Respondent testified that in one of his college communication courses, there was discussion about the importance of "breaking the shield" that each person has, in order to enhance interpersonal communication. Respondent noted that is often why people shake hands. Respondent testified that he tries to "break the shield" with his students, in part by touching them, in order to more effectively communicate with them. Touching always has been a part of the way Respondent teaches and conducts his class, until this incident. Respondent testified that he did touch A.S. on her shoulders. On the day on which A.S. called Respondent a "pedophile," A.S. had been doing her homework for another class while in Respondent's class, and Respondent had asked her to stop. She ignored Respondent's request. Respondent was lecturing and walking around the studio, and the students' chairs and desks were arranged in the middle of the studio. As Respondent was walking around the studio, he observed A.S. continuing to do her homework despite being asked to stop. He walked up behind her and put his hands on her shoulders to get her to stop. A.S. jumped up and yelled at him. Respondent testified that he touched A.S. on her shoulders, and, on another occasion, may have touched her hair, but that he did not touch her on any other part of her body. Respondent recalled touching J.C.'s dress. On the day in question, the students were wearing professional clothing, rather than their usual uniforms, as part of a "dressing for success" program being conducted at the school. Respondent was sitting down and J.C. was standing next to him. He touched the skirt of her dress and complimented her on her appearance. Respondent testified that he only meant to compliment her, and that she did not appear to be uncomfortable. Respondent testified that he never has inappropriately touched students, and that when he has touched students, it has never been with intent to do anything wrong. He acknowledged that he understands the difference between touching adult students and minor students while encouraging them in their class work. Assistant Principal Michael Tandlich testified that Petitioner's policy is to prohibit the touching of students in any way; however, Mr. Tandlich was unable to identify any such policy or provision in Petitioner's rules. He also testified that he and the teachers at Miami Lakes routinely touch students——which he acknowledged would constitute widespread violation of such a policy, if one existed. Finally, he testified that he considers touching of students other than a handshake to be inappropriate——contradicting his previous testimony that there is an absolute prohibition on touching students. Mr. Tandlich testified that teachers are informed, in the first meeting with school administration personnel at the beginning of the school year, regarding Petitioner's policies. However, Respondent credibly testified that he never was told that all touching of students is prohibited.4/ IV. Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Petitioner's rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, "Responsibilities and Duties," provides in pertinent part: I. Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a matter that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. Petitioner's rule 6Gx-4A-1.213, "Code of Ethics," provides in pertinent part:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order rescinding the suspension of Respondent from his employment for five days without pay, and paying Respondent’s back salary for the five-day period for which he was suspended. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 28th day of November, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his teaching position without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County ("District"), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher with Petitioner since 2008. During the timeframe relevant to this proceeding,5/ Respondent was employed as a teacher at Forest Hill High School ("Forest Hill"). He taught the Theatre I, II, III, and Theatre I IB classes (collectively, the "drama classes") and the Speech and Debate classes, and was the faculty sponsor for the school's drama club. Respondent has not previously been subject to discipline by Petitioner, and the evidence shows that he consistently received high performance evaluations and was a popular teacher with the students at Forest Hill. Administrative Charges On or about April 6, 2016, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Respondent timely challenged Petitioner's action by requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1). The factual bases for the administrative charges against Respondent are set forth in paragraph 10 of the Petition, which constitutes the administrative charging document in this proceeding. Paragraph 10 alleges: "[o]n or about May 14, 2015, it was reported that Respondent interacted inappropriately and made inappropriate comments to students in his drama class." The Petition does not identify the time frame in which the conduct referenced in paragraph 10 is alleged to have occurred, nor does it specifically describe the conduct in which Respondent is alleged to have engaged that would violate the rules and policies cited in the Petition. Based on the facts alleged in paragraph 10 of the Petition, Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating the following: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A- 10.080(2), and 6A-10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); School Board Policy 3.27; and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).6/ If proved, the alleged violations of these rules and policies would constitute just cause under section 1012.33 to suspend Petitioner and terminate his employment as a teacher. Events Giving Rise to This Proceeding In March 2015, R.H., a student at Forest Hill, reported to Shawn McCall, a teacher at Forest Hill, that Respondent had engaged in what McCall characterized as "inappropriate" behavior with respect to another student, S.G. R.H. also relayed to McCall that S.G. had told her that Respondent was having a sexual relationship with another student, C.W. According to McCall, R.H. was emotionally distraught as she relayed this information to McCall. However, the evidence shows that R.H. did not have any personal knowledge regarding any of the matters she reported to McCall; rather, she relayed to him what she had been told by S.G. R.H. did not testify at the final hearing. McCall did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters that R.H. relayed to him. McCall reported the information he had received from R.H. to Dr. Mary Stratos, the principal of Forest Hill. Thereafter, Stratos spoke with R.H., who relayed to her that Respondent "may have been inappropriately touching" S.G. Pursuant to protocol, Stratos contacted the Palm Beach County School Police Department ("School Police"), which conducted an investigation of the matters relayed by R.H. The School Police interviewed students and teachers who witnessed, or may have witnessed, matters germane to the investigation. Stratos did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters about which R.H. told her.7/ As a result of the School Police investigation, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Evidence Regarding Factual Allegations in Petition As discussed above, the Petition does not provide any detail or specificity regarding the type or nature of the "inappropriate" interactions in which Respondent allegedly engaged, or the "inappropriate comments" Respondent allegedly made, with respect to the students in his drama class. From the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned gleans8/ that Petitioner has charged Respondent with making sexually-suggestive comments and jokes to, and making verbal sexual advances toward, students in his classes and in drama club; making physical sexual advances toward three students9/; and having a sexual relationship with one10/ of those students.11/ Student S.G. S.G., a former student in Respondent's drama classes, testified at the final hearing. S.G. was a student in Respondent's drama classes in the 2013-14 school year, when he was a junior, and the 2014-15 school year, when he was a senior. S.G. also was a member of the drama club for all of his junior year and part of his senior year. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in verbal and physical sexual advances toward him during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's classes and was a member of the drama club. Specifically, S.G. testified that during both years, Respondent would constantly ask him how large his penis was in front of the entire class, loudly enough for others to hear. He also testified that Respondent would comment on his appearance openly in class, telling him that he looked "cute," and that Respondent would frequently look at him in a sexually-suggestive manner while biting his lower lip and sticking out his tongue. S.G. also testified that during both years, during drama class and in drama club rehearsals, Respondent often would get very close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him. On cross-examination, S.G. characterized the frequency of Respondent's attempts to kiss him and sniff his neck as occurring "daily" or "every other day, at least." Also on cross- examination, S.G. asserted that Respondent's behavior was open and obvious "to everyone," including to persons passing in the hallway when Respondent engaged in such conduct while standing in the doorway of his classroom. S.G. also testified that during his junior year, Respondent sniffed his neck and bit his nipple as he and another student were moving a platform from center stage following a drama club rehearsal. According to S.G., the other student moving the platform was the only witness (other than Respondent) to the incident. That student did not testify at the final hearing. Additionally, S.G. testified that during his senior year, Respondent "cupped" his genitals on one occasion12/ as he held the auditorium door for female drama club students, and that after this incident, he quit participating in the drama club. S.G. testified that he heard Respondent frequently make sexual comments to students R.C. and C.W. in drama class and during drama club rehearsals, and he often saw Respondent try to kiss students R.C. and C.W. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in this conduct frequently, in front of everyone in drama class and during drama club rehearsals. S.G. also testified that he heard Respondent and C.W. exchange sexual jokes, engage in sexually explicit discussions, and call each other "pet" names "all the time." Additionally, S.G. testified that one day, he saw Respondent and C.W. come to a pep rally "together" and sit together, and also that they were "just together constantly." On these bases, he surmised that Respondent and C.W. were engaged in a sexual relationship. S.G. testified that he did not report Respondent's conduct to anyone because he was embarrassed and thought that no one would believe him because Respondent was a popular teacher. He also testified that he was concerned that if he reported Respondent's conduct, school authorities would find out that he was attending Forest Hill instead of the school (Wellington) for which his actual place of residence was zoned. When asked why he chose to take a second year of Respondent's drama class after Respondent purportedly had engaged in the conduct that he claimed, S.G. testified that he took the drama course in his senior year because it was an easy class in which you could get an A just for attending, that Respondent was a very lax teacher who let students play on their phones, and that some of his friends were in the class. On or about March 5, 2015, S.G. told R.H. that Respondent had made verbal and physical sexual advances toward him and that Respondent was engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. As discussed above, R.H. relayed this information to McCall, who relayed it to Stratos. Shortly thereafter, the investigation leading to this proceeding was initiated. Student R.C. As previously discussed, student R.C.'s deposition was admitted into evidence when R.C. did not appear to testify at the final hearing despite having been subpoenaed by Petitioner.13/ R.C. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his freshman and sophomore years and was a member of the drama club. R.C. initially testified that he had heard Respondent make "homosexual jokes," but then clarified that Respondent would, on occasion, compliment students, saying things like "you look nice today." R.C. testified that he had heard Respondent and C.W. engaged in "homosexual jabber," but was unable to recall anything specific that he had heard Respondent and C.W. say to each other that constituted "homosexual jabber." R.C. testified that S.G. had told him, in passing, that Respondent engaged in "homosexual jokes" with him and that S.G. was upset about it; however, R.C. testified that S.G. was mostly upset because Respondent gave preference to C.W. in assigning roles in the drama club plays. R.C. testified that S.G. felt that Respondent treated him unfairly by not giving him a more prominent role in a play being produced by the drama club, and that S.G. would become upset if Respondent corrected him on stage during rehearsals. R.C. also testified that S.G. told him that Respondent had tried to kiss him (S.G.), but that again, it was in passing, and that S.G. mainly vented about how he was upset about learning lines in drama class. R.C. testified that once during class, he had gone to Respondent with a personal issue, and that after Respondent listened and talked with him, Respondent tried to kiss him. However, R.C. subsequently clarified that Respondent had actually blown a kiss in a theatrical manner in R.C.'s direction as he went back to his seat. R.C. stated that he had never had a problem with Respondent and that he liked him as a teacher. Student C. W. C.W. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his junior and senior years of high school, and also served as Respondent's teacher's aide in his senior year. He also was a member of the drama club in his junior and senior years. In high school, C.W. aspired to be an actor. He is majoring in theater in college. While in high school, Respondent functioned as C.W.'s mentor and would coach him on acting techniques after school, either in his classroom or in the auditorium. C.W. credibly testified that Respondent did not charge him for the tutoring, and that he never paid Respondent for tutoring. C.W. credibly testified that his relationship with Respondent was strictly professional and related to acting. C.W. credibly testified that he and Respondent did not have a personal relationship; that neither had visited each other's house; that they did not date; that Respondent had not made any sexual advances toward him or tried to kiss him; and that Respondent had never done anything to make him feel uncomfortable. C.W. also credibly testified that he and Respondent did not engage in sexual discussions and did not call each other pet names. C.W. confirmed that he had talked to Respondent at a school pep rally. Specifically, C.W. arrived at the pep rally separately and sought Respondent out, because, as C.W. put it, "I'd rather spend my time talking to him, if I could, about acting or something whenever I could instead of just watching a pep rally." C.W. testified that he stood, not sat, next to Respondent during the pep rally. C.W. credibly testified that during his time as a student and teacher's aide in Respondent's classes and during drama club rehearsals, he never heard Respondent make inappropriate comments toward, engage in sexual discussions with, make verbal sexual advances toward, or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct directed toward S.G., R.C., or any other students. He also never saw Respondent sniff any student's neck or embrace any student. C.W. also credibly testified that during Respondent's classes, students were required to be engaged in school work related to theater and were not allowed to use their phones. To that point, C.W. noted that Respondent often would confiscate phones if the use of them was "getting out of hand." C.W. also credibly testified that Respondent did not curse or participate in sexual joke-telling or banter, that he would not tolerate students making sexual jokes or cursing in his class, and that he would threaten discipline if they engaged in such conduct. Student I.D. I.D. was a student in Respondent's classes in her sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school, and she also served as Respondent's teacher's aide. She also was a member of the drama club. In her junior year, she was in drama class with S.G., who also was a junior that year. I.D. credibly testified that she had never seen Respondent act inappropriately toward S.G. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G. or get close to his face, nor did she ever see Respondent make overtures to any students in his class or in the drama club. She also testified, credibly, that she never saw any conduct by Respondent directed toward C.W. that suggested a personal relationship between Respondent and C.W. Student V.A. V.A. was a student in Respondent's classes. She took four classes from him while attending Forest Hill. During her junior and senior years, she took drama classes from Respondent. During both years, S.G. also was a student in those classes. V.A. credibly testified that she sat close enough to S.G. and Respondent to hear conversations between them, and that she never heard Respondent ask about S.G.'s penis size. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G., embrace him or smell his neck, or otherwise engage in any inappropriate conduct toward him, and she never saw Respondent make any sexual advances toward any other students, including R.C. and C.W., in the classroom. Likewise, she never saw Respondent make sexual advances or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct, or make inappropriate comments, directed toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in the drama club. V.A. was friends with C.W. She credibly testified that she often was present when C.W. and Respondent were together and that she never heard them call each other pet names. Through her friendship with C.W. and her frequent interactions with Respondent and C.W., she did not believe that Respondent was any closer to C.W. than he was to other students in the class. V.A. also credibly testified that while in Respondent's classes, students always were engaged in classwork, were not allowed to sit around and play on their phones, and, in fact, were not permitted to have their phones out during Respondent's classes. Respondent Respondent credibly testified that he did not have a sexual interest in S.G. or C.W. He also credibly testified that he never tried to kiss S.G., R.C., or C.W. He credibly denied having ever groped S.G., and he also credibly denied having bitten S.G. He denied having ever embraced any students or having smelled their necks. Respondent credibly testified that he did not make sexual comments toward S.G., and he credibly denied having asked or joked about the size of S.G.'s penis or that of any other student. Respondent tutored C.W. in theater after school, and he credibly testified that he was not paid for it. He also credibly testified that he did not call C.W. by pet names, and he credibly denied having anything other than a teacher-student academic mentoring relationship with C.W. Clear and Convincing Evidentiary Standard As discussed in greater detail below, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to this proceeding. This burden requires that: [T]he evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994). Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Comments, Jokes, and Verbal Sexual Advances Toward Students Petitioner has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or made verbal sexual advances toward students in his drama classes or in the drama club. S.G.'s testimony that Respondent constantly asked him how large his penis was and also made similar comments to R.C. and S.G.——frequently, loudly, and openly in class, where others could hear——during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's drama class, was not credible. Not only did no other witness corroborate S.G.'s testimony, but the testimony of C.W., I.D., and V.A. flatly contradicted it. Those witnesses——who were students in Respondent's class, and, thus, in a position to hear and see any "constant," loud comments of a sexual nature——credibly and persuasively testified that they never heard Respondent make sexual comments, tell sexual jokes, or make verbal sexual advances to any members of the class, including S.G. Had Respondent made these comments——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have heard them; yet all consistently and credibly denied having ever heard them. Although R.C. initially testified that he heard Respondent make "homosexual" comments, he subsequently clarified that Respondent simply occasionally complimented students on their appearance. Additionally, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was unable to specifically articulate anything that either Respondent or C.W. said that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. Additionally, Respondent credibly and persuasively denied having made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or engaged in verbal sexual advances toward S.G. or any other student in his class or in the drama club. The undersigned finds the testimony of C.W., I.D., V.A., and Respondent on these allegations credible and persuasive, while finding S.G.'s testimony incredible and unpersuasive. Further, R.C.'s testimony regarding hearing Respondent make "homosexual jokes" and engage in "homosexual jabber" was not precise, explicit, or distinctly remembered; rather, it was equivocal and non-specific. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made sexual comments or jokes to, or made verbal sexual advances toward, the students in his drama classes and in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Physical Sexual Advances toward Students The undersigned also finds incredible and unpersuasive S.G.'s testimony that Respondent would get close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him, and that Respondent engaged in similar conduct toward C.W. and R.C. S.G. testified that Respondent directed this conduct toward him openly and obviously to everyone, on an almost daily basis. However, C.W., I.D., and V.A.——all of whom were in the drama class, drama club, or both, so were in a position to observe any such behavior——all unequivocally testified that they had never observed Respondent engage in any of those actions toward S.G. or any other students. Again, had Respondent engaged in this conduct——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have seen that conduct; yet, all persuasively and credibly testified that they never saw Respondent engage in such conduct. S.G. also testified that on one occasion, Respondent bit him on the nipple, and that one other student (who did not testify at the final hearing) witnessed it. Respondent credibly denied having engaged in this behavior. The undersigned does not find S.G.'s testimony on this point credible or persuasive. To the contrary, the undersigned finds it far more likely that, had Respondent engaged in such behavior, S.G. would have told his mother, school authorities, or other students——and, most important——would not have voluntarily taken another drama class from Respondent the following year.14/ Furthermore, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony that he did not bite S.G.'s nipple credible and persuasive. S.G. also testified at the hearing that on one occasion during his senior year, Respondent had purposely groped his genitals. However, in his sworn statement made during the School Police investigation, S.G. stated that Respondent had "constantly" tried to kiss him and grab him in his "private area," and that Respondent had grabbed his genitals on more than one occasion——the latest occasion as recently as a week before S.G. was interviewed as part of the investigation. S.G.'s hearing testimony is patently inconsistent with his sworn statement on a material detail——i.e., the frequency with which he claims Respondent grabbed or attempted to grab his genitals. This inconsistency bears directly on S.G.'s credibility as a witness. Due to this obvious inconsistency on a key detail——one which cannot credibly be explained to mistake or lapse of memory——S.G.'s testimony that Respondent grabbed his genitals is deemed incredible and unpersuasive. Further, the undersigned finds credible and persuasive Respondent's testimony that he did not ever grab S.G.'s genitals. Although R.C. initially testified that Respondent tried to kiss him, he subsequently clarified that Respondent had, in fact, blown a "theatrical kiss" toward him as he returned to his seat after they had engaged in a discussion. This testimony does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made a sexual advance toward R.C. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made physical sexual advances toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in his drama class or in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Relationship with Student The credible, persuasive evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. S.G.'s testimony that he heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, and call each other pet names "all the time" was directly contradicted by the credible, persuasive testimony of C.W. and Respondent, both of whom denied engaging in such conduct. Furthermore, I.D. and V.A.——both of whom were in Respondent's classes and in the drama club, so were often around both Respondent and C.W.——persuasively and credibly testified that they never heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, call each other pet names, or otherwise engage in inappropriate verbal or physical conduct toward each other. Additionally, as previously discussed, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was not able to specifically articulate anything that Respondent or C.W. said to each other that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. The fact that Respondent and C.W. stood (or even sat) next to each other and talked to each other during a school pep rally——and that, consequently, S.G. and R.C. perceived them as a "couple"——is of no probative value in proving the existence of a sexual relationship between Respondent and C.W.15/ Indeed, the undersigned finds completely credible and persuasive C.W.'s testimony that he had gone to the pep rally separately, and found Respondent and stood by him specifically to talk to him about acting instead of watching the pep rally. Respondent and C.W. both credibly and persuasively denied being involved in a sexual relationship, engaging in sexual jokes with each other, or calling each other pet names. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. Findings of Ultimate Fact It is well-established in Florida law that whether charged conduct constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by rule or statute is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cnty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, whether alleged conduct violates the laws, rules, and policies set forth in the charging document is a factual, not legal, determination. For the reasons addressed in detail above, the competent substantial evidence in the record does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in any of the conduct with which he was charged in the Petition. Therefore, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not violate the following rules and policies, as charged in the Petition: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.080(2), and 6A- 10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), (4) and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).16/ Accordingly, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is just cause, as defined in section 1012.33(1)(a), to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent, reinstating his employment as a teacher, and awarding him back pay to the date on which he was first suspended without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 24th day of April, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lawrence J. Ferrara, was an instructional employee of petitioner, School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (School Board or petitioner). When the relevant events herein occurred, Ferrara was a classroom teacher under a continuing contract assigned to John I. Leonard High School (JIL) in Lake Worth, Florida. He has been employed as a classroom teacher with petitioner since August 16, 1965 and received his continuing contract of employment in June, 1969. He holds teaching certificate number 150262 issued by the State Department of Education and is certified in the areas of American Government and social studies for grade levels 7 through 12. Respondent received a bachelor of education degree from the University of Miami. His first assignment with petitioner was in school year 1965-66 at Lantana Junior High School. He remained there through school year 1967-68. At the end of that year, Ferrara was placed on a fourth year annual probationary contract because he had insufficient control of his classes. He transferred to John F. Kennedy High School for school year 1968-69, and received a continuing contract of employment at the end of that school year. Respondent then transferred to Boynton Beach Junior High School for the 1969-70 school year. Ferrara desired to teach at the high school level because he preferred to teach students having greater maturity and interest in learning. He secured an assignment to JIL in September, 1970, where he remained until his suspension in 1986. Ferrara was initially assigned to the social studies department teaching American History to the eleventh grade. He remained in that position until the fall of 1981. During this period of time, Ferrara's evaluations showed steady improvement in his performance, and Ferrara characterized the 1980-81 school year as the happiest and most enjoyable year in his teaching career. In fact, he referred only two students to the dean for disciplinary reasons during the entire year, and both were referred during the final week of school. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Ferrara had a reputation as a good teacher, and his relationship with other faculty members was favorable. JIL sits on a forty acre campus in Lake Worth, Florida. During the relevant years the school had a student enrollment ranging in size from 2,200 to 2,850 students. Most recently its faculty numbered approximately 145. The principal is the chief administrator at JIL. In dealing with employees, the principal follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA), School Board policy, administrator's directives and the JIL Teacher and Student Handbooks. There are several assistant principals, including deans, who have been given authority to counsel with and reprimand employees. Among other things they are responsible for discipline of students. There are also guidance counselors who may counsel with other staff members and students as the need arises. The principal designates department chairmen who have authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers, and to recommend course assignments within the department. In the case at bar, Ferrara was assigned to the social studies department, which had approximately sixteen teachers. Its chairman was responsible for reviewing lesson plans of all teachers to insure that curriculum objectives were being met. This action is mandated by the School Board. At JIL lesson plans were required to be prepared one week in advance. In addition, faculty were required to prepare emergency lesson plans to be used by substitute teachers if the regular teacher was absent. Finally, the department head issued textbooks to each teacher who was obligated to turn in the books (or monies from the student) at the end of the semester or school year. According to the CTA-School Board contract introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9, and which is applicable to Ferrara's employment, Subsection A1. of Article II provides that "teachers are expected to serve on school committees, self-evaluation and accreditation committees, attend meetings and workshops . . . such service (to be) on a voluntary basis . . " Subsection A2. provides that "employees shall assume reasonable responsibility for the safe return of all school property." Subsection F4. of the same Article requires employees to "assume the responsibility for taking a positive approach to discipline and to maintain constructive classroom control." Subsection B1. of Article III prescribes a duty day for faculty at JIL of seven and one-half consecutive hours per day. Subsection B2. requires that an employee obtain approval from the principal to leave the school premises for personal reasons during the defined duty hours. Subsection E4. of the same Article provides that "the teacher shall be responsible for the preparation of daily lesson plans to be made available to the substitute in the absence of the teacher. Such plans shall be made in advance at all times." The School Board has also promulgated various "local" rules which pertain to suspension and dismissal of employees, as well as the rehabilitation process to be following once a teacher is cited for deficiencies. They apply to Ferrara's employment. School Year 1981-82 In the spring of 1981, Ferrara heard rumors that he was being reassigned the following school year from exclusively teaching eleventh graders to teaching ninth grade American Government classes as well. At the same time he learned that the teacher of an advanced history class was leaving JIL at the end of the school term. Ferrara approached the social studies de- partment head, Catherine Thornton, concerning the vacancy but was told the vacant slot had been promised to a new teacher named Martin. Ferrara then met with the JIL principal, Dr. Munroe, in June, 1981 and asked that his teaching assignment not be changed. During that meeting he criticized Munroe's selection of athletic coaches to teach in the social studies department. Ferrara considered the department as a dumping ground for coaches and other unqualified teachers. Ferrara's request was turned down and he was reassigned to teach three periods of ninth grade American Government classes and two periods of eleventh grade American History the following year. Moreover, JIL was on double sessions at that time, and Ferrara was switched from the early session (6:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.) to what he considered to be the less desirable second session that ran from 9:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. He was also required to teach during the last three periods of the second session. Ferrara was extremely displeased, and felt that he was being treated as the new teacher who was typically given the lower grade assignment and the afternoon shift. In an effort to get the new assignment changed, Ferrara met with the department head and later with Dr. Munroe. After having no success, he met with the area superintendent and finally the school superintendent. Their advice was to take the assignment, be evaluated and then see what happens. Ferrara thereafter approached five of the seven members of the school board seeking their assistance in overriding the reassignment decision. This too was unsuccessful. At one of the meetings in Dr. Munroe's office on September 4, one administrator said that if Ferrara was unhappy with the new assignment then maybe he should quit. By this time Ferrara had engaged the services of an attorney, and after he and his attorney were unsuccessful in persuading the administration to change the assignment, he instructed the attorney to file a civil rights action in federal court. This was done on July 29, 1982. The lawsuit sought, among other things, the reassignment of Ferrara to his former teaching assignment in the eleventh grade. That suit has remained pending since then, and at time of final hearing, was on rehearing of an order of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's earlier dis- missal of the action. Charles L. Thornton (no relation to the department chairman) replaced Dr. Munce as principal at JIL in October, 1981. He had previously served as dean of boys at JIL in 1970-71 and recalled that he frequently visited Ferrara's eleventh grade class that year because Ferrara was having a "hard time" with his students. Before he left JIL in September, 1971, Thornton told the then principal of JIL that they had "problems" with Ferrara because of his inability to control his students. This was borne out by Ferrara's 1970-71 evaluation which cited Ferrara for deficiencies in no less than five areas, most of which were attributable to the fact that Ferrara was then an inexperienced high school teacher. When Thornton returned to JIL in October, 1981, he learned that Ferrara had hired an attorney to challenge the school's decision to reassign Ferrara to the ninth grade classroom. Even so, when Ferrara approached Thornton about changing his assignment, Thornton told Ferrara that no teacher assignments would be made mid-stream in the semester, but he would "revisit" the matter at the end of the semester. His denial was confirmed in a written memorandum to Ferrara. He also told Ferrara the change was not to be considered a demotion and that he would keep the same title, salary and number of work hours. At the end of the first semester, Thornton did not change respondent's course assignment because it would have disrupted the master schedule and he had some concern about respondent's performance. Unquestionably, ninth grade students are less mature and more difficult to control from a disciplinary standpoint than other students, but the subject matter of their coursework is easier than the subjects taught to higher grade levels. Although Ferrara considered his new assignment as being the most undesirable of all assignments in the social studies department, other teachers stated that it made no difference to them as to which group of students they were assigned to teach. During the batter part of the first semester, Ferrara was absent due to illness on several occasions. In the second semester he took a leave of absence for the entire semester due to illness apparently brought on by job stress. According to Ferrara, teachers assigned to the first session, which he preferred, were allowed to leave the school around 2:15 p.m. each day. Ferrara's classroom faced the parking lot and he could see them through his windows departing the school while he was required to remain there teaching until 5:15 p.m. He also acknowledged having "problems" with students during the last three periods of each day, and when coupled with the aggravation of seeing his colleagues leaving early, it induced a physical ailment which led to his taking the lengthy sick leave. During his second semester absence, Ferrara prepared no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute, although he was responsible for doing so for the entire year. His substitute contacted him for assistance, but Ferrara declined to offer any, saying it was the substitute's responsibility to do the work. It is noteworthy that Ferrara's substitute had some disciplinary problems when she took over his class, but after receiving assistance from the deans, she had only "minor" problems the remainder of the semester. Thornton prepared an annual evaluation of Ferrara in June, 1982, and gave him an overall rating of satisfactory. However, he found Ferrara deficient in the following areas: discipline of students, attending required extracurricular activities, teaching in a manner in which all students in the class could comprehend and relating in a more positive manner with his peers. Other than Ferrara's use of "various methods and materials," Thornton made no comments concerning Ferrara's areas of strength. The first deficiency was based upon Ferrara's inability to control the classroom environment. More specifically, Ferrara referred more students to the dean than any other classroom teacher at JIL, and for what appeared to be minor infractions. These included talking out of turn, squeaking a chair, going to the pencil sharpener without permission and leaving one's desk without permission. On some occasions Ferrara would refer entire groups of students. In all, Ferrara's referrals constituted around 25 percent of all referrals made by the 145 JIL faculty members. The dean of students was asked by Ferrara on at least three occasions to visit his classroom because his class was out of control. The dean observed that Ferrara had very little control over his students, managed the class "poorly," and concluded that very little learning was taking place. The dean discussed with Ferrara how to handle minor classroom infractions and advised Ferrara to review the JIL Handbook provisions regarding discipline. However, Ferrara was not responsive to these suggestions. Ferrara was also criticized because his students had difficulty in understanding "his approach to teaching." This was apparent from the fact that Ferrara had an extremely high rate of failure for his students. Ferrara himself conceded that his teaching performance began deteriorating in the 1981-82 school year and never again reached the level of performance achieved by him prior to that year. The evaluation noted that Ferrara did "not have an effective relationship with associates." This was confirmed through testimony that after his reassignment became effective, Ferrara would not speak to most of the members of the department, and no longer socialized with staff at the department's workroom. Even Ferrara acknowledged that after September, 1981 he became "reserved," did not talk to colleagues arid appeared unhappy and upset. Thornton required mandatory attendance by faculty at only two school functions each year: open house when parents, students and faculty met at the school, and graduation. Ferrara attended neither saying graduation was "too sentimental" and that he was always ill whenever open houses were held. Ferrara was given a copy of the above evaluation by Thornton, reviewed it and signed it on June 8, 1982. However, he told Thornton he disagreed with the contents of the evaluation. At their meeting, Thornton acknowledged to Ferrara that he had sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, and found Ferrara to be well-versed in his subjects. School Year 1982-83 Because of problems with Ferrara in 1981-82, the department chairman recommended that Ferrara be assigned to teach five ninth grade American Government classes in school year 1982-82. This recommendation was approved by the assistant principal for curriculum who draws up the semester schedule, and later by Thornton. While teaching a class in November 1982, respondent caught a student, K. B., mimicking him in class, grabbed the student by his arm and escorted him to his seat. He did so with such force that it left bruise marks on the student's arm. Ferrara was counseled by Thornton following this incident. In January, 1982, respondent gave a student an F in her coursework for disciplinary reasons. This is contrary to school board policy and resulted in the issuance of a memorandum by Thornton to Ferrara on January 21, 1983. Various former students of Ferrara during the 1982-83 school year testified concerning their impression of his teaching style and manner. Their comments included statements that he "wasn't normal" and was "different" from other teachers. It was established that he would not answer questions from many students, either ignoring them or telling them the answer was in the textbook. He called them "stupid," "immature" and "jackasses" on a number of occasions, that he `hated" teaching them, and told them he should be teaching a higher grade level but was being punished by the administration. It was further established that Ferrara frequently yelled in class, and that his efforts to discipline students were unsuccessful. After awhile, some students would make deliberate efforts to provoke Ferrara by beginning coughing, spells or squeaking their chairs, knowing that his efforts at discipline were merely a "show" and that they need not obey him. Ferrara would also frequently discuss in class his lawsuit against the school board without relating it to the subject matter. His most common teaching technique was to give students a reading assignment from the textbook and have the students answer the review questions at the end of the chapter. Only occasionally did he give a lecture. Most students indicated they did not learn a great deal in his class, and found the instruction boring. It was established that cheating frequently occurred when tests were given, and answer sheets were passed around while Ferrara was in the room. Many believed he was punishing them by keeping the windows shut and the air-conditioner turned off on hot days. Indeed, on one day in late April, Thornton went to Ferrara's class and found it extremely "hot" with the air-conditioner off and the windows closed. Ferrara was teaching the class wearing a sweater. Thornton ordered that the windows be opened to avoid having a student pass out from the heat. Ferrara justified his actions by contending the air-conditioner was frequently inoperative and that the windows often times stuck. This was disputed by the building maintenance chief. He also stated that he kept the windows closed because of traffic noises emanating from a nearby street. However, he conceded that he kept the students in a hot room on at least one occasion as punishment. Because of complaints made by parents and students to Thornton during the first semester, a conference was called by Thornton with respondent on January 28, 1983. At that time he gave Ferrara written notice that his behavior was "inappropriate," and that he must regain control of his classroom. On April 20, 1983, Thornton had a conference with Ferrara concerning an allegation that he had called a student an "ass." After Ferrara admitted this was true, Thornton told him not to call students such names again, that it would not be tolerated and that he should refer to the teacher's Code of Ethics which proscribed such conduct. On May 23, 1983, Thornton found two of Ferrara's students wandering in the hallway without a hall pass. They had been told to leave Ferrara's class, and that he did not care where they went. During the school year, Ferrara continued to disregard the requirement to complete lesson plans. On occasions when Ferrara was absent, the substitutes found no regular or emergency lesson plans available. Instead, the substitutes had to write their own plans and give assignments, without having any idea when Ferrara would return. The assignments completed by the students for the substitute teacher were thrown in the waste basket when Ferrara returned because he found them ungraded. However, substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. During the school year the dean of students continued to receive numerous discipline referrals from respondent. The reasons for referral were generally minor, which indicated Ferrara did not have proper control of his classes. In contrast, his substitute teachers did not experience this type of problem when they substituted for Ferrara. Some of the referred students were those who had no other disciplinary problems with other teachers. On some occasions, entire groups were once again referred to the dean. In short, there was no improvement in respondent's classroom management from the prior year. At the same time, the guidance counselors continued to receive numerous requests from students to transfer out of his classes. At the end of school year 1982-83, the department chairman wrote Thornton a memorandum which listed by teacher the number of textbooks missing or not returned to the teacher. Ferrara had sixty-three textbooks missing, which was far in excess of other department staff. In addition, although he returned twenty-three of forty-eight new textbooks assigned to him at the beginning of the semester for one course, seventeen were so defaced with obscenities that they were unusable. Ferrara did not deny that he lost the textbooks, but stated that some books were smaller than normal classroom size, and could be easily carried out of class in a concealed fashion by a student. He feared that if he began searching students, he would suffer possible repercussions from doing so. Despite these losses, Ferrara refused assistance from the area director of secondary education in creating a system of inventory and control for textbooks. In his annual evaluation prepared on May 26, 1983, Ferrara was cited for deficiencies in the following areas: teaching techniques, classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. In addition, Thornton attached to the evaluation a typed sheet containing specific recommendations for improvement in each of the four areas. The sheet noted that Thornton was "willing to provide (Ferrara) whatever assistance necessary in each of the . . . cited areas." Thornton also noted that Ferrara has strength in the areas of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, appearance, educational qualifications and in adherence to the defined duty day. Thornton and Ferrara held several meetings concerning the annual evaluation. Each deficiency was discussed, and Thornton made suggestions on how to improve in those areas. However, Ferrara was not receptive to these suggestions, and complained of unfair treatment in his course assignments. He also repeatedly discussed his lawsuit. He continued to maintain he was better suited to teach the eleventh grade even though he was certified to teach both the ninth and eleventh grades. Thornton advised Ferrara he was responsible to his students no matter what other problems he believed he had, and that he should work to improve his performance. School Year 1983-84 In school year 1983-84, Ferrara's teaching assignment did not change. In fact, unlike the prior two years, Ferrara did not request a change in his teaching assignment. He also did not request a transfer to another school although these were procedures for doing so. 1/ Ferrara's failure to control his classroom continued into the new school year. During the year the assistant principal (dean) in charge of discipline visited Ferrara's classroom at least ten to fifteen times after Ferrara requested his assistance in regaining control of the classroom. On his visits the dean found a "hostile" atmosphere, and verbal exchanges taking place between Ferrara and his students. He concluded that no learning could take place in this atmosphere. The dean noted that no other regular teacher or substitute had such classroom management problems. Ferrara's referrals to the dean represented a larger number than all other faculty members combined. The dean also observed Ferrara telling his students that he did not like teaching immature ninth graders. Similar observations were made by another JIL dean. Ferrara was counseled by the dean who told him that students felt Ferrara did not like them, and that his discipline techniques were unfair. Testimony by Ferrara's students confirmed that his teaching style did not change. He continued to call them names such as "stupid" and "immature" and told them he did not enjoy teaching ninth graders. His lawsuit was also a frequent subject of class discussion. The students also complained that Ferrara refused to open the windows on hot days when the air-conditioning was inoperative because of outside noise. The latter complaint was noteworthy since Thornton had previously given written instructions to Ferrara on September 16 and 26, 1983 concerning complaints about Ferrara keeping the room too hot. During the year, a parent requested that she and her daughter meet with Ferrara and a school counselor concerning a problem the daughter was having in Ferrara's class. At the conference, Ferrara dwelled primarily on his lawsuit against the school board and did not seem concerned with the real purpose of the conference. This prompted a complaint by the parent against Ferrara. Students continued to request transfers out of Ferrara's classroom at an increasing rate. Although two guidance counselors advised Ferrara of these complaints, they observed no change in his behavior. Based upon student and parent complaints about a high failure rate, Ferrara was instructed by Thornton in October, 1983 to furnish each student with a mid-marking report (progress reports) advising them they were not performing to expectations. This report would alert students and parents that a student was in danger of failing. Although such reports are required by school board policy, Ferrara frequently did not prepare these reports. In fact, he advised Thornton he felt they were unnecessary and would not prepare them unless Thornton allowed teachers to complete them during class time. There were thirty-six weeks during school year 1983-84. All teachers were required to prepare lesson plans for each of those weeks, and to turn them in prior to the beginning of each school week. The plans were then filed, and in the event a teacher was absent, the substitute teacher would use the plans and instruct the class without a break in continuity. Ferrara was absent for three weeks in the spring of 1984. However, he left no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute. During his absence, the substitute had no disciplinary problems. When he unexpectedly returned to class after this absence, the students booed him, and then, according to the substitute, the "entire class went out of control." Ferrara thereafter required his students to repeat the work previously done for the substitute. Ferrara continued to ignore repeated requests by the department chairman to make lesson plans available. These requests were in the form of memoranda to all department personnel on August 25, October 5, November 17 and December 7, 1983 and January 17, 1984. As of February, 1984 he had turned in only three weeks' plans for the preceding twenty-week period. The department chairman wrote him a memorandum on February 10 requesting that such plans be filed. Even so, in June, 1984 the department chairman reviewed the lesson plans filed by department staff for the prior year. She found that Ferrara had completed plans for only five of the thirty-six weeks during the just completed school year. Of those completed most were generally unsatisfactory. Ferrara did not deny this, but pointed to the fact that two or three other department teachers were also continually tardy in filing their plans. This was confirmed by the department chairman. Ferrara began to come to work late and leave early during the school year although he was warned several times to adhere to the defined duty days. He also had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Because of Ferrara's continuing performance problems, Thornton placed Ferrara on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure effective April 25, 1984. This procedure is designed to provide assistance to teachers having performance problems. Basically, it provides the teacher with an explanation of any deficiencies, assistance and guidance in the cited areas, and an "adequate" period of time in which to correct them. Its main purpose is to salvage an employee's career. In his letter, Thornton told Ferrara he was being placed on the NEAT procedure because of deficiencies in the following areas: inability to use acceptable teaching techniques; inability to maintain a positive classroom environment; inability to establish and maintain a professional and effective working relationship with parents, students and colleagues; and failure to submit proper records, including, but not limited to, progress reports and lesson plans, as required by the school center, the School Board and state law. Ferrara was given until October 16, 1984 to "fully correct these deficiencies." The two met in a conference May 4, 1984 to discuss the procedure and Ferrara's responsibility to correct the deficiencies by the established date. It was pointed out to Ferrara that he would be given time off to visit other personnel while seeking assistance, and that three individuals on the county staff were available for consultation on his noted deficiencies. Ferrara viewed the NEAT procedure as a "charade" and a way for the School Board to fire him. Although he admitted he resented being placed on NEAT, Ferrara stated he respected the system and did not intend to ignore it because he knew that to do so would give grounds to the Board to dismiss him. On May 30, 1984, Thornton prepared an annual evaluation reflecting the same deficiencies as were used to place Ferrara on the NEAT procedure. It also noted that Ferrara's areas of strength were his educational qualifications and his use of good oral and written language. Ferrara was given a copy of the evaluation and, although he disagreed with its contents, signed it on May 30, 1984. School Year 1984-85 On August 21, 1984, Ferrara met with Thornton and the assistant principal and discussed various types of assistance that were available to him which had not yet been provided. Ferrara told Thornton he was not interested in any assistance and walked out of Thornton's office. On October 22, 1984, Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the following deficiencies required corrective action: continued failure to submit timely lesson plans; continued inability to establish positive rapport with staff, parents and students; continued failure to maintain a positive classroom atmosphere; and a continued deficiency in his teaching techniques. Ferrara was also told that there had been "some improvement in (his) performance," and that Thornton believed he was "making an effort to improve (his) performance, and because of this, the time for correcting his deficiencies under the NEAT procedure was being extended until the end of the school year. During the school year Ferrara's classroom management problems continued. For example, one guidance counselor observed that most of the students visiting her were students in Ferrara's classes. In fact, over half of the students she gave counseling to desired to transfer out of Ferrara's class and sought her assistance in doing so. The dean of students observed that some 35 percent to 40 percent of total disciplinary referrals by all teachers came from Ferrara, including six students at one time. This dean found most of the referrals unnecessary, and ones that could have been handled by Ferrara. In addition, she was called to Ferrara's classroom about four times each semester to calm down the class. It was established that the students deliberately "egged" Ferrara on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. Other credible testimony established that Ferrara's class was out of control on many occasions, and that this disruption affected the amount of learning that took place in the classroom. One dean suggested to Ferrara that he observe other teachers so that he might improve his classroom performance. In teacher-parent conferences, Ferrara preferred to discuss his personal problems with the school board administration rather than the problems that the student was experiencing. In other instances, Ferrara would not respond to requests by parents to contact them. On September 19, 1984, at Thornton's request, the area administrator, H. W. Berryman, visited Ferrara's classroom to observe and monitor Ferrara. This was the only teacher observation that Berryman had performed as an area administrator. On that particular day Ferrara needed some ten minutes to get the class started. Berryman noted that during Ferrara's lecture, only a few students were attentive, and that most were note-passing, carrying on conversations and creating mild disruptions which Ferrara failed to stop. However, Berryman complemented Ferrara on his knowledge of the subject matter and said his overall delivery was reasonably good. He suggested Ferrara take less time to "start-up the class, and to take steps to insure that his class was more attentive during the lecture. On October 4, 1984, Ferrara was observed by another administrator, Dr. Mona Jensen, for the purpose of assessing his teacher performance. This was also done at Thornton's request. Jensen is a consultant certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) and a trainer of other administrators in the use of FPMS. The FPMS utilizes a form for evaluating teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four areas: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Dr. Jensen monitored Ferrara in these four areas and provided Thornton and Ferrara with a copy of her written report. Among other things, she observed a negative interaction between Ferrara and his students, and that there was a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. Some of his comments were caustic in nature, and he never smiled in class. Like Berryman, she observed students talking to one another and not participating in the activity. She recommended that improvements be made in all areas which her report addressed. On October 29, 1984, Ferrara was observed by Lois Biddix, who is also a FPMS certified state trainer. Biddix used the same type of form as did Jensen in evaluating Ferrara. On her visit, Biddix observed students talking to one another, and participating in activities unrelated to the lesson. She described the class as sedentary and lethargic, with students suffering from boredom and frustration. She attributed this to Ferrara's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. These observations were consistent with those made by Berryman and Jensen, and her recommendations for improvement were in the same areas as those of Jensen. Dr. Jensen returned to Ferrara's class for a second observation on January 31, 1985. While Ferrara spoke clearly and directly on that day, and had good communicative skills, Dr. Jensen found most students did not participate in the discussion. She also found a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. During the lecture, Ferrara demonstrated anger at a remark made by a student, and told the student that if she wanted a confrontation, he would gladly accept her challenge. Dr. Jensen's evaluation and notes were given to Ferrara after the visit. The recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. A number of Ferrara's 1984-85 students testified at final hearing. Their testimony painted a picture of continued class management problems. For example, it was confirmed that groups of students would collectively begin coughing at one time or squeaking their chairs in harmony to antagonize Ferrara or test his mettle. It was also confirmed that he continued to call freshmen "stupid" and "immature," that he told his students he hated teaching ninth graders and that the school administration was wrong in making him teach that level of students. He also discussed his pending lawsuit during class hours and referred to the school administration in a negative manner. On at least one occasion he discussed the qualifications or lack thereof of another department teacher. It was further pointed out that Ferrara refused to give credit for assignments given by his substitute teacher. There were complaints that Ferrara punished the students for talking by making them sit in a hot classroom without opening the windows or running the air-conditioning. There was also a "lot" of cheating during class even though Ferrara was present in the room. The general consensus of most students was that the class was boring, and that they did not learn a great deal in this type of environment. Ferrara was required to spend 7 1/2 hours each day on campus. 2/ During the year, he did not always arrive at school on a punctual basis or spend the required number of duty hours at school. On April 11, 1985, the department head wrote Thornton a memorandum criticizing Ferrara for his repeated tardiness, and leaving before 2:15 p.m. After Thornton notified Ferrara about this complaint, there was an improvement on his part. During the second semester of the school year, a guidance counselor, Elizabeth Konen, approached Ferrara and told him that the parents of one of his students desired a parent-teacher conference to discuss their child. Ferrara told Konen he did not have time to meet with parents. Konen found this to be the usual response of Ferrara whenever such a request was made. On another occasion, he wrote a note to Konen stating he had no time to meet with parents, but after Thornton intervened and ordered a conference, Ferrara attended. In December 1984, Thornton requested that Ferrara produce proof that he gave his students progress reports as required by Board policy. Ferrara could produce only two such reports, although he claimed four others had also been given reports. This was after Ferrara had been previously criticized on October 21, 1984 for the same deficiency. On January 8, 1985, Thornton again gave written notice to Ferrara that he give timely progress reports to all students who were failing or working below expectation. Even after this second warning, a student, S. Z., complained to Konen in February, 1985 that she had not been given a progress report by Ferrara. This was brought to Thornton's attention in a letter written by S. Z.'s mother. On March 25, 1985, Thornton wrote respondent a letter outlining his continued areas of "serious deficiencies," and his lack of improvement in those areas since being placed on the NEAT procedure. He was warned that unless there was "significant improvement," Thornton would have no choice except to recommend he be terminated. Ferrara was urged to implement the suggestions outlined in the letter, and was told that "any reasonable assistance" requested by him would be given. Despite receiving numerous criticisms for failing to turn in lesson plans, respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year 1984-85. However, he did turn in a complete set of plans at the end of the year, but they did not indicate what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. On June 10, 1985, Ferrara was given his annual evaluation for the school year. It noted numerous continued deficiencies in three broad areas: classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. The only noted areas of strength were knowledge of the subject matter and use of proper grammar and written language. In his meeting with Thornton, Ferrara was told, among other things, that he should not make unprofessional remarks to his students, that he must adhere to defined duty days, that he must file lesson plans and progress reports on a timely basis, and his attitude with peers should improve. School Year 1985-86 Despite Ferrara's failure to correct all deficiencies by the end of school year 1984-85, Thornton made a decision to give Ferrara one last chance to rehabilitate himself under the NEAT procedure. On August 19, 1985 Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the NEAT procedure was being extended until November 1, 1985 and that he must correct all deficiencies by that date. This gave, Ferrara a total of sixteen academic months under the remedial program. The letter also stated that if the deficiencies were not corrected by November 1, Thornton would make a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools concerning Ferrara's employment status. Respondent had been criticized for giving an unusually high rate of failing grades to his students during prior years. It was established that his failure rate was substantially higher than for other teachers in school years 1981-82 and 1982-83. For example, his failure rates in 1981-82 and 1982-83 were 24 percent and 33 percent, respectively. In 1983-84, it was a little more in line (18 percent) with that of the other teachers to whom he was compared. After the first semester of school year 1985-86 had ended, Thornton reviewed Ferrara's grades and found the failure rate had been substantially reduced. Indeed, it was then slightly over 10 percent, thereby supporting Ferrara's contention that he had improved in this cited area of deficiency. On November 18, 1985, a thirty minute evaluation of Ferrara's class was conducted by Sandra Cowne, an assistant principal at JIL. Among other things, Cowne found that Ferrara still had no up-to-date lesson plan book. She noted that Ferrara was in need of improvement in four areas of performance. All other areas indicated satisfactory performance. On December 2, 1985, D:. Jensen visited Ferrara's classroom to monitor and evaluate his performance. The purpose of the visit was to determine if Ferrara had implemented the recommendations for improving instruction previously made after her earlier visits. Dr. Jensen asked to meet with Ferrara just prior to the hour of observation but he refused saying he didn't want to discuss anything. She then asked for his lesson plan and was given a plan that was too brief and had insufficient detail. During the actual observation, she found that Ferrara had not added any positive teaching behaviors to his technique although she had suggested this to him after her earlier observations. According to Dr. Jensen, Ferrara's main deficiency was that he failed to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. She concluded that Ferrara was an ineffective teacher, ranking below average due to his lack of positive behaviors. A copy of her evaluation and notes was given to respondent. H. W. Berryman made a second visit to Ferrara's classroom on December 10, 1985 for a repeat evaluation. Berryman initially noted that Ferrara had heeded his prior advice from September, 1984, and had speeded up the start-up time for beginning his instruction. However, Berryman continued to be concerned with the lack of involvement by a large majority of the students in the classroom. Although he found that Ferrara had "in-depth content knowledge" of the subject matter, he concluded that Ferrara had "serious negative attitudinal problems in reacting to all of the students assigned to his classes." Several of Ferrara's students testified about their experiences in Ferrara's classroom during the first semester. They confirmed that respondent's teaching techniques had not changed from prior years. For example, it was established that the usual disruptions occurred during his class, such as students sleeping, passing notes, talking and generally being inattentive. Ferrara again called his freshmen students "immature" and "childish," and told them that he had been demoted to the freshman class because the school board could not fire him. It was pointed out that once he told the students that they were immature, Ferrara would lose control over the class. There were continuing complaints that the classroom was too hot, and that Ferrara told the students if they were unhappy about the room temperature to complain to the administration. On one occasion, he refused to move his classroom to an adjacent empty room even though a student had vomited on the floor and the stench remained after the area was cleaned. It was also established that Ferrara continued to talk in class about his pending lawsuit and the problems he was having with the school administration. During the first semester, Ferrara continued to send large numbers of students to the dean for minor infractions. He also sent as many as six at a time. Ferrara was now disciplining his students before referral by making them write repetitious sentences. However, this is considered to be an inappropriate form of discipline. This form of discipline prompted complaints from both students and parents to the administration. It was confirmed through testimony of an assistant principal that respondent's classroom control had not improved over a three- year period. This observation was concurred in by various guidance counselors who received visits from Ferrara's students. During the first semester of the school year, there was no improvement in respondent's professional relationship with his peers. He refused to speak to most colleagues, and openly expressed his disdain for the department chairman. When respondent was in the department workroom, the atmosphere was hostile and uncomfortable. Similarly, like in other years Ferrara did not attend open house. He also failed to provide adequate lesson plans as previously ordered on a number of occasions. At the end of the first semester, Thornton concluded that sixteen academic months was a sufficient time to allow Ferrara to correct his deficiencies. Finding that respondent was "damaging" his students, that no improvement in Ferrara's performance or attitude had occurred, that he was making no contribution to the school program, and that he was still besieged with student and parent complaints, Thornton concluded that disciplinary action was justified. Thornton did acknowledge that Ferrara had improved in the areas of adhering to duty hours, issuing progress reports, taking roll call and reducing the number of failures. Even so, he concluded that this was insufficient to satisfy his overall teaching performance deficiencies. Moreover, he found that Ferrara's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired. Thornton accordingly recommended that Ferrara be terminated. Ferrara's suspension without pay became effective on February 19, 1986 and he has remained in that status since that time. Respondent's Case Ferrara traced all of his problems to what he perceived to be an uncalled for demotion to the ninth grade classroom in school year 1981-82. He felt it to be unjust, and an action which ignored the seniority he had attained over the years. He acknowledged that once the reassignment occurred he became demoralized and bitter and was never the same teacher again. Ferrara did not deny that he called students names. He also conceded that he had problems maintaining classroom discipline, but suggested he was being paid to teach, not to discipline. Ferrara further admitted he yelled at students, and sent a great many to the dean's office, but blamed much of this on a small group of students who always instigated trouble in his classroom. Ferrara asserted his classroom discipline would actually improve at times during this period, but that each time Thornton sent a note criticizing him, he became demoralized and would again lapse into his prior ways. Although Ferrara considered the NEAT procedure a means by which petitioner could fire him, he contended he attempted to correct his deficiencies. However, it was Ferrara's contention that only through reassignment to the eleventh grade could he actually improve and correct his deficiencies. He believes Thornton to be biased since Thornton is a defendant in Ferrara's lawsuit. However, independent administrators confirmed that the deficiencies cited in Thornton's memoranda were real, and that Ferrara had made no visible effort to correct most of them. Moreover, contrary to his assertions, Ferrara was accorded adequate notice, sufficient means and ample time to correct his cited deficiencies. In this regard, the School Board satisfied all regulations pertaining to the rehabilitation and dismissal of an employee. Ferrara also pointed out that Thornton prepared a special file called the "Larry Ferrara Drawer" in November, 1982 so that Ferrara's actions and performance could be documented. However, Ferrara's teaching performance was in issue by this time, and Thornton was simply conforming with various state, local and union requirements that potential disciplinary action have a well-defined paper trail. Ferrara did not deny he missed all graduations and open houses from 1981 through 1985. He justified his absence from graduation ceremonies on the ground they were too "sentimental," and stated he was always ill whenever open houses were scheduled. Ferrara denied that students were punished by keeping the room hot. He blamed the heat on an often inoperative and inadequate window air- conditioning unit in his classroom, and windows that were difficult to open. This was denied by the school maintenance chief. Various students corroborated Ferrara's claim that the air-conditioner did not always work, but it is found that Ferrara sometimes punished his students in this manner. Ferrara attempted to repudiate the testimony of former students who testified for petitioner at final hearing by offering favorable testimony of other former students. However, the latter testimony either pertained to time periods too remote to be relevant to this proceeding, or was discredited by more persuasive and credible testimony from petitioner's witnesses. Ferrara contended he prepared all required lesson plans but waited until the end of the school year to turn them in. However, even it this were true, this was contrary to school policy since such plans were required to be turned in the week before they were to be used. Ferrara suggested that most of his difficulties were caused by his creating "waves" at JIL. As noted above, he believed Thornton and the administration were biased against him because he had sued them, and because he had publicly criticized various school policies and individuals in the news media. But it was never established that such animosity existed, or if it did, that it played a role in the dismissal process. Finally, Ferrara professed a sincere desire to continue in the teaching profession, albeit at a more mature grade level. He does not wish to be terminated after a twenty-one year career. He desires to be reinstated at JIL and allowed to teach the eleventh grade as he did during the years 1970- 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency (inefficiency), misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, and that he be dismissed as-an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board. DONE and 0RDERED this 11th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1986.
Findings Of Fact During the 1993/1994 school year, the Respondent, Alan Davis, was in his 12th year teaching eighth grade science at Meadowlawn Middle School in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is on a professional services contract. He has a good record and reputation as science teacher at the school and no prior disciplinary problems (or even accusations against him.) The Respondent's classroom was located on the east wall of the school building, at the intersection of two interior hallways to the north and west of the classroom. There is a classroom door to the outside to the east, and the entire east wall of the classroom consists of windows looking across a walkway directly onto portable special education classrooms. There are vertical blinds that can be drawn across the windows and closed. The blinds usually are drawn but not closed. There is a classroom door to the hallway to the west of the classroom. Immediately across the intersecting hallway to the north of the classroom is the door to the teachers' lounge. Immediately past the intersecting hallway to the north is the door to the office of the school resource officer. Immediately past the resource officer's office, only approximately 25 feet from the door to the Respondent's classroom, is a suite of offices belonging to the school principal and other school administration personnel. Kim Wilder was an eighth grader at Meadowlawn during the 1993/1994 school year. She was in the Respondent's fourth period science class. Through about half of the year, she enjoyed a good record and reputation as a pupil of the school. Her grades were A's and B's, and she was not a disciplinary problem. However, several people noticed a change in her behavior in the middle of the school year. Her relationship with her parents deteriorated somewhat, and she sometimes displayed an attitude of not caring about family or school. The beginning of these changes in Kim roughly coincided with her friendship with a boy named Gilbert, who was a poor student, both in academics (he had to repeat grades) and in conduct. Gilbert also later began to spread rumors that he and Kim allegedly were sexually active. Such rumors came to the attention of interested and concerned teachers, one of whom alerted Kim's parents. Kim's parents became convinced that Gilbert was a bad influence on Kim and that she would be better off not seeing him. They refused to allow him to visit at their home, and they insisted that she stop seeing him. This created a conflict between Kim and her family. In the course of conversations with some girl friends approximately the end of March or beginning of April, 1994, Kim disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted by the Respondent. Initially, she told one of her friends only that the Respondent had "felt on" and "kissed" her. She told others additional details. But the first three friends she told did not recall any allegation that the Respondent performed oral sex on Kim. In later retellings, Kim added that allegation. In one later retelling, she added the allegation that the Respondent felt her breasts. Kim forbade her friends to tell anyone about her allegations. But one of her friends disclosed the allegations, and school authorities were informed on or about April 8, 1994. When Kim learned that the school authorities were investigating her allegations, she was very upset and angry at the friend who disclosed her confidences. When the school authorities confronted Kim, she maintained that her allegations were true, and the school authorities brought her home from school. Kim's parents were not home but her sister-in-law, who lived next door, was home and spoke with Kim. Based on the sister-in-law's testimony, it does not appear that Kim's statement to her was very detailed. Although Kim and her parents reported that they generally have an open and communicative relationship, Kim refused to discuss the allegations with them when they came home from work. Instead, she referred her parents to her sister-in-law. Through at least August 26, 1994, Kim had not discussed the details of her allegations with her parents. (They have, however, read statements she has written concerning the allegations.) Law enforcement interviewed Kim at her home on April 8, 1994, and memorialized the interview in a written statement. On June 21, 1994, Kim wrote an account of the alleged assault by the Respondent. Kim also recounted the entirety of the alleged assault twice during testimony at final hearing, once on direct and again on cross; parts were repeated once more on redirect. All of these statements are replete with rich detail, making them seem real. However, with one noteworthy exception, the consistent precision with which the details are repeated seems unnatural and could give the impression of being recited from a memorized script. Before her fourth period science class on Friday, December 10, 1993, the Respondent told her that her mother had telephoned the Respondent earlier that morning to inquire about the C on her report card for the second grading period (after getting an A for the first grading period) and that the Respondent had told Kim's her mother that Kim was missing seven assignments. The Respondent told Kim that she could get the assignments, together with the book she needed to do them, after school. (The required book would not be available until after school because the Respondent's classes shared the use of the same books during class.) Meanwhile, in the detailed versions of her allegations, Kim stated that she was jokingly bantering with a friend and the Respondent about whose "man" the Respondent was, as they did from time to time. She stated that, on this occasion, the Respondent informed them that he was "a dirty old man." She stated that she and her friend did not take the Respondent's statement seriously. Kim stated that, after school ended at about 3:50 p.m. on Friday, December 10, 1993, she went to the Respondent's class room to get the make-up assignments. She testified that she would have arrived at approximately 4 p.m. She said the Respondent was straightening desks and that she helped him finish before sitting in one of the desks. She stated that he then asked her if she had come by to see if he really was a "dirty old man." She made an off-hand comment to the effect, "I guess," or "whatever." He then walked to the classroom door and shut it. Several of the witnesses, including her friends and her sister-in-law, testified that, when Kim first told them what happened, she said that the Respondent locked the classroom door. The report of the law enforcement interview on April 8, 1994, also indicated that Kim told law enforcement that the Respondent locked the door. In fact, the classroom door does not lock from the inside. In her June 21, 1994, statement and in her testimony at final hearing, Kim stated that she thought the Respondent locked the door. Kim alleged that, after shutting (and, in the early versions, locking) the door, the Respondent put a poster with a monkey on it over the window portion of the door and dragged an easel with a flip chart in front of the door, apparently to block access to the classroom or, at least, to serve as an alarm to give him some time to react in the event someone tried to enter the classroom. There was indeed a poster of a monkey (or chimpanzee) on display in the Respondent's classroom that year, and there also was an easel in the classroom that would have been at the Respondent's disposal. But, in fact, the classroom door opens into the hallway, not into the classroom, and the placement of the easel in front of the door would not have been very effective. It is possible that it was the Respondent, not Kim, who overlooked the manner in which the door opened. But, even if the classroom door had been locked or blocked, the Respondent's classroom was adjacent to another science classroom, and there is a door between the two classrooms that does not lock. Ordinarily, it would not be uncommon for the Respondent's fellow science teacher, as well as a few students, to be in the adjacent classroom from 3:50 p.m. until as late as 4:05 p.m. In addition, administration personnel in the suite containing the principal's office and the other administration offices generally are occupied until 4:30 p.m., or later, even on a Friday. Custodians also circulated through the building after school (although they generally did not clean the Respondent's classroom until later.) Fortuitously, it has been possible to deduce, from some of the details provided in Kim's allegations, the precise day on which the alleged assault occurred--Friday, December 10, 1993. It so happens that Friday, December 10, 1993, was the last day of the school science fair. There were approximately 200 projects on display in the school gymnasium, which was just down the hall from the Respondent's classroom. Entrants in the fair were required to dismantle and remove their projects after school that day. As a result, although both students and teachers generally leave the school building promptly on Fridays, and fewer after school activities usually are planned for Fridays, more than the normal number of students would have been in the hallway during the time immediately after the end of school on that particular Friday. In addition, the Respondent's fellow science teacher in the connecting classroom adjacent to the Respondent's had arranged with a handful of his students to allow them to dismantle their projects earlier in the day and store them in his classroom. These students would have been in the connecting adjacent classroom between approximately 3:50 and 4:05 p.m. picking up their science projects. Kim alleged that, after securing the classroom door, the Respondent returned to her and asked whether she thought he was a "dirty old man." She stated that, when she answered, "no, I think you are a nice guy," he suggested, "maybe you should go now," and went over to remove the easel and open the door. But, she alleged, when she insisted that she had to stay in order to get her assignments, he again went to the door and repeated the steps he had just taken to secure the door. This time, when he returned to her, he backed her into a corner of the classroom, using gentle pressure on the shoulders, and (in each telling, "putting his arm around her neck") began kissing her. Kim stated that she did not resist the Respondent or call for help because the Respondent was not being violent, and she was afraid that he would become violent if she was not compliant, so she kissed him back. She alleged that he proceeded to lift her ankle-length "peach and black floral print skirt" (which she was wearing with a "black, long sleeve V-neck shirt"), remove her panties (and, in each telling, she stepped out of the panties "with [her] right foot" while he held her panties) and insert his finger into her vagina. She alleged that he pressed down on her shoulders until she was in a squatting position, lay on his back on the floor and positioned his head under her, and initiated oral sex. After this, he allegedly stood her up, and resumed kissing her, while unbuckling his belt and unzipping his pants. She alleged that he took her hand and placed it on his penis. She alleged that, when he removed his hand from hers, she removed her hand from his penis. When she allegedly thwarted his attempt to have intercourse with her, he allegedly turned her around to face the wall, bent her over (somehow, towards the walls she was facing), again pulled up her skirt, and (as best she could tell) again attempted intercourse, this time from the rear (she alleged that she "felt something hard against her vagina"). Then, she alleged, she detected movement from behind her and assumed that he was masturbating and ejaculating because, when she turned around after the movement stopped, he was wiping something off the floor with a yellow towel. (A yellow cloth, from which a piece had been torn or cut, was found in one of the closets in the Respondent's classroom during the School Board's investigation of the allegations. But it was not proven that the cloth which the Respondent allegedly used to clean the floor on the afternoon of Friday, December 10, 1993, had come from the cloth found in the closet in the Respondent's classroom.) Kim alleged that the Respondent apologized to her for what he did and begged her both never to come back to his classroom alone after school and not to tell anyone. She alleged that the Respondent made reference to a teacher who was being disciplined for sexual misconduct with a student 20 years ago and stated that he always would be afraid that she would disclose what he had done. (In fact, such a story had been reported in the local newspapers on December 8, 1993.) Kim alleged that she promised the Respondent she would not tell anyone. According to Kim, after the incident, which lasted a total of 20-30 minutes, she and the Respondent calmly and amicably left the school together. They allegedly exited through the classroom door into the hallway to the west of the classroom, crossed the intersecting hallway, immediately down which is located the door to the teachers' lounge, and continued walking down the hallway. Immediately past the intersecting hallway, they would have had to pass both the office of the school resource officer and the suite of offices belonging to the school principal and other school administration personnel. A little further down the hallway, they would have passed between the school cafeteria and the school gymnasium (the site of the science fair). Just past the cafeteria and gymnasium, they would have come to the door leading to the parking lot. Kim stated that no one saw them and that they did not see anyone on their way out of the building. Kim alleged that, before she left the building to walk home, she watched the Respondent walk across the parking lot and get in his pickup truck. The Respondent testified that, after learning the date on which it was deduced that the assault allegedly occurred, he realized that it would have been impossible for Kim to have witnessed him getting into his pickup truck on the day in question. He testified that he was having mechanical problems with the truck that week and was driving his wife's car across the bay bridge to work after dropping her off at her place of employment in Tampa, where they lived, while his truck was being repaired. He produced a cancelled check and was able to secure a computer printout from the bill he paid for the repairs when he picked the truck up the next day, Saturday, December 11, 1993. Kim also testified that the Respondent left the "monkey poster" on the door covering the window when they left the classroom. But the custodian who cleaned the Respondent's classroom each evening did not recall ever seeing the "monkey poster" anywhere but on the wall. The Respondent denied engaging in any of the alleged inappropriate behavior. He was able to reconstruct that he had bus duty on Friday, December 10, 1993, and would not have returned to his classroom until 4 p.m. He recalled that there was an unusual amount of activity in the hallways, especially for a Friday, but that probably was attributable to the school science fair. He recalled that, as he approached his classroom, he noticed several students in the adjacent connecting classroom with his fellow science teacher. He thinks he saw Kim there, too. In any event, Kim followed him into his classroom shortly after he unlocked it, opened the door and turned on the lights. He remembered that she helped him straighten desks and that he sat at a desk with her to go over the assignments. He did not recall whether he or she actually wrote the assignments down. He then gave her the book she needed, and she left. He testified that the entire process took approximately five minutes and that the door to the classroom never was closed during that time. Kim alleged that, although she never completed the missing assignments, the Respondent raised her grade from a C to a B. The Respondent testified that Kim completed four of the seven missing assignments. The Respondent normally would not either keep the make-up assignments nor, to prevent other students from copying them, return them to the student. Kim alleged that the Respondent gave her special privileges, like library passes, after the assault. But it was not proven that the Respondent gave more privileges to Kim after the alleged incident than before, or that he gave her privileges that he did not also give to other good students like Kim. Kim alleged that the Respondent often complimented her appearance. The Respondent admitted to affirmatively answering occasional direct questions from Kim as to whether she was pretty. He also recalled occasions when he told Kim and other female students that they were "pretty enough already" and did not need to (and should not) comb their hair and apply makeup in class. Kim alleged that, on one occasion, the Respondent commented that a low-cut blouse she was wearing was distracting. The Respondent recalled once reprimanding Kim for wearing a blouse that was revealing and in violation of school dress code. He admitted that he may have told her that it could be distracting to other students. The Respondent admitted to making an inappropriate comment to or about Kim on one occasion. The school assembled in the gymnasium one day for the introduction of a fund-raising campaign that featured a "money machine." The money machine consisted of a transparent booth with dollar bills inside. As part of the fund-raising campaign, students would be allowed to enter the booth while fans blowing air through holes in the floor of the booth blew the dollars bills off the floor and around inside the booth. The student inside had a limited period of time to grab as many dollar bills as possible. When volunteers were requested to demonstrate the "money machine," Kim thought better of it since she was wearing a skirt. The next day, in the Respondent's class, the Respondent asked Kim why she hadn't volunteered. When she answered that she was wearing a skirt and was concerned that air in the booth would have lifted her skirt, the Respondent commented aloud to the class, "that would have been interesting," or words to that effect. The Respondent was trying to be funny but admitted that the comment was not appropriate. It is noteworthy that, when the Respondent was told that Gilbert was spreading rumors to the effect that he and Kim had an intimate sexual relationship, the Respondent warned Kim to take appropriate steps to protect her reputation. It was revealed during the course of the investigation into Kim's allegations against the Respondent that Kim also has made allegations that, during the summer of 1993, she was forcibly raped at two in the morning, in the bathroom of a restaurant, by a 24-year old male acquaintance. Although Kim's mother thought she remembered Kim returning home upset after the alleged incident, she also testified that she may have learned about it after the allegations against the Respondent surfaced--long after the alleged rape. (Kim's mother, who has been terminally ill and on several medications for some time, seemed confused on this point.) Regardless when Kim revealed the alleged rape, both she and her mother agreed that Kim asked her mother not to tell anyone because Kim could "handle it" by herself. Kim did not receive any treatment or counseling for the alleged rape. Kim also did not mention the alleged rape to law enforcement during the investigation into the allegations against the Respondent. Although it is possible that the alleged rape or the Respondent's alleged sexual assault actually happened, both seem improbable. Yet, it is troubling that no obvious motivation for Kim to fabricate the allegations against the Respondent appears from the evidence. It is possible that she was seeking attention. It is possible that her mother's medical condition could have played a role in motivating such action. On the other hand, it could have had something to do with the relationship between Kim and Gilbert. Maybe she was upset with the Respondent for his role, minor as it was, in turning her parents against Gilbert. Maybe she was trying to deflect her parents' attention away from the bad influence that Gilbert might have represented by trying to make the point that acquaintances or even teachers could pose a worse threat. Maybe the alleged rape and the allegations against the Respondent arose from apprehension about how to explain feared consequences of sexual activity with Gilbert, as irrational as it might seem. Maybe there are other possible explanations in the nature of mental or emotional instability. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that Kim was simply making up a story to impress her girl friends and found herself committed to the story when one of them disobeyed Kim's command not to tell anyone. One can only speculate as to what the actual motivation could have been.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the charges and reinstating the Respondent with back pay. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; the rest is rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. 13.-29. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that she "volunteered." (She decided not to volunteer.) Rejected as not proven that he told Kim (privately, as opposed to as part of the class). Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 32.-33. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301-4th Street S.W. Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County School System Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 611934, based upon the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Case No. 990-1149-R, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact STIPULATED FACTS Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 611934, covering the areas of History and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2004. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Sandalwood High School (Sandalwood) in the Duval County School District. ADDITIONAL FACTS Morgan King was a female student at Sandalwood at times relevant to the inquiry. Following her marriage she is known as Morgan Hall. Although Ms. Hall was not a student in Respondent's classes at Sandalwood, she became acquainted with Respondent. Ms. Hall's involvement with Respondent was principally during sixth period of the school day. At that time Ms. Hall would routinely leave her history class at the end of the period and go to Respondent's classroom where she had many friends. When Ms. Hall arrived at Respondent's classroom Respondent and the students, to include Ms. Hall would "hangout and talk." Some of the conversations that Ms. Hall participated in with Respondent and other students in his classroom were of a sexual nature. These conversations followed an earlier conversation in a prior year when Respondent told Ms. Hall a story about a girlfriend that he had when he was a young teenager. He explained that he and the girlfriend would stay up all night together. The girlfriend had kids. Respondent told Ms. Hall about the sexual relations which he had with the girlfriend while Respondent was a teenager. Beyond that conversation, while in his classroom at Sandalwood Respondent followed the theme in his discussion with Ms. Hall concerning sleeping with numerous women, so many women that he could not remember how many he had slept with. He went on to comment to Ms. Hall that when you are married you could not do that, but it was acceptable conduct before marriage. Respondent's comments to Ms. Hall about having sex with a girlfriend before marriage and about the number of women he had slept with before marriage were voluntarily remarks made to Ms. Hall. She did not begin the discussions. Respondent told Ms. Hall about another female student that had come to his classroom after other students had left and flipped up the backside of her skirt revealing the thong underwear she was wearing. While in this classroom in sixth period, friends of Ms. Hall would make fun of her by talking about her "backside," saying that she had a "big butt." Respondent would participate in the conversation, remarking in what Ms. Hall considered to be a joking manner, about Ms. Hall's "butt being big." This comment was made by Respondent a few times. Ms. Hall had conversations with Respondent that insinuated discussion about his penis. As Ms. Hall perceived it, part of what he said was something to the effect that Respondent "could suck his own penis." Ms. Hall in response to Respondent's remarks of a sexual nature would tell him that, "You are a sick old man. That's gross." She would make these comments in a joking manner, but at the same time recognizing that this was a serious matter. She did not want to be rude and offend Respondent, thus the lighter nature of her remarks. On one occasion while in Respondent's classroom, Ms. Hall was sitting on the floor next to his desk against a cabinet. Ms. Hall asked Respondent why it was so cold in the room. He replied, "You know why I like it to be cold, you know why I want it to be cold," while raising his eyebrows. Ms. Hall described how other girls would sit hanging over Respondent's desk with their "boobs are like right there in his face. And everybody's nipples are hard." That was the circumstance that caused Respondent to raise his eyebrows. On the subject of female students being around Respondent's desk in his classroom, Ms. Hall perceived that those students felt comfortable around Respondent. Respondent created the impression that he was like a friend to Ms. Hall and other female students. He was enjoyable company, according to Ms. Hall. She described his conduct as being disgusting a little of the time, but not all of the time. In these exchanges Respondent allowed the female students to act disgusting in their own right. The discussions of a sexual nature at times were promoted by Respondent, at other times they were promoted by the students. Ms. Hall discussed a computer website entitled "Banged Up.com" with Respondent in the classroom. That website contains subject matter with sexual connotations. Debra Coleman was another student at Sandalwood during the relevant time period. She was in Respondent's tenth grade world history class. She had conversations with Respondent of a sexual nature. Ms. Coleman went to Respondent to talk to him about her sex life. Other students talked to Respondent about sex in her presence. Respondent was open to those conversations. Respondent made a comment to Ms. Coleman and other female students, that if they did not do their work he was going to spank them and that they would like it. On one occasion Ms. Coleman was allowed to have an extended lunch period following a discussion in which Respondent asked her if he could bite her lip. She said, "No." Respondent then reached up and pinched her bottom lip. On another occasion when Ms. Coleman was in Respondent's class, Brandie Brinksma, a female student was sitting next to her. Respondent pulled out a money clip. In addressing the female students he said, "I'll give you $500 if you, Brandie, turn to your right and kiss Carrie on the cheek. And, Carrie, I want you to then turn around and act like you are going to kiss her on the cheek and instead of just kissing her on the cheek like, Brandie will turn her head." And beyond that point the students would "start making out." Ms. Coleman was offended by those remarks from Respondent. She got mad and walked out of class. She had never walked out of class before. What Respondent said to the two students was stated in front of the entire class. During one instance when Ms. Coleman was at Respondent's desk in the classroom, a Coke can was on the end of Respondent's desk. Respondent told Ms. Coleman to pick up the Coke can. Respondent placed a measuring ruler next to the Coke can and stated "Imagine 9 1/2 inches of that, going up you," while indicating the measurement on the ruler. Ms. Coleman turned red and responded something to the effect "O.K." and went back to her seat. That measurement was perceived by Ms. Coleman to refer to Respondent's penis. In classroom, in Ms. Coleman's presence, Respondent made a comment about his ability to "Suck his own penis" in the shower, to the effect that "He was able to go down on himself." Some of the male students in the class commented that this physical dexterity was not possible. Respondent commented that he was able to perform this act on himself, but that he had not done it in a while. In April 2000, Aron Muse was the affirmative action supervisor/equal employment opportunity coordinator for the Duval County School Board. He was assigned to investigate Respondent's conduct on the subject of Respondent's conversations with the students concerning sexually related topics. Respondent told Mr. Muse that he was a friend of the students and he was trying to assist them in life in discussing subjects of a sexual nature and that he intended to direct the students in a proper way. Respondent told Mr. Muse that some of his conversations involved sexual jokes. These discussions with students pertain to a bond which the students and Respondent had, according to Respondent. As Respondent told Mr. Muse, the discussions about sexual matters were "nothing personal." Brandie Brinksma was a student of Respondent's at Sandalwood. She is referred to in the Administrative Complaint as B.B. One of her friends was worried about her while she was attending school, concerning Ms. Brinksma's use of drugs and having sex. It is reported that the friend of Ms. Brinksma went to Respondent and asked that Respondent say something to Ms. Brinksma to let Ms. Brinksma know that those were not good choices on her part. Respondent took Ms. Brinksma aside and asked if he could talk to her. Respondent remarked that the other student was worried about Ms. Brinksma's conduct. Respondent advised Ms. Brinksma to think about the consequences of her acts. Although this discussion concerning drugs and sex was not at the instigation of Ms. Brinksma's parents or the school district, Ms. Brinksma was not offended by the discussion with the Respondent. More specifically, in the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Brinksma, Respondent mentioned that he had heard that Ms. Brinksma had been "trippin." This is a term attributable to the other student who had arranged the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Brinksma. Ms. Brinksma told Respondent that she had been having sex and that she had tried the drug Ecstasy once. At times relevant Susan Tidwell, formerly Susan Tabor, was a teacher at Sandalwood. She was acquainted with Respondent. Respondent said "a lot of sexual things" to Ms. Tidwell. One of the Respondent's actions would be to show his bicep by flexing it in Ms. Tidwell's presence. He would say, "If this is this big, guess what else is." This was perceived by Ms. Tidwell as an insinuation that was sexual in nature. Respondent said to Ms. Tidwell on more that one occasion that he wanted to "See Ms. Tidwell in black straddling . . . " and then he would pause for the effect, and add, "a Harley," referring to a motorcycle. Respondent told Ms. Tidwell that he wanted her to lose her "good girl image" and that black leather would be what he wanted to see her in. Respondent told Ms. Tidwell one time that he wanted her to advertise for his lawn service business and that all she had to do was to sit in the back of his pickup truck with a bikini top and that would drum up business. Respondent told Ms. Tidwell at school, "Hey Susan, do you know why God gave women vaginas." She responded that she did not want to hear his joke. As she left a workroom at the school when the bell rung, Respondent continued to insist that Ms. Tidwell listen to the punch line of the joke. While in the hall he delivered the punch line which was "So men would talk to them." Ms. Tidwell was not amenable to hearing the ending to the joke either. Respondent, while Ms. Tidwell and another female teacher Christie Allen were in a school workroom with him, told the two female teachers that he had a fantasy about being stranded on a desert island with the two of them, so that they could be on an island full of "little cookies." Ms. Tidwell was bothered by Respondent's remarks that have been reported and somewhat embarrassed to that point in time. Later in Respondent's classroom, Respondent told Ms. Tidwell that he had talked to the class about her pending divorce. In this conversation he said, "I guess it has been a long time since you had any, so let me know if you need something." Another part of the discussion at that time involved some reference by David E. McConnell, a former teacher at Sandalwood who was visiting the school and was in Respondent's room. Mr. McConnell brought up Respondent's lawn business and commented that Ms. Tidwell needed her lawn done. In response Respondent said to Ms. Tidwell "You know I have something you need, you have something I need." Then he grabbed his crotch. Ms. Tidwell considered the circumstances that took place in Respondent's room on that occasion to be intolerable. Ms. Tidwell reported Respondent's conduct to her school department head and to the assistant-principal at the school, which led to an investigation by the Duval County School District.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Counts 2 through 5, dismissing Count 1, and permanently revoking Respondent's educator's certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __ CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2003.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Michael Fort, at times pertinent to the charges in the Administrative Complaints, held teacher's certificate number 514033, issued by the State of Florida Department of Education (Department). That certificate authorized practice as a teacher in the area of music education. The Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Weir Middle School in the Marion County School District. The Respondent was under an annual contract with that school system from November 23, 1983, through the 1984-85 school year. The Respondent's last annual contract expired on June 7, 1985. The Respondent's teacher's certificate expired on June 30, 1985. Some time prior to the expiration of his teacher's certificate, the Respondent applied to the Department for its renewal. That application still pends before the Department. In October 1983, the Respondent had a minor student spend the night at his apartment. The minor student had previously been a close friend of the Respondent and had socialized with him in the past, including spending the night at his residence on other occasions. The Respondent had entered into a close, friendly relationship with the minor, Darien Houston, by frequently letting him stay at his residence during periods of time when Darien Houston's parents were fighting or otherwise engaging in domestic discord, which apparently was very disturbing to the student. Darien Houston, although a student in the Marion County School System, was not a student of the Respondent. Indeed, the Respondent was not yet employed by that school district. In any event, during the course of the evening in question, while they were sitting near each other watching television, the Respondent placed his hand on the student's leg and the student requested that he remove his hand. The student at the time thought Fort was joking or had no serious intent by this action. Fort then went to bed and the student went to bed, sleeping on the floor in his jeans in a sleeping bag. Some time later that night, the student was awakened and realized that the Respondent had undressed himself and undressed the student and had proceeded to place his hand on and fondle the student's penis. He thereafter attempted to roll Houston over onto his stomach in spite of Houston's objections. In response to the student's objections, the Respondent made a statement to the effect, "Do you want to do it with me?" The student continued to object and to retreat from the Respondent's advances. He retreated to the bathroom where he locked himself in and remained for the remainder of the night. The student was embarrassed because of the incident and elected not to report it to school officials or others for approximately a year and a half. However, Houston did tell his best friend what had happened, who in turn informed Houston's mother of the incident. Eventually, Houston's brother informed another individual of the occurrence, who then informed Mr. Springer, the principal at Lake Weir Middle School, of the incident. Darien Houston, a student there, was then called before Mr. Springer, who investigated the matter. Houston related the information about the subject occurrence to him, in approximately May 1985. Thereafter, the criminal proceeding against the Respondent related to this incident and the instant administrative Prosecutions ensued. The matter became public knowledge among students at Lake Weir Middle School, who teased Houston about the incident, causing him great embarrassment and humiliation. The occurrence was widely reported in local newspapers. Sometime in May 1985, while a teacher at Lake Weir Middle School, during the course of a puppet show being Presented in a sixth grade classroom, Respondent stuck his hand down the back of a minor male student's pants between his underwear and his trousers. This action by the Respondent shocked and embarrassed the student, although it was not established that any bystanders, of which there were a number present, observed the incident. The student, Patrick Hammer, was embarrassed to tell anyone of the occurrence, but ultimately informed his teacher of the incident by writing a note to the teacher concerning it. Other students at the school ultimately became aware of this and teased Patrick Hammer about it, causing him embarrassment and humiliation. In approximately May 1985, the Respondent attended a party at a local hospital. The Respondent was in the company of three minor male students who were then enrolled at Lake Weir Middle School. The students, Steve Hall, Richard Slaughter and Eddie Ericson, or some of them, were drinking beer from a keg or draft dispenser at the party. Steve Hall's mother, who was employed at the hospital, was present at the party and was aware that her son was drinking beer. All three of the boys later left the party and went with Mr. Fort to his apartment. While en route, the Respondent stopped at an ABC Liquor Store and purchased approximately two six-packs of beer. After purchasing the beer, the Respondent took the three students to his apartment where the students swam in the swimming pool and, in his presence and with his knowledge, drank the beer that the Respondent had purchased. It was not established that the Respondent bought the beer with the specific intent of giving it to the students but, by his own admission, he offered no objection to the students' consumption of the beer in his presence at his residence. On May 12, 1986, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of attempted sexual battery and one count of lewd and lascivious behavior. He was sentenced to ten years probation, fined $200, ordered to undergo mental health counseling, to complete 100 hours of community service and to refrain from any custodial or supervisory contact with any person under the age of 16 years. Respondent's arrest, the circumstances surrounding the charges and his plea regarding the above incidents received widespread publicity in the local media and was known to students, faculty and other School Board personnel and the public at large. On or about April 10, 1985, the Respondent received a letter from Nick Marcos, Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services with the School Board of Marion County, informing him that he would be reappointed to a position as an annual contract teacher with the Marion County School System as soon as he had been issued a regular or temporary teaching certificate for the 1985-86 school year. On or about May 16, 1985, the Respondent submitted a reapplication for a temporary certificate to the Florida Department of Education. On or about August 9, 1955, Respondent received a letter from R. S. Archibald, District School Superintendent, advising him that he had been suspended as an instructional employee of the Marion County School System, pending a meeting of the School Board. Thereafter, on or about August 19, 1985, the Respondent received a letter from Jim Ergle, as Chairman of the School Board, advising him of the Board's decision to suspend him without pay based upon the above-described arrest and charges. In the April 10, 1985 letter, the Assistant Superintendent had informed him that he had been recommended for reappointment for the 1985-86 school year, but reminded him that he would have to renew his teaching certificate to be eligible for reappointment. Upon his application for renewal of his teaching certificate, the application demonstrated that all requirements for renewal had been met. His teaching certificate expired on June 30, 1985. The renewal application was never acted upon by the Department, although it informed Mr. Fort, sometime prior to August 1985, that his application was in order and the certificate would be forthcoming. His suspension without pay was predicated upon the charges pending before the Circuit Court for Marion County concerning the alleged sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct, and the letter informing Mr. Fort of it did not indicate that it was at all based on his failure to renew his teaching certificate. The School Board employed the formal suspension process against the Respondent, although his express annual contract had already expired, in an abundance of caution because a grace period is normally allowed teachers to re- apply for renewal of their certificates after expiration and because the Board allows a grace period for reappointment of a contract teacher after the expiration of a teaching certificate, provided the teacher provides evidence that the certificate has been properly renewed. The Respondent was paid for all services rendered by him to the Marion County School Board through the last day of the 1984-85 school year, which was also the last day of his employment pursuant to his last express annual contract. He has never taught in the district since that time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the EPC permanently revoking the certificate of the Respondent, Michael Fort, and that he be finally dismissed by the Marion County School District and forfeit any back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esquire Rex D. Ware, Esquire 111 North Calhoun Street Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 215 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July 1987.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Neil A. Merica, committed the offenses alleged to have begun in 1994 through 1999 as stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated May 7, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of the witnesses while testifying; the documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); stipulations and arguments of the parties; and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant, material, and ultimate facts, arrived at impartially, based solely upon the extensive evidence adduced at the final hearing, are determined: Respondent's Qualification and Teaching Experiences Mr. Merica holds a degree in speech communication from the University of South Florida. He is also certified in specific learning disabilities (SLD) by that institution. Early in his 13-year tenure as a teacher at Foster Elementary School (Foster), he acquired a degree in computer science from Florida Metropolitan University. Mr. Merica holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 532934, covering areas of English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), SLD,2 and Speech. His Florida Educator's Certificate expired June 30, 2003. As of the date of this proceeding, Mr. Merica had not exercised his right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. Mr. Merica also holds a teaching certificate from New Hampshire. Mr. Merica has a very demonstrative and expressive personality. His voice, when speaking at his normal conversational tone, resounds from the back of his throat in a louder than average volume. During his testimony, the pitch of his voice and his rapid speech pattern was accompanied by an unexpected and sudden outburst of spastic energy. Hillsborough County School Board's "Pull-out" Classroom Policy In 1987, the Hillsborough County School Board (Board) operated a Pull-out Classroom Policy (Pull-out Policy) for SLD and Physically Impaired (PI) students. Pursuant to the Board's Pull-out Policy, SLD and PI students were pulled out of their regular classes, divided into various numbered groups, and sent to a designated "resource" class teacher during the school day. Respondent's Initial Teaching Assignment Under the Pull-out Policy in 1987-1988 Mr. Merica began teaching at Foster as a SLD resource class teacher in October 1987 when the Board's Pull-out Policy was in effect. A resource teacher is the teacher whose class consisted of SLD students who were "pulled out" of regular classes of non-SLD students and sent to a resource class consisting of all SLD students for teaching and instruction. In 1989, the Board changed its Pull-out Policy to a "Self- contained" Classroom Policy (Self-contained Policy). The Self- contained Policy was designed to keep all SLD students together in one identified class throughout the school year. Mr. Merica taught SLD students under the Self-contained Policy at Foster until the 1992-1993 school year. Beginning at the start of the 1992-1993 school year, Foster's administration assigned Mr. Merica to teach a resource class consisting of PI and Learning Disabled Resource (LDR) students. PI classes consisted of students with a variety of physical impairments, including students who required various assistance devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, braces and "talkers," a machine device that assists the student with speaking difficulties to communicate. Mr. Merica continued as a PI and LDR teacher from the 1992-1993 school year through the 1998-1999 school year. Foster Elementary Exceptional Student Education Student Population from 1998 to 2000 During the two-year period of the 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000 school years, Foster had a large exceptional student education (ESE) population among its general student population. Foster's ESE community population consisted of 22 units, composed of full-time ESE students. There were six units of mentally handicapped students, with mental handicaps ranging from severe and profound mentally handicapped to mild emotionally mentally handicapped. There were four units of autistic students and four units of PI students. Foster had approximately five units of early exceptional learning programs, and three units of SLD students. Policy Change to Self-Contained Classes in 1998-1999 During the fall of the 1998-1999 school year, the Board changed their Pull-out Policy for SLD and PI students to a Self- contained Policy. The Self-contained Policy was instituted because of the severity of the students' learning disabilities, their struggles with academics, and the administration's conviction that the daily routine of shifting the SLD and PI students from "regular class to resource class" did not sufficiently address the students' individual learning disabilities and individual educational needs. Foster's administration identified students whom they believed did not handle transition well and recommended them as candidates for self-contained classes. The primary objective of the administration was to provide more "direct teaching time" and "direct teaching services" to each SLD or PI student. In the self-contained classes, SLD and PI students were assigned to one class and one teacher with a teacher's aide and/or a Department of Education for Exceptional Students (DEES) attendant throughout the day. The teacher's aides were those persons who were permitted to assist, under the oversight of the teacher, the classroom teacher with all facets of teaching, instruction, and classroom control. The DEES attendants were those persons whose duties consisted primarily of assisting the teacher by attending to individual and personal needs of SLD and PI students, i.e. changing their clothing, providing restroom assistance, etc. Respondent's 1999-2000 Reassignment to Teach Self-contained SLD Class In mid 1998, Brenda Griffin (Principal Griffin) was appointed principal of Foster replacing Janice Payne, f/k/a Pils (Principal Payne). At the start of the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin changed Mr. Merica from his PI and LDR class and assigned him to teach a self-contained class of SLD students. A self-contained SLD class is a class composed of SLD students, each of whom has an individual educational plan (IEP) designed as the teacher's guide to assist in teaching each student to achieve specific, individual, and predetermined educational goals. Each IEP is developed by joint agreement of the SLD student's parent, his/her teacher and the assigned therapist (teacher). The IEP also identifies special educational services and supports that may be necessary to achieve desired outcomes and short-term objectives, and it establishes student educational benchmarks. An IEP may or may not contain daily, weekly or monthly checklists to evaluate a student's progress in achieving the benchmarks contained in his or her IEP. To make an objective determination of whether a student with an IEP has made progress (advanced from or to an ascertainable educational position), knowledge of the educational benchmarks contained in the student's IEP are essential. During the earlier years as a teacher at Foster, Mr. Merica served as the school's Classroom Teacher's Association (CTA) representative. In this capacity, he would address and argue those issues he believed to have had direct impact upon teachers who were members of the CTA. Mr. Merica attributed many of the comments made during staff meetings to addressing issues he believed had an impact upon teacher members of the CTA. During the 1997-1998 school year and after lengthy discussions with Principal Payne, but before Principal Griffin was appointed principal, Mr. Merica resigned as CTA representative. In September of 2000 and after 13 years of annual employment contract renewals, the Board terminated Mr. Merica's employment. At the time of this proceeding, Mr. Merica had not exercised his right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. In this proceeding, the Commissioner seeks to permanently revoke Mr. Merica's right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. The Amended Administrative Complaint The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged specific instances of specific conduct, specific acts, and specific speech to have occurred at unspecified dates and at unspecified times during a five-year span of time from 1994 through 1999. Accordingly, only incidents specifically alleged and proven by evidence of record to have occurred on or after January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1999, are considered in determining whether the Commissioner proved each allegation charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. STATUTE VIOLATIONS Count 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has proved to be incompetent to teach or perform duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school. Count 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving mortal turpitude. Count 3: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. Count 4: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS Count 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Count 6: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Count 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination. WHEREFORE, Petitioner recommends that the Education Practices Commission impose an appropriate penalty pursuant to the authority provided in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes, which penalty may include a reprimand, probation, restriction of the authorized scope of practice, administrative fine, suspension of the teaching certificate not to exceed three years, permanent revocation of the teaching certificate, or combination thereof, for the reasons set forth herein, and in accordance with the Explanation and Election of Rights forms. Amendment to Amended Administrative Complaint to Correct Scrivener's Error. On December 24, 2003, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Correct Scrivener's Error, which was granted and provided the following: On November 6, 2003, Petitioner Amended the Administrative Complaint in this matter. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint should be further amended to correct the scrivener's error. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint currently states: "During the 1998-99 school year, Respondent sexually harassed several different co- workers." That portion of Paragraph 5 should be amended to state: "Between 1994 and 1999, Respondent sexually harassed several different co-workers," to conform the time period for the allegations of Paragraph 5 with the time period for the allegations of all other paragraphs of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Janice Payne, Principal at Foster from 1987-1998 Principal Payne was principal at Foster from May 1987 to May 1998. An illness forced her to retire midyear in the 1997-1998 school year. After Principal Payne’s retirement, the Board appointed Principal Griffin as principal of Foster. Principal Griffin held that position during the time of this hearing. During Principal Payne's 1987 to 1998 tenure as principal at Foster and as required by statute, she performed yearly evaluations of Mr. Merica's professional performance as a teacher of SLD and PI students. Consideration was given to annual performance evaluations for the 1994-1995 and 1998-1999 school years. During the 1994-1995 through 1997-1998 school years, Principal Payne identified, in her annual evaluations of Mr. Merica's overall professional teaching performance, specific areas in which she independently determined Mr. Merica was in need of professional growth and improvement. At the end of each of those four evaluation periods, she met with Mr. Merica and discussed and identified for him those specific areas in which he was in need of professional growth and improvement. She provided him with specific, constructive advice and assistance to facilitate his professional growth and improvement as a professional teacher in the areas she identified. Undisputed evidence established that Mr. Merica accepted Principal Payne's constructive advice and assistance; he complied and implemented her suggestions in each area identified as in need of growth and improvement, and he grew and improved his performance in each identified area. It is noted, however, that Mr. Merica would sometimes suffer relapses and revert into his old pattern of voicing his personal opinions on a variety of subjects, described by Principal Payne as just: "talking up and rumoring everybody." Even with his propensity to occasionally "talk up and rumor everybody," Principal Payne concluded that he was a very good teacher and that he could be better. Principal Payne's methodology of assisting her young professional teachers' growth was to identify areas in need of improvement followed by personal conferences with each teacher explaining areas in need of improvement, making individualized suggestions tailored to the need(s) of the teacher, and, after an appropriate time interval, completing a follow-up assessment to evaluate the teacher's growth, improvement, and compliance with her suggestions. The record evidence demonstrated the existence of a professional and respectful relationship between Principal Payne and Mr. Merica, spanning the eight or more years they worked together, including the few occasions when there were disagreements. 1998-1999 Performance Evaluation of Mr. Merica In February 1998, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a letter of reprimand citing him for having acted in an "unprofessional manner" with Pam Wilkins, an ESE co-worker. Nevertheless, when Principal Payne evaluated his overall professional teaching performance for the 1998-1999 school year, including his personal conduct, she gave him a "satisfactory" rating in every area, without comments. Principal Payne made her independent written evaluation of Mr. Merica without assistance of any criteria or standards, other than as indicated on the evaluation form.3 In reaching her independent assessment of Mr. Merica's proficiency and effectiveness, scoring them on the characteristics and numerical scale indicated, she relied upon his teachings, his problems, and his improvements experienced. Her professional judgment of Mr. Merica was based upon her personal observation and day-to-day association with her teachers. Mr. Merica's 1998-1999 Performance Evaluation is the most accurate, reliable, and undisputed evidence of his competence and overall professional performance as a teacher during the 1998-1999 school year. There is no credible evidence of record that Mr. Merica engaged in unprofessional conduct evidencing either a past, an onset or a continuation of professional incompetence as a teacher in the school system during the 1998-1999 period covered by Principal Payne's annual evaluation. In response to the general inquiry of “whether or not her previous discussions and her prior improvement expectations of Mr. Merica as a teacher over the [unidentified] years were successful,” Principal Payne, convincingly, testified: Yes, temporarily, absolutely. My philosophy about Mr. Merica--first of all, he could be a good teacher if he wanted to be because I have observed him. I know that. He could behave if he wanted to. He could be a strong staff member. But, you know, he could do that probably for maybe four months or five months and all of a sudden it was just--he was just doing the same old thing, just going around, talking to everyone, rumoring people or getting rumors to people. It's just like this school was his life. Continuing, Ms. Payne testified: Mr. Merica would frequently apologize and realize what he had done was wrong, because at one time he's like a lamb and help to do whatever he can do and other times he just be so angry and upset to the point of where I said his behavior would frighten me. As the professional supervisor who worked with Mr. Merica for more than a ten-year period, Principal Payne was the most experienced and most knowledgeable person from years of hands-on experiences to have observed "the beginning of professional teaching incompetence that was not responsive to assistance provided by other professionals and continued unabated throughout her tenure." The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony and documentation of Principal Payne, "a beginning of demonstrated professional incompetence in 1994" or even as late as the school year of 1996-1997, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Based on the testimony of Principal Payne, it is a reasonable inference, and I infer, that the "behavior of anger" sometimes demonstrated by Mr. Merica in Principal Payne's presence was directed toward the subject matter of "what he had done was wrong" and not directed toward the person of Principal Payne. Through the above testimony, the Commissioner failed to prove that between 1994 and 1998-1999, Respondent was insubordinate and confrontational towards Principal Payne during her tenure as principal. The Commissioner failed to prove the allegation that Mr. Merica's personal conduct began to demonstrate "incompetence" as a professional teacher during the period of the 1994-1995 through mid-year of the 1997-1998 school years while Principal Payne was principal of Foster. A review of the record demonstrated, and the undersigned so finds, that no other witness called by the Commissioner provided credible, material and substantive evidence, based on personal knowledge contradicting the testimony of Principal Payne, that related to Mr. Merica's professional "teaching skills" during the period of the 1994-1995 through mid-year 1997-1998 school years. Brenda Griffin Principal at Foster Elementary beginning in 1998 After the 1997-1998 midyear resignation of Principal Payne, the Board appointed Principal Griffin as principal of Foster. The professional relationship between Principal Griffin and Mr. Merica became tense, and, based upon the collective testimonies of teachers and administrative staff members hereinafter, the tension was known by both the professional staff and administrative employees at Foster Elementary. Principal Griffin recalled that during her first year as principal at Foster (approximately the latter half of the 1997-1998 school year), she made an unannounced visit to Mr. Merica's self-contained classroom of PI students. Recalling her visit, she testified: [T] hey [students], all had IEPs that have specific goals for each student and what I observed was group instruction, but I felt like the PI students were not being stimulated. (Emphasis added) There is no record evidence of the particular teaching materials being used by Mr. Merica during this single visit. There is no record evidence establishing ascertainable professional expectations or teaching standards below which Mr. Merica was performing during Principal Griffin's initial visit. There is no record evidence of specific educational benchmarks or educational goals contained in the PI students' IEPs. Within the situational circumstances of this one visit as testified to, Principal Griffin's conclusiory opinion that Mr. Merica's "PI students were not being stimulated" lacks an objective benchmark for evaluation, as well as any reasonable degree of reliability to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the matter sought to be established. Continuing, Principal Griffin testified: Mr. Merica would go to the board, where there may or may not have been written some vocabulary words, and he would start some kind of instruction and I felt that was because I was in the room--sometimes the aides would get up to work with the kids and sometimes not, and I was sure they were waiting on the direction from their teacher at that time. (Emphasis added) Principal Griffin recalled another separate incident, but omitted providing the month or year, when she "observed Mr. Merica sitting at his computer--she "did not know what he was doing at his computer"--but she had been in his classroom on a previous (unidentified time) occasion when a golf game was on the computer and she--"knows that he was not tending to the students." Principal Griffin's conclusions, her feelings, and her opinions in findings 24 and 26 herein above, minus evidence of the situational circumstances surrounding each incident, lack reasonable reliability to produce a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Principal Griffin also recalled (unspecified) occasion(s) on which she observed Mr. Merica outside his classroom. She characterized those observations as having seen Mr. Merica: verywhere- in the hallways, in the lunchroom, at the PE field, in the back of the school--in the ESE wing building, where the buses are for the kids, in the clinic, in the office, everywhere-at any period of time during the day. There is no record evidence of personal knowledge by the witness or evidence of the situation and/or circumstances that caused Mr. Merica to be outside his classroom on those occasions when he was observed by this witness. The witness' summary characterization, "everywhere-at any period of time during the day," lacks certainty, reasonableness, and a degree of believable reliability to produce a firm belief as to the accuracy of the matters to which she testified. Viewed most favorably, Principal Griffin's testimony failed to establish that on each of those occasions she observed Mr. Merica outside his classroom; his presence outside his classroom was not within the scope of his professional responsibilities and duties as a professional staff member at Foster. The credibility of this witness is further diminished by her exaggerated testimony of facts at issue. This testimony and the intended inference that his absence from his classroom caused a direct and negative impairment on his students' learning, lack essential details to provide a reasonable degree of reliability and cast insurmountable doubt as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Principal Griffin testified she talked with Mr. Merica about not being in his classroom and he told her: [H]e needed a break or that it was his break time and that his aides were in the classroom and they were capable of instructing his students. Mr. Merica disputed and denied making the particular statement, i.e. "that his aides were capable of instructing his students." His version of the reason(s) for absences from his classroom were reasonable explanations(s) corroborated by other witnesses as found infra. Even if Mr. Merica's denial of the inferred accusation is unbelievable, it does not prove the accusation by the Commissioner to the contrary. The acceptable and unacceptable reasons or situations a teacher may or may not be out of his or her classroom, and personal knowledge of those unacceptable occasions that Mr. Merica was not in his classroom, were not established through the testimony of Principal Griffin. The evidence does not support the frequency or extent of her assertions but, instead, casts doubt on the accuracy of the witness' testimony. The Commissioner failed to prove through the testimony of this witness that on each occasion Mr. Merica was observed outside his classroom, his presence was unreasonable, unprofessional, and caused a direct and negative impairment on his students' learning. Principal Griffin testified, unconvincingly, regarding another incident (again with no record evidence of the month, school year or the situational circumstances) that "a mother" called her to bring to her attention "that the teacher was not using the touch-talker in the classroom and at one point took it away from the child as part of a discipline." The witness did not provide the mother's identity. The witness did not provide the child's identity. The witness did not provide the teacher's identity though those three persons were allegedly involved in this undocumented incident. The presumed inference(s) that Mr. Merica was "the teacher" referred to by the unidentified mother, who (inappropriately) disciplined "a child" by taking away the unidentified child's touch-talker, is unreasonable. The vague, non-specific testimony of this witness, and her inability and/or her refusal to identify the mother, the child, and the teacher, create an unacceptable level of credibility due to the absence of three significant points of identity. The credibility of this witness' testimony was further diminished by the lack of corroborating testimony by other witnesses, and the witness' credibility disappeared because no recording was made of such an important call from a parent to the principal of a school. The testimony by this witness does not establish or corroborate other testimony regarding the issue of "some teacher using the touch-talker in the classroom and at one point took it away from the child as part of a discipline." The Commissioner, through the testimony of this witness, failed to demonstrate that Mr. Merica "inappropriately disciplined a student," as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The testimony of this witness, based solely on debatable expressions as her personal "feelings" and personal "opinions" regarding alleged conduct in the past reflected in findings 24 through 32 herein above, viewed most favorably, lacked reasonable reliability and substantial weight to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Respondent's 1998-1999 Personnel Performance Evaluation At the end of the 1998-1999 school year and notwithstanding her testimony in findings numbered 24 through 32 above, Principal Griffin, independently, determined that Mr. Merica's overall professional teaching performance, to include his personal conduct and, by reasonable and objective implication, his teaching competence, was satisfactory in every category for the 1998-1999 school year. The overall "satisfactory" performance evaluation given Mr. Merica by Principal Griffin for his professional teaching competence and personal conduct in the 1998-1999 school year is significant when juxtaposed to her testimony at the final hearing. As late as May 1999, this witness' independent evaluation of Mr. Merica's professional teaching competence and his personal conduct was reflected on his 1998-1999 performance evaluation as "all satisfactory." However, the testimony contained in Findings of Fact 24 through 32 in this 2004 proceeding is a direct contradiction. This aspect of the witness' 2004 testimony and written 1999 evaluation raised substantial issues of the witness' intent and cast insurmountable doubt on the witness' credibility. The lack of consistency in opinion and the ambiguity created by the 2004 testimony of conduct having occurred from pre-termination to post-termination are resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. Mr. Merica's competence as a teacher, his teaching skills, classroom management, and student discipline, as evaluated and determined by Principal Griffin, for the 1998-1999 school year, ending May to June 1999, is the more substantial, reliable, and persuasive indicator of his past performance and competence as a professional teacher during the preceding 1998-1999 school year. Debora Bragdon, Secretary to Principals Payne and Griffin Debora Bragdon testified that during the 1999-2000 school year (ending May to June 2000), Mr. Merica came into the administrative office a minimum of once and "sometimes" twice a day, depending upon the day. According to Secretary Bragdon: Mr. Merica and Principal Griffin had discussions in the principal's office a minimum of once and sometimes twice a day throughout the entire school year. Secretary Bragdon could not recall the subject matter discussed nor did she recall hearing Principal Griffin's voice at any time during the alleged daily office discussions. Mr. Merica's voice, however, she heard stating that "Mr. Merica would be screaming so loud that I could hear him clearly." However, she could not recall a word or phrase spoken by Mr. Merica. Secretary Bragdon did not enter the principal's office when Mr. Merica and Principal Griffin were having their daily conferences. Secretary Bragdon surmised, from the tone of Mr. Merica's voice only, that Principal Griffin was in danger. Secretary Bragdon further testified that during those daily conferences she would buzz Principal Griffin on the intercom asking if she needed assistance, and Principal Griffin repeatedly assured her that "she did not need assistance." Principal Griffin did not corroborate or confirm Secretary Bragdon’s testimony on the issue "once and sometimes twice a day throughout the entire school year she had discussions with Mr. Merica in her office." Any reasonable consideration of Secretary Bragdon's above recollection requires acceptance of the fact that a minimum of 180 (once a day) to a maximum of 360 (sometimes twice a day) conferences occurred in Principal Griffin's office during the 1999-2000 school year between Principal Griffin and Mr. Merica. The intended inference that during each daily office conference, whether 180 times or more, Mr. Merica was always screaming at Principal Griffin while she sat silently in her office is rejected. Secretary Bragdon's exaggerated testimony lacks any appreciable degree of reasonableness, reliability or credibility. Her entire testimony failed to produce a firm or a precise belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, and the Commissioner failed to prove through this witness that Mr. Merica was confrontational and argumentative with Principal Griffin during unspecified conferences while in her office. Negative Statements Continuing, Secretary Bragdon testified, unconvincingly, regarding unidentified sounds she overheard on the intercom system: rom the sounds I overheard on the intercom system when Mr. Merica called the administrative office for help with control of his students,-not all the time but sometimes you could hear disorder, confusion, kids maybe not under control. (Emphasis added) From unidentified sounds she allegedly overheard on the intercom, Secretary Bragdon concluded that the sounds she heard were "disorder," and, from that, she inferred that the "kids were maybe not under control" in Mr. Merica's class. The intended inference that Mr. Merica's "student behavior management and student control" was not effective at unspecified times, alluded to by this testimony, is rejected for want of reasonable credibility. Secretary Bragdon's testimony in findings 33, 34, and 35 consisted of exaggerated and speculative conjectures. As such, her testimony was not substantial in specifics nor competent in knowledge to establish as fact the allegations testified to in findings 33, 34, and 35 hereinabove. Secretary Bragdon was secretary to both Principal Payne and Principal Griffin, but there is no record evidence of the school year the alleged intercom activities she purported to have overheard, and of which she testified, occurred. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged misconduct during the period 1994 through 1999 (1999 ending December 31, 1999), not throughout 1999-2000. The ambiguity regarding the time period the alleged conduct occurred is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. Subversive Statements Secretary Bragdon also testified about a personal conversation between her and Mr. Merica "shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing."4 Although she could not remember the day, month or year, she specifically recalled: I was in the cafeteria getting coffee and Neil was also in the cafeteria. He brought his children in there to have breakfast. And he was up at the same table that I was and he basically just said that, you know, - - everybody was basically talking about it and I don't know word for word, but basically what he said was it would be good if we could do something like that here, but we just have to make sure the administration are in the building. This statement, if true, demonstrated, at its worst, bad taste on behalf of Mr. Merica. When considered within the context (everybody was talking-about it), circumstances (just after the news report of the occurrence), and the location (at a table in the cafeteria) with everyone talking, the alleged statement does not evidence a manifested "subversive" intent of Mr. Merica, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Sectary Bragdon's demeanor, attitude, and manner of responding to questions seemed calculated to provide little light on the substantive facts of the situation, but rather an exaggerated version of the nature and circumstances of the incidents. I find the testimony of Secretary Bragdon unworthy of reliance upon as a true foundation to support findings of fact as to the matters testified to hereinabove. Negative Attitude Toward Administration Statements Cynthia Blake, a DEES attendant at Foster from 1985 to 2002, testified regarding "statements" allegedly made by Mr. Merica that demonstrated his negative attitude (state of mind) toward the school administration. When asked the following question: "[W]hat comments were made or what comments have you overheard that would support your belief that Mr. Merica had a negative attitude about the administration," Ms. Blake gave the following answer: Well, there was a lot and sometimes he would just walk away. He did not want to hear it. He would walk behind me, say it again, and would say, you know, be careful or whatever and it never changed. At this one given time, we was just outside and I was watching some kids, I think, and he came up and they was painting the school and he just said that ought to get all the kids out of the school and blow the school up and leave the administration in the school. During her earlier deposition, Ms. Blake was asked: "[W]hat comments were made or what comments have you overheard that would support your belief that Mr. Merica had a negative attitude about the administration?" As seen below, her response then differed from her present testimony. Q. Do you remember a situation where Mr. Merica said something about blowing up the school? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me about that? A. Well, we at some point always told Neil, you know, to you know, you'd better calm down because you never, you know, people -- the teachers and -- I mean the administration -- you have to just watch yourself. There are certain things you just can't say and probably in a joking way, but it was a lot of stuff going on at the time. The schools had been with firearms and up in Columbine and different situations, so probably it was in a -- I don't know what to say -- but he just spoke of we need to get all the kids about and leave the administration in and blow up the school. Q. Do you remember saying that it was probably in a joking manner back when your deposition was taken? A. Well, basically when Neil spoke about things, he laughed about it, so at the time, like I said, there was so much going on between the news and that, I would never know anymore. Q. All right. So he might have though it was funny, but you didn't think it was funny; is that fair? A. No, sir. The testimony of Ms. Blake, mirroring the testimony of Secretary Bragdon, demonstrated bad taste on behalf of Mr. Merica. When subject to cross-examination about the statement or other aspects of her prior testimony, Ms. Blake became vague and uncertain about her prior versions and was inconsistent on matters that seriously undermined her credibility. Consideration of the situation and circumstances when Mr. Merica made the alleged statement supports a reasonable inference that Mr. Merica's statement was a crude and boorish attempt at making a joke, not in good taste, but nonetheless a joke. The Commissioner did not prove by the above testimony that Mr. Merica was hostile and subversive or intended his comment as derogatory and disrespectful toward his principal as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Physical Restraint and Classroom Management Allegations Pat Drennan, assistant principal at Foster, by her admission was primarily responsible for the school's educational curriculum. In her "educational curriculum" capacity, Ms. Drennan assisted teachers, students, and parents in curriculum matters and assisted teachers in discipline in the classroom, student testing, and student grades. She was unable to recall the year and date, but she recalled she had been in her position as assistant principal for four years, approximately 1998 through January 2004. When asked about the Board's policy regarding an educator's physical restraint of students, Ms. Drennan responded that her "understanding" of the Board's policy was: [B]asically teachers are not to restrain students unless they have been trained-- unless they have ACT training they can not bring a child down on the ground or anything. She did not know whether Mr. Merica was ACT trained or not at all times pertinent and at the time of her testimony. No writing in the record speaks to this issue, and no predicate was laid to show that the witness was in a position to know the Board's policy. This witness stated her "understanding" of the applicable rule. A finding of fact that a violation of a penal statute or rule occurred cannot be based upon loose interpretations and problematic evidence, but on evidence as substantial as the penalty for violation of such statue or rule. The testimonial evidence given by this witness failed to establish the "rule." Thus, her opinion regarding violation of a rule she does not know, lacks a foundation upon which a reasonable degree of reliability will support. Ms. Drennan recalled one occasion on which (no evidence of the month and year) on which she instructed Mr. Merica "not to restrain a student she 'thought' he had restrained." She recalled making one general suggestion (not explained) to Mr. Merica regarding classroom behavior management, adding, but "he did not have to do it." Ms. Drennan did not know whether during his last year at Foster (1999-2000) Mr. Merica taught the entire year. When asked if she knew why Mr. Merica left Foster she answered: [I]n my mind, the situation was that he no longer was able to control himself and the class--the management of the class. No evidence of record speaks to the issue of a standard of classroom management from which to evaluate Mr. Merica's conduct. To demonstrate this issue the Commissioner's reliance on witnesses who could but state their "understanding" from various and dubious vantage points, failed to prove what was required of Mr. Merica and the specific conduct that fell below the required standards. The intended inference to be drawn from the above testimony of Foster's assistant principal, that Mr. Merica was "unable to control himself" and "unable to manage his class" and thus incompetent, is rejected for a lack of personal knowledge on behalf of the witness and evidence of an objective standard from which to evaluate "control" and class "management" by a teacher. The Commissioner failed to establish, by the testimony of Ms. Drennan, that Mr. Merica was unable to control himself and unable to manage his class and, thus, demonstrated incompetence, during the (unspecified) period inferred by Ms. Drennan's testimony, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Drennan testified, unconvincingly, about hearsay from another teacher, Ms. Parson, who told her, "for information only." According to Ms. Drennan: Ms. Paula Parson, a teacher who did not want anything done about it but for information only, told her she was apprehensive about Mr. Merica bringing her lunch and giving her unwanted attention. Paula Parson was not called to testify. The intended inference of unwanted attention is not accepted by the undersigned. The Commissioner failed to prove by the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of Ms. Drennan that Mr. Merica sexually harassed several different co-workers, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Code of Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility When asked if she was familiar with the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility, Ms. Drennan again, unconvincingly, testified: I think yes, basically, the rule that deals with personal conduct that seriously reduces an educator's effectiveness in the school district,--when someone coming into the district-I would want to look at previous-- what had happened previously with the person and I would think they would be ineffective; I would find them ineffective in the fact if they were not open to interaction with faculty and staff in an appropriate, professional way; They are ineffective if they don't know how to deal with children in the proper way. If they couldn't tell me that they could do a management plan--have one before they walked in. I would find them ineffective if they were not--didn't have the right tools for teaching, basically, and those tools are many. Besides a degree, it would be how you get along with people, how open you are to learning new things, and that type of thing. There were no incidents of Mr. Merica being insubordinate or confrontational with Principal Payne witnessed by Ms. Drennan. This witness presented no evidence that she had personal knowledge of Mr. Merica's classroom management skills or the lack thereof. Her "opinions" about what conduct would be inappropriate and what conduct that would seriously reduce an educator's effectiveness (and competence) in the school district are her "opinions" and nothing more. The "right tools for teaching, basically, and those tools are many," standard coming from an assistant principal does not establish an objective and acceptable standard by which to evaluate a teacher's competence as a professional teacher. Viewed most favorably, the "opinions" of Ms. Drennan are not appropriate, objective standards by which to determine whether the professional conduct of a fellow teacher fell below the Code of Conduct and/or violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner failed to prove, by the testimony of Ms. Drennan, that during the period starting approximately in 1998 and continuing through December 1999 Mr. Merica engaged in conduct that fell below the Code of Conduct and/or violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Confrontations with Principal Griffin Ms. Drennan testified that at some point in time (of which she was not sure and unable to identify) her office was located next door to Principal Griffin's office, and she would "intentionally" leave her door open. According to Ms. Drennan, by leaving her door ajar she "could overhear and 'tell from the tone of the voice'--when someone was loud and confrontational like that [sic] you just never know and I just worried that there could be something else happening." Asked what she meant by "loud and confrontational," Ms. Drennan responded: Well, anger. Obviously, the man was angry when he was in there sometimes. I'm not saying every time, but the times that we're talking about like that, he was angry and anger sometimes can lead to other things, so . . . Ms. Drennan purportedly could overhear Mr. Merica speaking with her door open, but she gave no testimony of what, if anything, she overheard Mr. Merica say. Ms. Drennan's testimony, regarding loud talking by Mr. Merica toward Principal Griffin, inferring his state of mind as being emotionally out of control while conferencing with his principal, is speculative conjecture. There is no record evidence that this witness observed nor personally confirmed with Principal Griffin that Mr. Merica was, in fact, angry with Principal Griffin on each of those "sometimes" occasions she heard "someone was loud." This witness did not observe nor subsequently confirm with Principal Griffin that Mr. Merica pointed his finger her face, during those unspecified occasions when she sometimes left her office door ajar and sometimes heard someone was loud, as alleged in the Amended Administrative complaint. Secretary Bragdon recalled Mr. Merica yelling “everyday all the time,” and Ms. Drennan contradicts that testimony recalling he was loud and angry, but, qualifying that statement, she added she was “not saying every time [he was in the office].” The testimony of both witnesses, considered separately and together, failed to produced a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Refusal of Failure to Comply with Requests and Instructions When asked, Ms. Drennan could not provide testimony based on personal knowledge or personal observation of any failure or the refusal by Mr. Merica to comply with an identified request or instruction given by either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin. When asked, Ms. Drennan could not provide testimony based on personal knowledge or personal observation of Mr. Merica having made derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks about Principals Payne or Griffin in her presence. Ms. Drennan's opinion that Mr. Merica deviated from her "understanding" of the principles contained in the Code of Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility standards were speculative and insufficient to establish as fact that Mr. Merica deviated from or violated the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner failed through this witness to establish any violation or any deviation from standards found in the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility by Mr. Merica. Ms. Drennan failed to establish an objective, ascertainable standard of professional level of effective teacher behavior and teacher classroom management for SLD and IP students. Her testimony and the intended inferences regarding Mr. Merica's alleged ineffective and unprofessional student behavior, teaching, classroom control, and student management is incompetent to establish as fact that Mr. Merica deviated from clearly, established professional standards as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Drennan testified as did other co-workers who were present that Mr. Merica's had occasional disruptive verbal conduct in faculty and staff meetings and that during collegiate discussions he often demonstrated an argumentative attitude. The Commissioner proved, through the testimony of Ms. Drennan and other witnesses who were present and testified, that at one or more (unspecified) faculty and/or staff meetings that Mr. Merica occasionally engaged in disruptive verbal conduct accompanied by an argumentative attitude. Derogatory and/or Disrespectful Remarks About Principal Shelley Opila worked as a PI and ESE teacher at Foster from August 1996 to July 2001. When asked to give an example of "bashing the principal," Ms. Opila testified that during (unspecified) faculty meetings, Mr. Merica would often state: "Oh, that will never work," in response to unspecified matters under discussion. There is no record evidence of the situation or circumstances of the particular subject matter under discussions when this witness overheard the statement. Viewed most favorably, the isolated statement, "Oh, that will never work," is a personal opinion and, as such, does not evidence a manifest intent by Mr. Merica to make derogatory statements about the Foster administration as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Opila testified that she overheard Mr. Merica several times voice his personal opinions "[t]hat you have to be blonde or a female," and "It's who you know to be a principal." Without evidence of the situational circumstances when the statement was made, Ms. Opila assumed that Mr. Merica was referring to one or both, Principal Payne and/or Principal Griffin. There was no corroboration from either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin that Ms. Opila conveyed her concerns to either of them regarding Mr. Merica's alleged derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks. Viewed most favorably, the general statement "You have to be blond or a female," could have been a true statement if the record evidence established the color of Principal Payne and Principal Griffin's hair during their respective tenure as principal. The record evidence, however, does not. As reflected in the record, the testimony of this witness does not evidence a specific intent of Mr. Merica to make derogatory comments about Principal Griffin or Principal Payne. The record evidence reflects that approximately 120 educational personnel worked at Foster during the time in question and among that number only five or six were males. The reference to "blond and female to be principal" applied equally to approximately 100 females at Foster who, if they were not at the time the opinion statement was made, were capable of being blond and also capable of being a principal. Neither Principal Payne nor Principal Griffin testified regarding their respective hair colors during times pertinent to when the alleged statements were made by Mr. Merica, and the undersigned did not notice and can not recall with any certainty, the hair color of each of the twenty-plus female witnesses who testified in the proceeding. With the presence of more than 100 other females at Foster, and no evidence of the hair color of the principals at any time, an inexplicable ambiguity of "intent" is here presented. The ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. The Commissioner failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, through the testimony of Ms. Opila, that Mr. Merica intended to, and did specifically, make the derogatory comments about Principal Payne and/or Principal Griffin by the "blond [hair color] to be principal" statement as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Mr. Merica's Students Performance Ellen Lipari was a teacher of third and fourth grade PI students with various physical ailments and/or traumatic brain impairments from the 1992-1993 school year to approximately the 1997-1998 school year. She taught forth grade PI students during the same five-year period Mr. Merica taught first grade PI students. According to Ms. Lipari: [U]nder the pull-out school board policy in effect during that time, Mr. Merica would pull out and send his kindergarten and first grade level PI students to her third and fourth grade level classes. At some unspecified period during the five-year time period, she and Mr. Merica switched grade levels, Ms. Lipari moved down and taught the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, and Mr. Merica moved up and taught the third and fourth grade level PI students. After the switch, she would send her kindergarten and first grade level PI students to his third and fourth grade level classes. According to Ms. Lipari, during the 1997-1998 school year she had many opportunities to observe students Mr. Merica taught when they were thereafter assigned to her class. During that year, she personally observed Mr. Merica's teaching methodologies, his classroom management methods, and his in- class teaching conduct and style. Ms. Lipari described her impressions, gained from close, extended, daily and weekly contact, of his classroom control and management skills and his teaching skills of PI students with various physical ailments and traumatic brain impairments as: Well, you know, he was a very technically-he was technically doing his job, but there was a lot of humanized things that you do with younger children to try to get them to learn to read and those kinds of things that primarily he did not do. He was mostly teaching out of the textbook and trying to teach very specific things and not doing the kinds of things and that's why we decided it would be better if I moved down so that I could do more mothering and maternal type activities and maybe the older children would respond better to having a man teacher. Alleged Complaint from an Unidentified Mother Ms. Lipari moved down to teach the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, and to provide what she described as "mothering and maternal type activities," in keeping with the stated policy and goal of Principle Griffin as chief of the Foster administration. As a male teacher, Mr. Merica could not provide "mothering and maternal type activities to first grade level PI students," and it was not established that "mothering and maternal type activities" were requirements of all teachers, male and female, by this policy. During an unspecified period after she moved down to teach the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, unidentified parents of her former kindergarten and first grade student(s) called her complaining to her about the differences in the curriculum used to teach their children who were then in third or fourth grade levels under Mr. Merica. According to Ms. Lipari, some unidentified parents of PI students complained to her that "their former kindergarten and first grade children had been allowed to do certain things, like watch TV programs to which they had become accustomed." Based upon complaints from parent(s) she could not identify, Ms. Lipari reached conclusions and, based upon those conclusions, offered her opinion: I personally did not see any educational benefit to students watching TV because our kids [PI] are at least developmentally delayed, if not mentally handicapped, as well as being physically impaired because those children are primarily mentally impaired. Most of our children's IQs go maybe up to 70-75, so the kind of math that you would do in The Price is Right [TV program] would not be valid for those age level of children. During her years of working with Mr. Merica and observing Mr. Merica's teaching methodologies, his classroom management, and his in class teaching conduct, she never once personally observed Mr. Merica's students watching TV programs. Ms. Lipari's recollection of one phone call and her failure to identify the parent(s), who were so concerned about their children that they personally called Ms. Lipari, fairly detracted from the weight and believability of her testimony rendering it unreliable to establish facts alleged therein. Her testimony was further diminished by the lack of corroborating testimony from other witnesses. Ms. Lipari's testimony failed to produce a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established. Ms. Lipari's opinion regarding educational benefits derived from watching a TV program, based upon the hearsay of unnamed parent(s), failed to prove, such activity actually occurred, or if it did occur, failed to prove that Mr. Merica’s use of such methods and skills were ineffective teaching methods and deviated from the Code of Ethics or Standards of Competent Professional Performance standards as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. IPE Preparation and Assistance Ms. Lipari testified that she assisted Mr. Merica, on unspecified occasions, by "explaining the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP." According to Ms. Lipari: [F]or every student with an IEP, the teacher, parent and therapist [another teacher] agree on goals and objectives that in their collective determination can be achieved by the child during the forthcoming school year. The IEP is a joint collaborative endeavor requiring discussions, disagreements, compromises and finally an acceptable document; subject to subsequent modifications. Ms. Lipari gave her personal belief that: [T]he teacher(s) has to find different ways of handling their PI students' problems because each child is different, according to their disability, according to their ability to write or not be able to write. Some PI children cannot write at all. Some PI children cannot speak at all. Therefore, the teacher has to find some ways to show that the child can read. Because he can't read out loud to the teacher, the teacher would find different methods that can used to show the student is making progress. IEPs are personalized crafted documents designed to address the perceived needs and method of instructions to address the need(s) of each handicapped student. The evidence of record does not speak to the issue of accepted standard(s) for writing an IEP nor is there evidence that Mr. Merica did not comply with accepted standards for writing an IEP. The Commissioner's reliance on Ms. Lipari's "belief" that Mr. Merica needed her assistance in writing one IEP, without more, failed to establish that Mr. Merica was incompetent in his professional teaching skills and/or in IEP writing and/or implementation skills. Viewed most favorably, Mr. Merica had five to six years of writing IEPs with other teachers and counselors before Ms. Lipari's offered assistance which she characterized as "explaining the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP." The intended inference of this testimony requires first a belief that other teachers and counselors who had worked with Mr. Merica on IEPs during the preceding five years (1987-1992) either did not know "the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP" or were unable or unwilling to recognize a need for "the mechanics of writing an IEP" and to offer and suggest methods of improvement to Mr. Merica, to include Principal Payne who worked with Mr. Merica for almost 10 years. The testimony of this witness was not corroborated. The testimony of Ms. Lipari failed to include essential details that are central to the facts sought to be established and, thus, failed to produce any belief of conviction as to the truth of allegations sought to be established. The testimony of Ms. Lipari also failed to demonstrate a single refusal by Mr. Merica to accept and implement one positive necessary suggestion that was, in fact, made by Ms. Lipari to Mr. Merica relating to teaching students with IEPs. This testimony failed to establish the existence of, the beginning of, or the continuation of, a demonstration of professional teaching incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Physical Restraint and Control of Unruly Male Students Ms. Lipari recalled one occasion an unidentified male student in her class was unruly in the hall. During the time her male student was being unruly, Mr. Merica came along with his class. He asked her if he could be of help with her unruly student and according to her, without waiting for her to reply, physically restrained her unruly male student. No evidence of record establishes an injury to any unruly male student that resulted from the physical restraint by Mr. Merica. This testimony demonstrated that on one occasion Mr. Merica restrained one unruly male student in the hallway who was in Ms. Lipari's class. This evidence also demonstrated that PI and SLD students were routinely unruly in the hallways and elsewhere in the school, when Ms. Lipari was the teacher in control and in charge as well as when Mr. Merica was the teacher in control and in charge of a class. This evidence also demonstrated the propensity of young male students to react to female teachers and to male teachers in a different manner. Ms. Lipari's testimony regarding unruly conduct of students, in the hallways when Mr. Merica was the teacher in charge, does not evidence his lack of ability to control and manage his unruly students, as alleged in the Amend Administrative Complaint. This testimony does establish as fact that Mr. Merica restrained an unruly male student during a period when his ATC certification was expired. This technical violation of ATC certification by Mr. Merica is accompanied by the fact that the unruly student was unhurt; other PI students were not harmed; and Ms. Lipari, a female, who provided "mothering and maternal type activities," was rendered assistance by a male co-worker, in keeping with the school's policy, according to Ms. Lipari, of having a male teacher in charge of the older and larger male PI students. Ms. Lipari further testified that on one unspecified occasion when she was present in the school hall, Mr. Merica's class was "very loud and unruly." This is the same witness whose class had an unruly male student in the hall when Mr. Merica restrained him. According to Ms. Lipari, during Mr. Merica's loud and unruly class in the hall incident, her class was under her supervision and her volunteer, an unnamed "grandmother," who was assisting her with her class on that unspecified date. According to Ms. Lipari, she and the grandmother observed Mr. Merica: [M]oving from the front of his class line to the back of his class line, swinging his arms back and forth for his unruly students to get in line and stay in line; but, he was not swinging his arms at his students or in their faces. "Grandmother(s)" are community volunteers who come in to assist teachers with PI and SLD students. According to the witness, the objective of grandmother assistants is to provide a soothing and calming presence in the classrooms. Assuming the intended inference to be drawn from this vague, non-explicit, testimony was to demonstrate Mr. Merica's inability to control his class and his unprofessional conduct in the presence of an unidentified member of the community, it failed. The testimony in finding 70 above was not corroborated by other witnesses and was sufficiently vague so as to cause doubt and raise substantial issues of credibility. Viewed most favorably, the above testimony failed to produce a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of this witness, that Mr. Merica's conduct was inappropriate or unprofessional in any manner toward his students in the hall at some unspecified period or in the presence of a member of the public/community as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Negative Feelings About School Administration Ms. Lipari acknowledged that Mr. Merica was a very outspoken person on all issues he addressed. From that observation she went on to testify about an incident in the teacher's lounge when she overheard him make the statement: "[n]o woman was going to tell him what to do." From overhearing that part of a single statement at some unidentified time and without providing the circumstances and context in which the alleged statement was made, Ms. Lipari assumed she knew how Mr. Merica felt about Principal Payne, Principal Griffin and, in general "all females." Based on her assumptions, Ms. Lipari concluded Mr. Merica's statement was specifically intended to be derogatory about a particular unnamed principal. She further assumed the statement "no woman was going to tell him what to do" included her. Based upon those assumptions, she inferred Mr. Merica was speaking first, in a negative fashion; second, he was speaking about all women in general; and third, he was speaking about Principal Griffin in particular. Ms. Lipari's testimony regarding Mr. Merica's general opinion statement "no woman was going to tell him what to do," without establishing the context, situation, and/or circumstances at the time the statement was made failed to establish anything other than the statement was made. To this non-specific and ambiguous testimony, any number of meanings can reasonably be attributed, including his private and personal relationships with women in his past. Testimony of this isolated statement is not competent to establish a manifested intent on behalf of Mr. Merica to be disrespectful toward Principal Griffin or Principal Payne or women in general. The testimony in finding 72 was not placed in a situational circumstance that would have enabled the undersigned to render an objective evaluation. The alleged out-of-context statement is not competent to establish as fact allegations that Mr. Merica intentionally made derogatory and disrespectful statements about Principal Griffin and other female co-workers as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. IEP Preparation and Principal Griffin/Mr. Merica Relationship Linda Thomas was an ESE specialist at Foster from 1997 through 2002. Her duties included giving suggestions for curriculum or classroom management, assisting teachers with paperwork, and assisting resource teachers as needed. The usual method of contact would originate from a principal who would call Ms. Thomas and request her to lend assistance to a specific teacher. Answering the open-ended question, "what caused her concern about the Principal Griffin-Teacher Merica relationship," Ms. Thomas, without providing the year or month, answered: In my opinion, I don't believe that Mr. Merica had much respect for Ms. Griffin- -that he demonstrated that in the school setting. A number of times I overheard him say things such as that he would be around longer than she would. He was frequently making comments in faculty meetings just in general about the leadership and the administration in the school and his dissatisfaction with it. Ms. Thomas' testimony confirmed testimony of others that Mr. Merica often spoke out in faculty and staff meetings. Her opinion regarding what she "believed" to be Mr. Merica's opinion about the administrative leadership, even if true, was based on the alleged "frequency of unspecified comments," and her opinion that "I don't believe that Mr. Merica had much respect for Ms. Griffin--that he demonstrated that in the school setting," failed to establish as fact any allegation contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Answering the question regarding Mr. Merica's preparation for IEP meetings, and without identifying the number of IEP meetings she attended with Mr. Merica during the 1994 through 1999 period in question, Ms. Thomas stated: I believed preparation was very minimal. There was not -- he was not always ready. Most of his IEPs were all the same. Yet, it's -- an IEP is an individual education plan which is written specifically for each child, so every child in your class should not have the same thing written for them. Regarding his preparation of IEPs during the five-year period from 1994 to 1999, and without evidence of the number of IEP prepared by Mr. Merica and/or the number of occasions she personally inspected one or more of those IEPs, Ms. Thomas concluded that "[f]requently he wasn't prepared." This witness’ "belief" was not a "belief" based upon personal knowledge or facts. Though she believed "most of his IEPs--frequently not prepared," there is no evidence of record that she had personal knowledge or had occasion to review the content of an IEP prepared by Mr. Merica upon which to base her "belief," and, without more, her belief is speculative. Ms. Thomas was not qualified as an expert on IEPs and her personal "beliefs" and opinions regarding unidentified IEPs that she may or may not have reviewed, is lacking in preciseness to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. As such, Ms. Thomas' testimony is not competent to corroborate and does not corroborate or support Ms. Lipari's testimony purporting to support the allegation that Mr. Merica's preparation of IEPs "in the school year of 1994- 1995 evidenced his ineffective teaching performance and demonstrated the beginning of his alleged incompetence that allegedly continued undiminished until not later than the end of the 1999 calendar year," as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner failed through the testimony of Ms. Thomas to establish as fact or to prove that Mr. Merica initially or began to demonstrate an inability, refusal, improper, or any other negative aspect of his professional teaching responsibilities at any time during the 1994-1995 school year. Ms. Thomas testified of overhearing statements made by Mr. Merica of which she shortly thereafter made the following written notation dated August 12, 1999: This morning at bus arrival time Mr. Merica left his students unsupervised to go into the clinic to talk with the nurse. His conversation consisted of suggestions that the clinic should have cell phones that could be used at home. He also commented that he should talk to the television reporters who were outside to let them know how the county runs things. He came in and out of the clinic at least 3 times in a 10 minute time span and made these comments in the presence of staff and at least one student. Ms. Thomas' testimony and her subsequent written notation regarding a conversation consisting of "suggestions" that the clinic should have cell phones and that Mr. Merica "should talk to the television reporters who were outside," if true, were suggestions and nothing more. The witness did not know why or for what reason Mr. Merica entered the clinic. The identification of the staff member (other than herself) or identification of the unnamed student alleged to have been present and presumably overheard Mr. Merica's suggestions are not in the record. The witness' testimony demonstrated a distinct lack of a specific memory of the facts at issue to which she testified. The testimony in findings 77 through 80 failed to establish a firm belief without hesitancy as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Classroom Visits and Observations Ms. Thomas testified that over an unidentified three- year period she visited and observed Mr. Merica teaching his PI class approximately ten times with each visit lasting ten to 30 minutes. Ms. Thomas' visits and observations were neither made at the request of the principal nor were they made after notice was given to Mr. Merica. She did, however, make note of a single incident outside the school cafeteria, apparently for future reference and not to help a fellow teacher; but of the ten visits she made to observe and presumably help a fellow teacher, she made no written notations evidencing the dates of her visits and observations, at or near the time of each visit. Her alleged visits to Mr. Merica's class, without specifying the reasons for her visits, were more or less one co-worker visiting another co-worker; if, in fact, those ten, undocumented visits actually occurred. Documents Prepared Critical of Mr. Merica's Performance Ms. Thomas did, however, within a 45-day period, prepare seven documents, each critical of either Mr. Merica's conduct or professional teaching methods, and purportedly gave a copy of each document to Principal Griffin. The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas were all dated over a three-month period (August 11, 1999 to October 27, 1999), when from evidence of record, Foster administration was preparing to recommend to the Board termination of Mr. Merica's contract employment with the county. Ms. Thomas dated her first document August 11, 1999. She dated her six additional documents Augusts 12, October 19, 20, 21, 25, and 27, 1999. The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas did not include any of the alleged ten visits she made over the three-year (from 1997 through August 11, 1999) observation period of Mr. Merica to which she testified from long past memory in Finding of Fact 81 hereinabove. No other witness, including Mr. Merica, corroborated Ms. Thomas' alleged ten visits to Mr. Merica's class. I find the lack of documentation and the witness' lack of recall ability regarding specifics that occurred more than four years past an insurmountable barrier in accepting the witness' testimony as creditable on those significant points sought to be established. When asked on cross-examination whether Principal Griffin requested her to prepare the two August 1999 documents and the five October 1999 documents, Ms. Thomas suffered a sudden lapse of memory. When asked about each document individually, Ms. Thomas gave answers of either "I don't remember," "I couldn't say for sure" or "I couldn't guarantee." The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas in August and October 1999 contained alleged statements made by Mr. Merica, some personal observations, a prepared historical statement beginning with her first meeting with Mr. Merica in 1996 throughout 1997 and 1999, and hearsay statements from several students that were not recorded at or near the time they were made. The witness' failed memory, coupled with her inability to recall if she was asked by her principal to prepare those seven documents within such a short time span, rendered suspect and unreliable both the author and the content of her seven documents. The witness was defensive, evasive, and reluctant on significant points, evidenced by her lack of memory and confusion regarding who made the request and for what purpose she wrote seven different documents in a short time period. Her answers were not forthright and this aspect of her testimony raised insurmountable issues regarding her credibility. The testimony of Ms. Thomas lacked sufficient reliability, due to her uncertainty, to produce a firm belief in the mind of the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Classroom Management by Mr. Merica Compared to Classroom Management by Other Teachers When asked about problems regarding classroom management Mr. Merica had with his PI classes as "compared with class room management problems of other teachers," Ms. Thomas answered "[t]here are children in most classes who present behavior problems." Her memory was better on this issue and she recalled observing a few instances with two or three students creating problems in Mr. Merica's class. However, she did not identify the "other teachers" to whom she compared Mr. Merica nor did the witness establish "the other teachers" class room management standards. I find the witness' testimony was intentionally slanted to exaggerate the nature of Mr. Merica's classroom management without providing specific incidents from which an objective evaluation could have been made. The Commissioner failed, through the testimony of Ms. Thomas, to prove allegations that Mr. Merica demonstrated incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, by evidence that he had "more" behavior problems in his ESE and PI classes than other unidentified ESE and PI teachers similarly situated. Classroom Management by Mr. Merica as Compared to Classroom Management by New Teachers with Less Teaching Experience Ms. Thomas testified, unconvincingly, that after Mr. Merica left Foster in 2000, new unidentified teachers came in and taught self-contained SLD classes with acceptable classroom management style. With improved memory on this issue, Ms. Thomas recalled that she observed the new teachers' classroom management style but could not remember if she documented classroom management problems observed with the new teachers, as she had with Mr. Merica. Assuming the intended purpose of this particular testimony was to demonstrate an appreciable difference between Mr. Merica's classroom management skills and teaching methods, after years of experience, to the classroom management skills and teaching methods of new teachers with much less experience, it failed. The testimony of Ms. Thomas regarding the issue of her comparison of class management and teaching skills of Mr. Merica to those of new unidentified teachers, including documents she prepared, those referred to, and the alleged acts therein, whether used for comparison or not, occurred beyond the 1994 through 1999 time period alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint or some comparable pleading. On that basis, this testimony of Ms. Thomas must be, and is, rejected in toto. It is a basic tenet of common law pleading that "the allegata and probata must correspond and agree." See Rose v. State, 507 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The documents Ms. Thomas prepared and the testimony she presented herein above in findings 78 through 85 failed to establish as fact that on those occasions Ms. Thomas observed Mr. Merica, he failed to perform to professional expectations as a competent teacher as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Statements Made to Principal Griffin's Daughter Tamiko Council believed, but was not certain, that she was a DEEDS attendant at Foster the 1997 to the 1999 or the 2000 school year. She testified that during a (unspecified) summer school session, Principal Griffin's daughter had been introduced to her earlier in the day but she was unable to give the date of the incident. As she recalled, she and Principal Griffin's daughter were coming from the bus ramp in route to the cafeteria when Mr. Merica noticed Principal Griffin's daughter and, in her presence, said to the child: You need to tell your mom to quit worrying about teachers around the school. She needs to focus more on what the children are doing. Later that day Principal Griffin called Ms. Council into her office and made inquiry regarding the incident, as told her by her daughter, and Ms. Council confirmed the incident had occurred. Mr. Merica acknowledged making a statement to Principal Griffin's daughter. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica made a statement to the daughter of Principal Griffin. The appropriateness of a teacher stating his opinion to a young person who was a student attending a Hillsborough County school was inappropriate. However, the statement alone, under the above circumstances, does not demonstrate a "failure to protect student[s] attending for educational purposes from harmful conditions." There is no evidence of record offered to demonstrate that Principal Griffin's daughter, after the comments by Mr. Merica, "experienced harmful conditions to her educational purposes," during the summer she was at the school of which her mother was principal. Pamela Wilkins was a teacher of educable mentally handicapped students at Foster for a five-year period from 1993 to 1998. During the three-year period of approximately 1995 through 1998, Ms. Wilkins was an ESE specialist. Harassment and Unreasonable Interference with Co-workers Ms. Wilkins testified regarding an incident that allegedly occurred when she asked Mr. Merica into her office for an unspecified discussion. Ms. Wilkins did not remember the school year or the month the incident of which she testified occurred nor did she remember the situational circumstances, the context or the issue over which she and Mr. Merica had their alleged discussion and subsequent disagreement. With no memory of any specifics as to why she would ask him into her room, Ms. Wilkins only recalled Mr. Merica’s discussion with her that she characterized as "his getting upset and her saying nothing." Ms. Wilkins did not know why she invited him into her office, but emphasized her "only reason" for inviting "him into her office would have been to discuss an ESE issue." There is no record evidence regarding the ESE issue of such importance that this witness called Mr. Merica into her office for a discussion of an issue she does not recall, when her "only" time calling him into her office was so memorable. Having established her ability to ”call Mr. Merica into her office" for reasons unknown to her, this witness then testified about some purported disagreement between she and Mr. Merica. Even assuming the alleged disagreement occurred and was, in fact, over an ESE issue between she and Mr. Merica during their single discussion the witness testified: I really don't recall the entire situation. The main thing 'is just his response.' We were talking about--obviously it was ESE issues and he ended up getting upset, and I was on one side of the desk and he was on the other side. He ended up leaning over the desk and was in my face. His veins in his neck were bulging and kind of trembling and just was yelling at me and I was completely stunned and shocked the way he had responded and so I really did not say anything else at that time. The testimony of Ms. Wilkins evidenced her characterization of one party's reaction to an alleged disagreement over an alleged and unidentified ESE issue. Absence evidence of the context, circumstances, and the ESE issue that precipitated the purported disagreement between co- workers, the record contains no basis upon which to determine with reasonable certainty the appropriateness of one party's alleged reaction to the other party's input during a collegiate disagreement. The referenced reaction, even if accepted as factually true, absent evidence of the issue, context and circumstances, failed to clearly and convincingly establish an unprofessional, hostile behavior on behalf of Mr. Merica toward a co-worker, Mr. Wilkins, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The witness' apparent stunned and shocked reaction to a co-workers' disagreement with her over an unidentified ESE issue was not so unprofessional and shocking, at the time of occurrence, to compel Ms. Wilkins to report such shocking disagreement to the school administration. It was not of such importance, at that time, to prompt Ms. Wilkins to document her shocking outrage for future reference and possible investigation by proper school authorities. Ms. Thomas' lack of recall of the circumstances to an incident to which she was a major participant, and the record evidence of scant circumstances surrounding the alleged one-party reaction to a two-party discussion and alleged violent disagreement, created an insurmountable credibility gap in her testimony. Based on the foregone, it is found that the testimony of this witness lacks credibility. This testimony is rejected because it is wholly unreliable regarding the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The testimony of Ms. Wilkins in findings 90, 91, 92 and 93, hereinabove, absent record evidence of the issue which caused the alleged disagreement between colleagues, is sufficiently vague and imprecise that it failed to establish a firm belief, without hesitation, of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The alleged conduct by one party over an unidentified issue during a mutual disagreement between colleagues does not establish unprofessional conduct or a violation of established standard of professional protocol. The Commissioner failed, through the testimony of Ms. Wilkins, to prove that Mr. Merica, while in Ms. Wilkins' office engaged in conduct that was unprofessional, belligerent, hostile, confrontational, and subversive in the workplace toward his co- worker as alleged in the Amended Administration Complaint. Sexual Harassing Statements Made in Presence of Child Evelyn Tait, at all times material, was the administrative data processor at Foster. Before her promotion to administrative data processor, she was a teacher's aide for a few years. Ms. Tait is the sister of Secretary Bragdon. Ms. Tait first qualified her testimony stating that she "believed but was not certain," that the Investigation Manager for the Board (Michael Saia) came to her and asked her if she would write a statement about Mr. Merica. In her effort to comply with the request of the Board's investigator, and on October 2, 2001, Ms. Tait wrote the following document purporting to detail a "forgotten and previously unreported incident" that allegedly occurred, some three years earlier, in 1999. Ms. Tait's efforts to comply with the request of the Board Investigator resulted in Ms. Tait writing the following October 2, 2001, addendum to her 1999 written statement: On August 27, 1999, I wrote a statement regarding Mr. Neil Merica. The statement that I wrote was true and accurate [sic] as I recall. However, I would like to add a time that I was out in the pickup area picking up my son from school. I was in my care [sic] and Mr. MERICA came over to my window and made a commet [sic] regarding to what was under my shirt. I was made to feel very uncomfortable, and was inappropriately addressed [sic] from a teacher to a pa [sic] and also to a parent of a child in this school. Back in August 27, 1999, Ms. Tait wrote: To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter to you regarding the actions of Mr. Neil Merica that I have observed. I am a paraprofessional at Foster Elementary School and have only been employed as a permanent employee since the beginning of this school year.[1999] On several occasions, I have seen Mr. Merica screaming at a student with his face being very close to theirs. The child on each occasion looked very scared. Since I am such a new employee at the school, I am not familiar with the discipline procedures of the instructors, but being a parent of an eight year old, I know that the behavior that I have seen him display with the students is very uncalled for. As a parent, I would be very upset if I thought for once that a teacher was yelling at my child in such a manner. I have also witnessed Mr. Merica when he was upset for one reason or another with the administration. He sometimes appears to be out of control, saying things that are unnecessary. I am writing this letter for documentation of what I have observed and for the welfare of the children involved. I am requesting that my name not be revealed to Mr. Merica because being "a smoker", I am in contact with him daily. I am afraid of retaliation from him if he were to find out. Sincerely, Signed by Evelyn B. Tait /s/ The two documents signed by Ms. Tait, and her explanations when questioned, evidenced not truth, but rather confusion caused by this witness' attempt to comply with the request by Mr. Saia, in preparation for her testimony at this hearing. The truth and accuracy of the documents as well as Ms. Tait's understanding, explanation, and lack of credibility regarding these two documents are best demonstrated by her cross-examination: Q. Would you look back at number exhibit 23 again? You wrote that statement on October 2, 2001; is that correct? A. Um-hum. Q. And the first sentence says: "On August 27, 1999 I wrote a statement regarding Mr. Merica." (as read) Were you referring the Exhibit 22? A. I think I was --- Q. All right. You were referring to the other statement when you write that? A. I think I was. Q. I want you to take your time and made sure. That one is dated August 27th, 1999; correct? A. Yes. This happened on two separate occasions. Q. That's what we're going to get to in a minute if you'll let me walk you through this. A. Yeah, it did. Q. You go on to state that you gave a statement back in August '99 and everything you said in that was true, but you want to add something. And what you want to add is this incident that happened at the pickup circle: correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long ago had that incident happened at the pickup circle? A. What do you mean, how long ago? Q. How long prior to the time when you wrote this statement? A. I would say probably close to the date that it was signed. Q. Okay. So the incident at the circle would have been close to October 2001? A. I don't remember the dates sir. I don't remember the dates that I wrote the statements. I don't remember the dated. Q. Al right. The incident at the circle -- did you complain about it when it happened? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who did you complain to? A. I went and obviously told the principal's secretary again. I don’t' know who I would complain to. I'm just not going to -- you know, I wasn't out to get Mr. Merica in trouble. Q. I'm not suggesting that -- A. I was just --- Q. I'm not suggesting that you were. [Witnesses instructed by the undersign to answer the question asked by counsel without editorializing] Q. All right. Let's walk back through it. An incident happened at the pickup circle; correct? A. Um-hum. Q. And at some point after that incident, you reported the incident to someone; is that correct? A. It was immediately. Q. Immediately? That day? A. Yes. Q. All right. You got out of your car when you picked up your child? A. No. It wasn't immediately that day. It was -- like I said, the principal's secretary is my sister, so I probably reported it that afternoon. Q. After you picked up your child? A. Um--hum. Q. Is that a "yes"? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. You took your child home? A. Yes. Q. And then went back to the school to report it? A. No. I probably called her on the telephone. Q. All right. You've said "probably a number of times. Do you -- A. I called her on the -- I don't remember. I'm sorry. I don't remember. You know, I don't remember when it was placed, to be honest with you. I don't remember exactly when it was reported, how it was reported. I don't remember. Q. All right. Did anyone ask you to write a statement about the incident that occurred at the pickup area? A. I don't remember that, either. I guess someone must have asked me to write a statement or I wouldn't have written one. Q. And when you say you wrote one, you're talking about Exhibit 23; correct? A. I wrote this statement as well. Q. Is there another statement besides Exhibit 23 that addresses the incident that allegedly occurred at the pickup circle at the school? A. No. It's this one. Q. So to your knowledge that is the only statement that you made; correct? You made that statement a couple of years after the incident occurred; correct? A. That would be 10-02 -- I mean, 01. Q. All right. A. August 27th is the first statement. Q. Of '99; correct? A. Right. Q. So here we are a couple of years later in 2001 and you're making a statement for the first time about the traffic circle incident; correct? A. Right. Q. That's the only statement that you're written about that? A. Yes. I am very sorry. This is very confusing to me. I wrote statement when they were reported -- you know, when I reported them. I don't remember dates. We're taking how many years ago and I apologize you know. Q. Could it be, ma'am that the first time that you reported the incident that occurred at the traffic circle was around October 2001 when you wrote this statement? A. Yes. When subjected to cross-examination about her two written statements, her confusions, and her lack of personal knowledge of specific details of the alleged curb-side incident, Ms. Tait contradicted her entire testimony as reflected in findings 96, 97, and 98 above, to include the two documents she authored. It is apparent that Ms. Tait's preparation for this hearing, at a minimum included writing a statement three years after the alleged occurrence. It is also reasonable to infer that Ms. Tait's testimony and her 1999 and 2001 documents were an attempt to exaggerate "negative personal conduct on behalf of Mr. Merica" in a decided attempt to appease her employer. Ms. Tait's entire testimony hereinabove, lacks credibility and failed to produce a belief to the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established therein. Sexual Harassment of Co-workers Allegations Kelley Kolinsky (f/k/a Toms), a self-employed Occupational Therapist (OT) since 1998, worked at Foster for two and one-half years, doing evaluations and arranging treatment protocol for ESE children. As an OT, she recalled one pre-K evaluation she covered for Kathy Prado, Ph.D., another occupational therapist. Though she tried to recall the persons present at the meeting, she was unable to do so. She recalled an unnamed parent and a unnamed male who were also present. Ms. Kolinsky testified that she was not going to cover any more meetings at Foster. When asked why? Ms. Kolinsky answered: I don't know exactly. It's been like -- I don’t' even know how long, but I just remember being uncomfortable with -- I don't even remember if it was comments or notes, looks, whatever, but something like with the male teacher that was present at the meeting. But it's been so long that I really can't give any more specifics. When asked if during the meeting there was anything of a sexual nature, Ms. Kolinsky replied: I can't say. I mean, I remember I was uncomfortable, but I don't remember specifically now. The Commissioner, by the uncertainty of Ms. Kolinsky's testimony, failed to establish as fact that during the 1994-1999 school years, Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker by making inappropriate comments to Ms. Kolinsky, an occupational therapist, in the presence of other colleagues and/or in the presence of a parent as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Kara Twohy was an ESE teacher at Foster from December 1996 through 2000. Ms. Twohy first met Mr. Merica when she was a teacher-intern in an EMH class at Foster during the 1995-1996 school year. Ms. Twohy testified that Mr. Merica made her "feel uncomfortable" giving as an example the following incident: He would do things like put his arms around me. One thing I can remember is he said I had an ink spot on the back of my shirt and he was attempting to rub it off. He would come -- and this is afterwards when I became a teacher -- he would come to the classroom and he brought a rose at one time, and he was constantly -- whether I was at art or I was in the classroom, he was constantly visiting the classroom. I can remember an incident where I was really ill and he came to an assembly and brought me some tissues. All in all, it just made me very uncomfortable. When she was "really ill," Mr. Merica brought her tissues and once gave her a rose. Bringing tissues to one's colleague when the colleague was "really ill" may have been either an appropriate or an inappropriate gesture. However, the act itself does not prove it was sexual harassment. According to Ms. Twohy, she initially expressed her uncomfortable feelings to other unnamed co-workers and Principal Griffin, but not to Mr. Merica. When she told Principal Griffin about her uncomfortable feelings around Mr. Merica, she testified that Principal Griffin said to her: "there's nothing really that anyone could do, but to start writing everything down. So I began writing them down." There is no evidence of record that Principal Griffin initiated an administrative investigation into the "uncomfortable incidents" related to her by the young teacher, Ms. Twohy. It is, thus, reasonable to infer, and I so infer that at the time and under the circumstances, Principal Griffin did not consider that Ms. Twohy's "uncomfortable" feelings resulting from Mr. Merica's attention to have been "sexual harassment" as that term is generally understood when placed in the above situational context. According to Ms. Twohy, after she told Mr. Merica that his presence, his attention, and his conduct made her feel uncomfortable, she recalled he apologized: There was in incident that occurred between him and my aide at the time who was Adele Morris, and basically she told him to leave me alone and he said well, I'm a big girl so I should be able to tell him myself. And he approached me the following day, I believe, after the confrontation and asked me if he made me feel uncomfortable, and I told him yes, he did. I felt very uncomfortable around him and he did apologize and say that he was sorry for making me feel uncomfortable. As a employee of the Board, Ms. Twohy knew the Board’s sexual harassment policy requirement of reporting harassment to the school's administration. She followed the policy by reporting her uncomfortable feelings and concerns to Principal Griffin. When Ms. Twohy informed Mr. Merica that his attention and conduct made her uncomfortable, he immediately discontinued all contact and apologized to her. If, as the Commissioner argued, Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Twohy during the time above-stated, she followed protocol and reported the matter to her principal. There is no evidence of record that the principal of Foster initiated or requested an investigation by the School Board and a determination of whether or not Mr. Merica committed the alleged sexual harassment. If the matter was not properly investigated and determined by the Board to have been sexual harassment when it occurred, it will not be determined to be sexual harassment now by the undersigned based solely upon the unconvincing testimony of Ms. Twohy. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact, by findings 96 through 103 hereinabove, that Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Twohy, a co-worker and sexually harassed Ms. Kolinsky, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. Kim Kimpton, via her video-taped testimony, was convincing and unequivocal in her response to the question, "[D]o you consider Mr. Merica's action(s) towards you to be sexual harassment? "No, not specifically." The "actions toward you" referred to what was described by the Commissioner as unwanted attention, several instances of on school-property encounters and off school-property encounters, to include buying lunch for her on one or more occasion, giving her presents, and thereafter writing a letter of apology. The Commissioner failed to prove by the evidence of record that during the 1998-1999 school year, Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Kimpton, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. I find that the Commissioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Merica sexually harassed any present or past female member of Foster's administration as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. SLD Student's Version of Classroom Management and Student Control Patricia Rumlin, mother of Jarmaal Rumlin, a 15-year- old SLD student witness who, at the time of the hearing, was in ninth grade, accompanied him at the hearing. When asked, Jarmaal remembered he had been a student in Mr. Merica's class for his fourth and fifth grade school years (1997-1999 school years), but he did not remember the specific school years. During the period Jarmaal was a Foster student, the Board was operating under the self-contained class policy, and Jarmaal was in Mr. Merica's self-contained class throughout the school day. When asked the open-ended question, "[W]hat about the incident when the kids were kicking a ball in the classroom?" Jarmaal gave the following, incomplete, confused, response: We was [sic] playing in the class. Takela kicked the ball to the back of the room and she went to go get it and he trapped us in the back of the room and we bust out and we ran down to the PE field. When asked "[D]id Mr. Merica ever come into any contact or anything with Takela?" Jarmaal, again confused, answered: No. He just holding in the back of the room. [sic] Holding her and she was trying to run and trying to grab her. She was going to fight back, until she got loose and ran. When asked, "[W]hy did you not mention or report this incident to other teachers, the principal [1997-1998/Payne and 1998-1999/Griffin] or the Board’s investigator?" (1999 to 2003) Jarmaal answered: "They didn't talk to me." Jarmaal's above testimony, did not corroborate the testimony of another witness who stated: "Ms. Teresa Joslyn entered a room and found Mr. Merica seated on a couch holding Jarmaal by the arm and yelling in his face and that Ms. Joslyn took him by the hand and stood him up and Principal Griffin came into the room and observed those actions," as argued by the Commissioner in its post-hearing submittal. Jarmaal admitted that "kids in his class misbehaved in class, played kickball and got up and walked around when they were not suppose to." When asked if he liked Mr. Merica, Jarmaal answered "[N]o." When asked if he learned anything in Mr. Merica's class Jarmaal answered, "I didn't learn nothing [sic]." When asked if he wanted Mr. Merica as his teacher again, Jarmaal, answered, "[N]o I don't Mr. Merica as my teacher again." Testimony from other teachers at Foster established that SLD students were, if not daily, most certainly, routinely unruly in their classes and in hallways. Jarmaal's testimony seemed rehearsed, but he was confused about the facts critical to the situation of which he testified. The witness' inability to recall and his manner of testifying raised substantial issues of the witness' credibility primarily because of his seemingly rehearsed responses and confused factual response, often mixing several parts of separate incidents. Through the testimony of Jarmaal, a SLD student, the Commissioner failed to demonstrate and prove by example that: (1) Mr. Merica engaged in inappropriate discipline, (2) he failed to engage in meaningful teaching methods, (3) he lacked professional classroom control and management of his SLD class, and (4) he was incompetent as a teacher, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. I find the SLD students' reply he did not "like" Mr. Merica an insufficient foundation from which to infer that the SLD student did not "respect" Mr. Merica as a teacher. Tawnya Clark, mother of Demetrie White, another 15- year-old SLD student, accompanied him in the hearing. Demetrie only remembered attending Foster. He did not remember the years he attended Foster (1997-1998/Principal Payne and 1998- 1999/Principal Griffin). He did not remember the grades he was in when he was attending Foster. He did not remember the class (fourth and fifth grades) he was in when Mr. Merica was his teacher. When asked "[I]n what ways Mr. Merica would get upset?" Demetrie, hesitantly, gave the following response: When like students get like up out of they seat and walk around the classroom and talk to other students, he'd get mad then and then after that he'd like -- Jonathan he would be like getting up out of his seat and talk to me, Eldrid and another friend who go to my school and he would like grab Jonathan, try to twist his wrist and then slam him on the ground and then Jonathan would be like, Get up off me. And then that's when like he would like flip. He would try to get up off the ground, Jonathan. That is when he tried to grab Mr. Merica's neck. That's it. Demetrie admitted that the kids would get up and walk around in class when they were not supposed to do so. He admitted that Jonathan tried to grab Mr. Merica's neck. He remembered a female teacher's aide but he did not remember her name or whether she was black or white. As with Jarmaal, Demetrie remembered Mr. Merica yelling at students when they were acting up. He remembered Mr. Merica yelling in the faces of students. Demetrie, like Jarmaal, said he did not like Mr. Merica, "he didn't learn nothing" and he "didn't want Mr. Merica as his teacher again." Utter confusion permeated Demetrie’s understanding of the questions asked of him and his seemingly rehearsed answers to those questions. I find the SLD student's reply that he did not "like" Mr. Merica an insufficient foundation from which to infer the SLD student did not "respect" Mr. Merica as a teacher. Viewed most favorably, the testimonies of these two very large young boys consisted of a confused misunderstanding of questions asked of them and their rehearsed answers. The testimony of these two young boys established that at times, Mr. Merica yelled at them and, on occasion, restrained them for his personal defense and/or to regain classroom control when they were acting out of control, being disobedient, playing kickball in the class room, and yelling at each other and at him. The situational circumstances of the separate incidents to which the witnesses testified occurred four or five years earlier. These two SLD students were confused, and their testimony consisted of a mixture and intermingling of critical factual portions of two separate incidents into one continuous dialogue. From their individual and collective testimony, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of Mr. Merica's conduct, in an attempt to control and manage his SLD class, cannot be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty to produce a firm belief as to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The ambiguity created by the testimony of Jarmaal and Demetrie relating to a specific portion of their testimony related to a specific incident is decided in favor of Mr. Merica. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica "restrained" Takela, a student in his SLD class, by holding her arm. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica "restrained” Jonathan, a student in his class, by holding the wrist and arm of Jonathan. Based upon the testimony of these two young SLD students, assuming accuracy and truth, Mr. Merica’s physical restraining actions were, given the circumstances and situation at the time of physical restraints, appropriate for the defense of his person and for the protection of other students in the class. Disagreement Over IEP Content and Student Control In 1995 Ms. Teresa Joslyn began teaching at Foster Elementary as an EMH teacher. She affirmed other witnesses' testimonies that Mr. Merica was loud and argumentatively disruptive during staff and faculty meetings. Ms. Joslyn, however, gave unconvincing testimony regarding one IEP meeting she attended with Mr. Merica, but she could not provide the month or school year the IEP meeting occurred. According to Ms. Joslyn, during this IEP meeting an unnamed parent wanted unspecified items included in her unnamed child’s IEP, and Mr. Merica, the teacher, was apparently of the opinion that those items desired by this parent were not necessary. The IEP in question was not entered into evidence. When asked whose opinion determined the make up of the IEP, Ms. Joslyn replied, "[t]he case manager, who is generally the teacher [Mr. Merica in this instance]-- the person that serves the child the most.” During this particular IEP meeting, and with no evidence, or personal knowledge of the specific IEP items under discussion, Ms. Joslyn never the less concluded an unspecified position maintained by Mr. Merica was unreasonable and, by implication, unprofessional, and the position taken by the unidentified parent was reasonable. Ms. Joslyn's testimony is not credible, competent or of substantial weight to support a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Ms. Joslyn, without giving the year or month, remembered occasions when she would visit Mr. Merica’s classroom. According to Ms. Joslyn: On the occasion(s) when I would enter Mr. Merica's room, oftentimes I did not find him engaged in active teaching. There were times when I would walk in and he was--there was a game on the computer that he was playing or he'd be reading the newspaper or magazine at his desk. The aides -- the children would --have may or may not have worksheets on their desks and the aides seemed to be the ones that were more engaged with the children. Ms. Joslyn testified again, unconvincingly, about one incident she remembered, but she was unable to provide the month or year, when she heard a "kind of ruckus and loud voices." She remembered hearing an unnamed child's voice and Mr. Merica's voice, but she did not hear the words being spoken by either person. She supposedly entered the room and saw Mr. Merica seated on a couch holding Jarmaal (Rumlin) by the arm and Jarmaal trying to resist and get up. Continuing, she also remembered that Mr. Merica was agitated, upset, and yelling, and the child was also yelling. Ms. Joslyn specifically recalled that while she was "taking Jarmaal by the hand and Merica letting go of Jarmaal's arm at which point the principal came into the room and asked Mr. Merica to come into her office." According to Ms. Joslyn, both "the Principal" (Griffin) and Jarmaal were actively involved in this arm holding incident. Principal Griffin did not corroborate Ms. Joslyn's vague and non-specific memory of an undated arm holding incident. Jarmaal was not asked about this specific incident nor did he corroborate Ms. Joslyn's testimony. No other witness called by the Commissioner gave corroborating testimony in support of Ms. Joslyn’s testimony. This is critical to the credibility determination in this proceeding since allegations of inappropriate conduct in his professional relations with children are specifically alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and form the bases, in part, to support the allegation of professional incompetence. I find that Ms. Joslyn's vague, non-specific testimony, without corroboration of the other alleged participants to establish the context, circumstances, and time, raised substantial issues of her credibility. Her testimony and credibility was further diminished by the lack of corroborating evidence from other witnesses who were allegedly involved. The testimony contained in findings 128 and 129 hereinabove is rejected for its lack of credibility. I find that the Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Joslyn, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica was not engaged in active teaching and that on unidentified occasions he was playing computer games or reading a newspaper or magazine while some unidentified staff taught his class and failed to prove that Mr. Merica engaged in inappropriate conduct by "holding Jarmaal by the hand and Merica letting go of Jarmaal's arm at which point the principal came into the room and asked Mr. Merica to come into her office." The Commissioner has failed to prove that Mr. Merica was incompetent, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Debbie Maronic, physical education teacher at Foster, gave repetitive testimony affirming the fact that Mr. Merica was loud, often disruptive, and sometimes argumentative with colleagues at staff and faculty meetings. Ms. Maronic also testified of having heard "numerous stories about how Mr. Merica behaved inappropriately to other female staff members at meetings or in the hallway or other places," without recalling any one of those numerous stories. Ms. Maronic admitted that she heard her information, not from Kelly and Kim Rivenburg, the females alleged to have been recipients of inappropriate conduct, but from second-hand people. The hearsay upon hearsay summary testimony of "stories" Ms. Maronic heard regarding inappropriate conduct toward females is not competent to establish a finding of fact. The testimony of Ms. Maronic is rejected in toto by the undersigned. When the testimony of Ms. Kolinsky, Ms. Twohy, and Ms. Kimpton, that they were not sexually harassed by Mr. Merica, is juxtaposed to the hearsay upon hearsay testimony of Ms. Maronic that Mr. Merica "behaved inappropriately to other female staff members," a pattern of gossip, moving from witness to witness presented by the Commissioner, emerges for which there is no defense and very little, if any, truth to be objectively determined. The uncorroborated testimony of this witness lack credibility and is rejected. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Maronic, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica engaged in unprofessional conduct, inappropriate conduct, and/or sexually harassed female co-workers as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Ms. Maronic testified, again unconvincingly, concerning a throwing incident in the school cafeteria in 1999, she did not observe and therefore could not provide situational circumstances surrounding this incident. According to Ms. Maronic, as she walked by she could see Mr. Merica out in the hallway very upset and yelling very loudly at very close proximity to the unidentified students. Ms. Maronic testified that she was not "comfortable" witnessing that situation and would not leave the area until an administrator came. Nothing in her testimony identified the administrator who allegedly came so she could leave; she knew nothing, who, what, where, when or why, about the incident, though so "uncomfortable," she believed her presence was required. She neither attempted to record this "uncomfortable" incident for future reference nor did she report the matter directly to the school administration. This testimony was not internally consistent and the character of this witness' testimony, as well as the witness' demeanor, did exaggerate the nature or circumstances of the incident. The testimony of this witness lacks precise explicitness to produce a belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact through the testimony of Ms. Maronic that, at some unspecified time in 1999, Mr. Merica's student behavior management was inappropriate or that Mr. Merica demonstrated professional incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. Professional Assistance Offered by Resource Teachers Virginia King, with over 21 years of teaching experience, held the position of Hillsborough County, Area IV, administrative resource teacher (ART) since 1981. Ms. King's primary duty was to provide support and training for teachers of ESE. Her three-part support and training program consisted of: (1) teacher evaluation followed by (2) teacher assistance and concluded with (3) specific training for the teacher. Ms. King was not qualified as an expert. Based solely upon her experience, Ms. King opined that--"dealing with student behavior issues are [sic] challenging to teachers and most difficult for teachers in emotionally handicapped full time programs,” as was Mr. Merica. She further opined that "both SLD and ESE classes have behavior issues; but, in full-time ESE classes, student behavior control is most difficult for teachers regarding overall classroom control and classroom management, as compared to full-time programs where teachers of PI classes classroom control and management is least difficult." Ms. King testified that in her 21 years of teaching experience, many ESE teachers have difficulty with classroom behavior and management issues, and the training of teachers of those students is ongoing training in the Hillsborough County school system that never ceases. She is of the opinion that yelling in students' faces is unreasonable and physically restraining a student is "never" justified. Ms. King's opinion regarding physical restraint of a student is "never" justified conflicts with the statutory authority of teacher(s) to remove disrespectful, violent, uncontrollable or disruptive students from classes when appropriate, to include physical restraint, as provided in Subsection 1003.32(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2003). The Commissioner did not introduce evidence of physical restraints standards adopted by the Board of Education. The opinion of Ms. King is contrary to the statute and disregarded for all purposes in this proceeding. Proffered Evaluation and Assistance Offered to Respondent During the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin requested that Ms. King visit Foster to evaluate, assist, train, and help Mr. Merica with his SLD class. According to Ms. King (without giving the year and month), she made two visits to Mr. Merica's class. She testified only about her initial visit that took place during the morning class session. When she returned for a second visit, the school administration had removed Mr. Merica from his teaching position. This one visit by Ms. King was the first step of her three-part support and training program, i.e. teacher evaluation. There was no teacher assistance and specific training offered to Mr. Merica by Ms. King. When asked to give her "general impression" of Mr. Merica's professional ability and competence to teach SLD students after just one visit, Ms. King replied: Well, in our interview I was a little surprised because I didn't really -- he has a background in SLD so he had a lot of knowledge of SLD and how to teach children with learning disabilities, addressing their different learning styles and I was actually able to observe that in class. It was a math class and I thought that he did a very nice job of addressing the student's individual needs, and that's a difficult thing to do because they're all so different and they were all at different math levels and I did see that he was able to use different teaching techniques all in one lesson. He did mention to me that -- well, I knew that there were behavior problems and I did see behavior problems and that did happen after the lesson in the transition period. The children were unruly and not really doing, you know -- you could tell that there was a lack of control was obvious. But at this particular time, the children had been really fairly well-behaved and he had mentioned to me that I should come back in the afternoon -- because this was a morning visit -- that I should come back in the afternoon so that I could see their true behavior which he said was truly out of control. Through the testimony of Ms. King, the Commissioner, clearly and convincingly, proved to the undersigned that during the 1999-2000 school year, Mr. Merica's competence as a professional teacher of children with learning disabilities ("the children had been really fairly well-behaved") was the same as and/or equal to competence as a professional teacher in the classroom of other teachers of children with learning disabilities whom the witness had observed. Conversely, the Commissioner failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, through the testimony of this witness that Mr. Merica demonstrated "incompetence" in his classroom teaching skills or that his classroom student behavior management was ineffective. The Commissioner failed to prove that Mr. Merica utilized ineffective lesson plans and ineffective classroom behavioral management plans. The Commissioner failed to prove that Mr. Merica failed to keep students academically engaged in class and that he failed to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact, through Ms. King's testimony regarding her single classroom visit, that Foster administration, by and through Principal Griffin, offered Mr. Merica meaningful, professional, constructive help and assistance program plan that he intentionally disregarded and that he failed and refused to accept and implement the suggested offering of assistance as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The record evidence does not specify whether Ms. King's one visit occurred during the school year of 1998- 1999 or the school year of 1999-2000. This omission creates an ambiguity between the year 1999 (alleged in the complaint) and the year 2000 (the year beyond the time alleged in the complaint). The ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. The testimony in findings of fact 139 and 140 is incompetent and irrelevant to establish as fact allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner presented testimony of Sue Hindman. Ms. Hindman, with over 27 years of teaching experience and at all times material, was an ART and an ESE supervisor for Area II, in Hillsborough County. Model Classroom Observation Prior to and in Preparation for Termination by the Hillsborough County School Board Near the end of the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin called Ms. Hindman and requested her to do a model classroom observation of Mr. Merica's class. A "model classroom observation" consisted of Ms. Hindman's selecting another classroom and SLD teacher (the model) in the same or similar position of the teacher (Mr. Merica) to be observed. The teacher (Mr. Merica) being observed, along with Ms. Hindman, would then visit the "model" SLD class to observe how the classroom itself was arranged and how the lessons were presented to SLD students. Based on the teacher's personal observation, and with the help and assistance of Ms. Hindman, the teacher (Mr. Merica) would then modify and model his/her classroom arrangement, classroom behavior management, SLD students' lesson planning and presentation, and other educational matters involved with teaching SLD students to that observed in the model classroom. After a reasonable period of adjustment, the ART would return to evaluate the "results of implemented changes" made after the model classroom. On October 8, 1999, after observing Mr. Merica's classroom, his teaching, his student control and classroom management, and after observation of the model SLD teacher and classroom, Ms. Hindman made unspecified suggestions for improvement to Mr. Merica. After she made her suggestions for improvement, Ms. Hindman returned to observe whether her unspecified, suggested improvements had been accepted and put into effect by Mr. Merica, and, if so, to document what results were observed. Ms. Hindman documented improvements she noted in Mr. Merica's class on her return visit as follows: The new behavior rules were typed clearly and colorfully. The post-it-notes [tickets] were being used to reward positive [student] behavior. Instructions was hampered by inappropriate student behaviors. On October 18, 1999, Ms. Hindman made a second follow-up visit to observe the progress of her earlier unspecified suggestions. During this second return visit, Ms. Hindman made additional unspecified suggestions for improvement. Ms. Hindman returned to observe whether her second suggested improvement had been put into place and if so, the effect and impact of her second suggestions. Ms. Hindman documented improvements observed in Mr. Merica's classroom management and student control and professional teaching competency on her second return visit as follows: Student behavior was better. Students responded to the LLP redirections. They also responded to the additional tickets given for good behavior. More positive comments were made when students were on task. Student behavior will improve as teacher consistency improves. The more aggressive students are getting, all the attention (and tickets) while the good students tend to be neglected. Curriculum must now become a priority. Your students really settle down while working on assignments and seem eager to accomplish tasks. Capitalize on that momentum! On October 26, 1999, Ms. Hindman made a third return visit to observe Mr. Merica's implementation of her earlier suggestions. During this visit, Ms. Hindman made additional suggestions for improvement and documented improvements she observed in Mr. Merica's classroom teaching and classroom management and student control as follows: Reading groups began today using a sequential program. Math groups began learning higher skills plus using manipulative. Individual work folders were used for seatwork. Through the testimony and corroborating documentation of Ms. Hindman, the Commissioner proved, clearly and convincingly, that as late as October 26, 1999, Mr. Merica accepted and implemented constructive criticism and assistance from those administrators whose positions required giving such constructive criticism and assistance. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Hindman, as it did through the testimony of Ms. King, allegations that Mr. Merica intentionally disregarded and failed and refused to accept and implement the suggested offering of assistance. The undisputed testimony of Ms. Hindman clearly demonstrated that when given constructive professional assistance, a reasonable opportunity to implement the constructive assistance, and an objective evaluation thereafter, Mr. Merica was amenable and put into practice professional assistance and suggestions that proved to be helpful. He responded positively by implementing suggestions made by Ms. Hindman and to those made by Ms. King. During each return visit by Ms. Hindman, Mr. Merica demonstrated continued improvement in his professional ability as a SLD teacher. I find that through the testimony and resulting documentation of three separate occasions of Ms. Hindman rendering professional help and assistance and Mr. Merica's positive response thereto established as fact that the competence of Mr. Merica was not diminished so as to impair his effectiveness as a teacher in the Hillsborough County school system as of October 26, 1999.5 Petitioner's Presence Outside His Classroom, His Teaching, and Classroom Management Mr. Merica presented the undisputed testimony of Mary Evans-Bauman, a DEEDS Attendant who worked with over 15 teachers during her employment at Foster. From January through July of the 1997-1998 school year, Ms. Evans-Bauman was assigned and did work with Mr. Merica in his self-contained PI class. She did not work with Mr. Merica during any period he was teaching a SLD class. According to Ms. Evans-Bauman, Mr. Merica did not leave his classroom more often than any of the other 15 teachers with whom she worked during her employment at Foster. Based upon her daily observations, Ms. Evans-Bauman opined that Mr. Merica's PI students respected him, and she did not observe any problems with his classroom management. She denied observing Mr. Merica playing video games or reading newspapers when he should have been teaching. She testified that she never observed Mr. Merica exhibiting out-of-control behavior or imposing inappropriate discipline on students in his PI class. She acknowledged that PI students, because of their restricted physical mobility, were less likely to become disruptive and unruly because of their physical limitations. Mr. Merica presented the testimony of Carolyn Mobley. Ms. Mobley worked 21 years at Foster as a teacher's aide and as a DEES attendant. During her extended tenure at Foster, she worked with approximately ten different teachers, including Mr. Merica. Ms. Mobley began working with Mr. Merica during the 1998-1999 school year, the first year he taught a PI class with Ms. Payne as principal. She continued working with Mr. Merica when Principal Griffin moved him to an SLD class during the 1999-2000 school year. According to Ms. Mobley, she worked with Mr. Merica continuously, five days per week for seven and one- half hours per day, for two consecutive years. Based upon her continuous presence in Mr. Merica's classrooms, she had abundant opportunities to observe Mr. Merica's interactions with students in both his PI and SLD classes; she answered the question of how she would characterize his relationship with his students as follows: I would say he didn't have no problems that I would consider problems because I have kids and I wouldn't want nobody to mistreat mine, and I'm a fair person. On the mistreating kids in any way question, Ms. Mobley answered: No. He always seemed to be generosity [sic]. He would always treat them with respect and do the things most teachers wouldn't do, I would say. On what kind of things he would do that other teacher wouldn't do, Ms. Mobley answered: Well, you know, sometimes if they didn't have their lunch and they wanted something, then he would treat them to it, you know. On Fridays when they had free time, he would give it to them out of the cafeteria. Answering the question whether she observed Mr. Merica being off task--off his teaching duties during the time that you were the aide in the PI class, i.e. reading a newspaper during the time when he should have been teaching or playing computer games during the time he should have been teaching, Ms. Mobley answered: "No." Answering the question whether Mr. Merica would leave the classroom and leave the aides to take care of the kids, Mr. Mobley answered: No, because if he left the classroom, he would say, "I'm going to the office," run some papers or basically we knew where each other was. We always knew. Answering the questions whether Mr. Merica leaving the class occurred more often than other teachers, acting in an unprofessional way, being belligerent, and being confrontational with students, Ms. Mobley answered each question "No." Answering the question whether there were more behavioral problems in the SLD class than in the PI class, Ms. Mobley answered: SLD kids do have a behavior, [sic] where PI kind is not as verbal word-wise--. Answering the compound question of Mr. Merica's interactions with students in the SLD class, acting in an unprofessional way to any of the kids, being belligerent with the children, being hostile with the children, and being confrontational with any of the children, Ms. Mobley answered: "No" to each question within the compound question. Answering the compound questions of whether Mr. Merica raised his voice toward the students; talked loud when he was close to a student, screamed, or yelled, Ms Mobley answered: I wouldn't say raise his voice, but he talked loud, like scream or yell- No. Well he always talked loud, so to me it was always a loud voice. He don't have a soft voice. He had a loud voice. Through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Mobley, Mr. Merica demonstrated that from the school year beginning in 1998 and ending in 1999 his teaching and student behavior management, as observed by Ms. Mobley, was not ineffective; that he did not frequently leave his own class with his aides; that he did not walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students; and, when in class, that he did not play video games on his computer, read newspapers, or review architectural designs, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Human Resources Manager's Testimony Based upon her Summary Reports of Letters and Reports Received From Staff The Commissioner presented, as a summary witness, the testimony of Janice Velez.6 Ms. Velez had over 30 years in the school system during which time she has occupied the positions of classroom teacher, teacher trainer, school-based administrator, and director of personnel services. For four years (1999-2003), she occupied the position of General Manager of Human Resources (HR) for the School Board. The Commissioner did not qualify Ms. Velez as an expert. As director of personnel services for the School Board, Ms. Velez receives information, via written reports from Foster administration, from individual teachers, from medical personnel, and from other sources regarding school personnel. Ms. Velez rarely, if ever, has personal knowledge of instructional personnel activities at the many schools in the county, before such activities are reported to her in written form through the chain of administrative protocol. It is noted that her reports in evidence are not sworn to or notarized by the person(s) with personal knowledge nor are they "tested" for accuracy by independent investigation by Ms. Velez. She accepts each report as factually accurate. It was against this background and based upon many such unspecified reports that Ms. Velez summarized and posted a letter to Mr. Merica reflecting her summarized version of those hearsay reports that the Commissioner asked Ms. Velez to "explain" the first sentence of her July 1, 1994, letter to Mr. Merica. The sentence counsel for the Commissioner asked for as an explanation read: "Some information has come to my attention that you and I need to discuss." To the question "explain what did you mean by that sentence," Ms. Velez answered with the following editorial: What he acknowledged, and I don't have the report in front of me, but I remember the student was a difficult child and he had -- what upset me and the reason I asked him about the ACT [Aggression Control Techniques] certified was that in the course of taking care of this child, had dragged her across the carpet or something and then other adults were present that assisted him in the process. That's when I asked him if had had been trained and he said no, he had never been scheduled. There is no evidence that tends to corroborate the hearsay evidence contained in Ms. Velez's July 1, 1994, letter to Mr. Merica. Ms. Velez did not possess personal knowledge of the information reflected in her letter. Consequently, her testimony regarding Mr. Merica's alleged response merely amounts to hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. There is no record evidence identifying the context and circumstances of "[w]hat he acknowledged” as testified to by Ms. Velez. The intended inference that Mr. Merica acknowledged-—“that in the course of taking care of this child, he dragged her across the carpet or something," was not corroborated by any "other adult present that assisted him." Mr. Merica's denial "that he dragged her across the carpet or something," even if unbelievable, does not prove the Commissioner's accusation contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Velez’s recollection explanation is an assumption and not fact (that he dragged a child and other students and adults were present). Based upon her assumption, Ms. Velez concluded that Mr. Merica acknowledged her assumption as fact. The assumption and conclusion of “acknowledgement” by Mr. Merica of that assumption is incompetent, not credible and insufficient to establish the incident as fact or to establish that Mr. Merica admitted and acknowledged her assumptions and her conclusions “that in the course of taking care of this child, he dragged her [a child] across the carpet or something and then other adults were present that assisted him in the process." Ms. Velez testified that she met with Mr. Merica on four separate occasions, the first meeting occurred on or about the first week in July 1994, during the period Ms. Payne was principal. At the time of her first meeting with Mr. Merica in July of 1994, Ms. Velez was not general manager of HR for the Board. The evidence of record does not establish Ms. Velez’s position in the school system in July 1994, other than she was a teacher assigned to personnel services. Continuing, Ms. Velez testified that during the first week in July 1994, she was “initially concerned” because Mr. Merica was not ACT certified. The Board's policy required each teacher to be ACT certified before engaging in physical restraint of students. In 1993 to 1994, Ms. Velez was a teacher assigned to personnel services, and the record evidence does not provide any authority for her to “meet with Mr. Merica” as a part of her duties in personnel services. There is no evidence of record that Principal Payne, who was principal and who did not corroborate this story, requested Ms. Velez’s involvement with her teachers, including Mr. Merica. Assuming Ms. Velez had authority to read Mr. Merica’s personnel file, why in 1994 did she only recall his restraint certification status? Principal Payne testified that she, and she alone, identified Mr. Merica's needs for improvement and provided him with useful suggestions that he incorporated and showed improvement. Principal Payne buttressed her testimony by giving Mr. Merica all "satisfactory" annual performance evaluations. Ms. Velez's testimony regarding any facet of Mr. Merica professional competence in the school year of 1994 to the contrary is not accepted by the undersigned as credible evidence. The Commissioner, through the testimonies of 21 witnesses, failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Merica exhibited any indicia of professional incompetence in July of 1994. Through the testimony of Ms. Velez the Commissioner again affirmed other witnesses' testimony that Mr. Merica was not ACT certified at certain periods. However, the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Mr. Merica’s last year of ACT certification was the year of 1995 and not, as Ms. Velez mistakenly assumed in her testimony, 1994. The Commissioner failed in its attempt to establish 1994 as the beginning year of Mr. Merica's alleged incompetence through the above testimony by Ms. Velez. In 1999, Ms. Velez was appointed to the HR position. Six years before, in 1993, she was in personnel services. It was during the 1993-1994 period that the Commissioner sought through her testimony to prove Mr. Merica knowingly admitted and acknowledged that in July 1994 "he used excessive force or restrained a [unidentified] child inappropriately as reported by a parent [unidentified] to the police department and the school internal investigators." The bare hearsay "admission against interest" hearsay statements of unproven acts from unidentified hearsay sources is not corroborated and is rejected by the undersigned. Ms. Velez gave her explanation of meeting with Mr. Merica for a second time on August 12, 1999, which she later reduced to a letter dated September 24, 1999. In that letter Ms. Velez recited the purpose of the August 12, 1999, meeting-- "for discussion of an investigative report into coworker's allegation that during the summer he made threatening remarks against the school administration and comments made about Principal Griffin, i.e. "She dyed her hair blond to get her job, "I got rid of one principal; I'll get rid of her too," and "If she wants to go head-to-head, then I'll win." In her 1999 letter, Ms. Velez stated that Mr. Merica admitted making the alleged statements, explaining the statements were "hearsay" and because, as he viewed the situation, "others wanted to bring [him] down to their own misery levels." Her third meeting with Mr. Merica occurred in September of 1999. This meeting, she explained, was convened "for discussion of a letter of reprimand written by Principal Payne." (In February 1998, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a letter of reprimand citing him for having acted in an "unprofessional manner" with Pam Wilkins, an ESE coworker.) Later during that school year when she evaluated his overall professional teaching performance, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a "satisfactory" rating in every area, without comments, for the 1998-1999 school year. This meeting and the letter of reprimand concerned Mr. Merica's professional conduct on two separate incidents. Those two incidents were a faculty meeting disruption and a school improvement team and parent meeting. No testimony was elicited or given by Ms. Velez regarding the situational circumstances attendant to those two incidents. When asked her opinion of Mr. Merica's "attitude" toward her during this third meeting, Ms. Velez replied: I would say it ranged in the typical realm of employees. When they meet with me sometimes they're angry. He was in denial that the letter was warranted. He said he didn't perceive himself to have lost his temperament. He did not recall -- in one of the two incidents, someone said he banged his hand or fist on the table. I don't recall doing that. There were several letters that the principal also forwarded to me from colleagues and they said that he was out of control. He said, I'm not out of control. I have a loud voice. And basically he was in denial that the incident was as significant as the principal had alleged in her letter or reprimand. The fourth meeting between Ms. Velez and Mr. Merica occurred on October 1, 1999. Also present at the meeting were Carl Crosson, CTA representative, and Dr. David Binnie, assistant superintendent for HR. The purpose of this fourth meeting was to discuss a specific classroom incident that had occurred on or about September 23, 1999, where it was alleged that Mr. Merica retained five students in the classroom due to their misbehavior while the other students went to lunch with the paraprofessional. In her 1999 letter, in the first paragraph, Ms. Velez wrote her version of an incident she did not personally observe: During the timeout period, you asked these students to sit quietly in their desks, while you placed your own lunch in the microwave. When they began to dance about the room and to toss and roll a kickball among themselves, you summoned several times for assistance on the intercom. During this period, you stated you remained at your desk, although once you tried to kick the ball away and once you moved your elbows in an effort to keep a student from retrieving the ball that had rolled behind your chair. Another student subsequently hit you on the head with a folder, and you chased him briefly until he, at your direction put the folder down. You summoned additional times for assistance. Continuing with the second paragraph, Ms. Velez stated: As a result of your poor performance this year, and its negative impact on the quality and continuity of instruction for students assigned to you, your principal recommended that you be either administratively transferred or dismissed as a teacher. Actions on these recommendations was placed in abeyance since you asked for, and Dr. Binnie granted, additional time and assistance from school and district personnel for you to develop and implement a plan to appropriately regain control of and develop respect from your students. He provided you with three days of paid duty time and a month of implementation to accomplish this end. In her last paragraph, Ms. Velez stated: Dr. Binnie will review the effectiveness of your plan, your professional conduct at work, and your future employment status during a meeting scheduled for Monday, November 1, 1999, at 3:45 pm in the Human Resources conference room, 2nd floor of the School Administration Center, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard. Ms. Brenda Griffin, your principal, has also been invited to attend. Ms. Velez testified that the November 1, 1999, meeting never occurred, "due to an error where [sic] his address was not in the system correctly, he was not in attendance at the meeting. So, we rescheduled it for November 3rd." Considering Mr. Merica was an employee with 13 years of service and had met four times with administration within a six-month period (July through October 1999), the loss of his address--"his address was not in the system correctly"--by the Board becomes suspect. Continuing, Ms. Velez testified that: [O]n November 2nd her office received a call from Foster Elementary School regarding an incident in the hallway that teacher could hear Mr. Merica scream at a child and described that he was in their face and we removed Mr. Merica from teaching at that time for a continuing pattern of being unable to control his students and control his temperament, creating a dangerous situation for children. (emphasis added) No witness presented by the Commissioner testified to having observed the incident above described by Ms. Velez. When subjected to cross-examination, Ms. Velez reluctantly admitted that her intentional use of the term “creating a dangerous situation for children" was not an accurate statement. During all times (1999-2000) pertinent to matters herein above, the goal of Principal Griffin, via Ms. Velez and through the Board, was to terminate Mr. Merica's employment with the Board. Thus, the HR manager's intentional selection and use of the statutory phrase, “creating a dangerous situation for children," that she knew at the time to be an inaccurate statement, revealed her intent and thus seriously undermined her credibility. The witness' credibility and testimony were further diminished by the fact that at the time she knowingly made her "inaccurate statement," she was an active participant in, and thus fully aware of, the Board's engagement in the procedural protocol process of terminating Mr. Merica's contractual employment. Ms. Velez's knowing misrepresentation, that Mr. Merica's continuing pattern of being unable to control his students and control his temperament was "creating a dangerous situation for children," was biased and inaccurate. Ms. Velez's unconvincing explanation of her understanding of the factual basis for the School Board's removal of Mr. Merica from teaching at Foster was vague: [B]ased on a pattern of similar incidents, and this was at the end of that month of time to focus on how to become more effectively -- more effectively deal with children. When asked to clarify her inaccurate misrepresentation of whether or not Mr. Merica's conduct resulted in an unacceptable environment or created a dangerous situation for children, Ms. Velez stated: "[D]uring the five years Mr. Merica taught the PI student class [from 1992-1993 to 1998-1999], Mr. Merica’s conduct and teaching did not create an environment that was dangerous to the students in those classes." Ms. Velez further testified that "[T]the [Hillsborough County School] Board determined that it was during the 1999-20007 school year a pattern of similar incidents, and this was at the end of that month of time to focus on how to become more effectively -- more effectively deal with children, that Mr. Merica was creating an environment that was dangerous to the students in his classes." Ms. Velez did not identify incidents that occurred August 12, 1999, through December 31, 1999, separate and apart from incidents that occurred between January 1, through May 24, 2000; thus, there is no basis to determine whether alleged incidents occurred in 1999 or 2000. Her testimony included "essential and substantial facts in support of the allegation" having occurred in a timeframe (1999- 2000) not embraced in the 1994-1999 period (ending December 31, 1999) alleged in the Statement of Charges of the Amended Administrative Complaint. "[T]the allegata and probata must correspond and agree." This ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. On that basis the testimony of Ms. Velez in findings 183 through 186, hereinabove is rejected. The Commissioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that during the period between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica "created a pattern of similar incidents thus creating an environment that was dangerous to the students in his classes." Conversely, through the testimony of Ms. Velez, the Commissioner proved, clearly and convincingly, that "during the 1992-1993 through the 1998-1999," including the 1994 through 1999 period alleged in the complaint, Mr. Merica did not engage in a pattern of similar incidents that created a dangerous situation for children." Regarding the school year when allegedly Mr. Merica initially became or his teaching methods demonstrated incompetence, Ms. Velez demonstrated a lack of knowledge and lack of expertise by her following qualified answer: It was my feeling--my personal and professional feeling when I reviewed the file--that he had indicators of incompetence for quite some time, especially in his personal conduct. I am not an expert in curriculum. It's been a long time since I taught in the classroom. [emphasis added] But Mr. Merica's statement to me was he's the best teacher that was at Foster Elementary, and I had an opportunity to look at his lesson plans one afternoon when I went to meet with Ms. Griffin and although I haven't written them in years, there were no lesson plans. They were subjects. Math, math, math. Nothing to distinguish between the levels of his children. When I reviewed the record at Foster, his conduct that created an uncomfortable working environment for employees had been there a long time. The former principal, Ms. Payne, had dealt with it from time to time. It's my professional opinion that she put him in physically impaired so he had less opportunity to be inappropriate with children, and she began then to deal with his personal conduct issues. So to answer your question, I believe -- I don't know that -- I don't know when it began, but I don't think it surfaced his last assignment at Foster, but rather sometime prior to that. [emphasis added] Ms. Velez was unable to identify the school year Mr. Merica became, as she characterized, "incompetent in his personal conduct." Ms. Velez's personal feeling of incompetence is an inadequate standard by which to measure professional competence, to include one’s personal conduct. Ms. Velez did not know when, if at all, Mr. Merica's alleged professional incompetence, to include his alleged personal conduct, began. The evidence of record established that the Board, as of January 13, 2000, had concluded its investigation and made a final determination that Mr. Merica was incompetent. Therefore, the Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, through the summary testimony of Ms. Velez that Mr. Merica was or to began to become incompetent, as demonstrated by his professional teaching skills, at any time during the 1994 through 19997 period as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Violation of a penal statute or rule is not found on loose interpretations of the Human Resource Director with 31 total years of education experience and a Master's Degree in Education Administration, or based on problematic evidence. Evidence more objective and substantial of critical matters in issue should be as substantial as the consequences. Clear and convincing evidence is not present in this record nor established by testimony presented by this witness that Mr. Merica was incompetent, as demonstrated by his professional teaching skills, at any time during the 1994 through 1999 period as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Velez testified that teachers hired by contract (as was Mr. Merica), a veteran teacher, or a tenured teacher are required to be evaluated once annually by their principal, and the purpose of the principal's annual evaluation is for performance improvement. The testimony and documents prepared by Ms. Velez regarding a report from an unidentified mother about her unidentified child is unconfirmed, uncorroborated, incompetent, and thus insufficient to establish any purported facts of actual occurrence. Following protocol and to effectuate his contractual termination with the Board, on November 18, 1999, Ms. Velez submitted four of her letters, dated July 1, September 14 and 24, and October 20, 1999, to James A. Edgar, M.D., P.A., as the basis for her referral of Mr. Merica to Dr. Edgar for a psychiatric evaluation that was conducted by Dr. Edgar on November 18 and 23, 1999. Accepting as accurate and true the content of Ms. Velez's four letters and using those letters as the foundation of his examination, Dr. Edgar evaluated Mr. Merica. At the conclusion of his examination, Dr. Edgar opined that Mr. Merica did not have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, either Axis I or Axis II, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.). According to Dr. Edgar, "None of the problems, as reflected in Ms. Velez's summary taken from non-notarized reports from unnamed third parties, makes him in and of themselves incapable of functioning as a teacher." He then goes on to qualify his opinion with a "[H]owever, taken together they 'could' make him very difficult to work with as part of a team effort.” Dr. Edgar's evaluation resulted in a qualified conclusion that Mr. Merica is aware of his actions but minimizes or denies the effect of those actions on others and thus rationalizes his verbal aggressive behavior as his "constitutional right" to express his opinion. From that position, Dr. Edgar reaches what appears to be the desired conclusion that: "Mr. Merica's current behavior does not appear to be an escalation of previous behavior just more of the same. I can not say whether he might become more aggressive or violent but I do believe his behavior will not improve." The attempt to lay a factual foundation that Mr. Merica's alleged incompetence was present in 1994 through the conclusiory testimony of Dr. Edgar failed for want of competence. The one line in Dr. Edgar's 1999 opinion that Mr. Merica's "behavior does not appear to be an escalation of previous behavior just more of the same," is insufficient in weight and substance to establish as fact and/or establish the basis from which to infer, and I do not infer, that in 1994, Mr. Merica demonstrated an "aggressive behavior," which demonstrated emotional "incompetence," and that behavior continued through 1999 as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Response to Allegations Mr. Merica presented the testimony of Janice Wilson who worked as a DEES attendant at Foster from 1992 through 1998. Ms. Wilson was Mr. Merica's DEES attendant during the 1997-1998 school year and worked all day, five days a week, with Mr. Merica in his classroom when he taught PI students. She was not his DEES attendant when Mr. Merica taught SLD students. For the six-year period, 1992-1998, Ms. Wilson was in Mr. Merica’s classroom daily. She had occasion to observe his teaching as she worked with Mr. Merica. Based on her six-year association, Ms. Wilson testified as follows: When asked how would she characterize his rapport with his students, she answered: "wonderful, wonderful." When asked did she have problems or concerns working with Mr. Merica, she answered: "none, none, whatsoever." When asked had she ever observed Mr. Merica mistreating, in any way, students, she answered: "No." When asked did she ever see him getting in the faces of any of his students, she answered: "None whatsoever." When asked if she had observed Mr. Merica screaming at his students, she answered: "No." When asked if she would have any problems working with Mr. Merica in the future, she answered: "I would work with him any day." Regarding Mr. Merica leaving his classroom, Ms. Wilson testified that: When Mr. Merica would leave the classroom, he has been called from the front office or any other classroom for computer. If the computer goes down, he was the man that they will find to fix the problem with the computer. That's the only time he would leave the classroom, when they request they need it. To the question other than his lunch time and his planning period, did you know of Mr. Merica just to get up from the classroom and go walk around, she answered: "Not at all." When asked did Mr. Merica socialize, she answer: "Not at all." When asked did she ever know of Mr. Merica to be unprofessional, belligerent, hostile or confrontational, she answered: "No." When asked did she ever observe Mr. Merica trying to subvert the administration, she answered: "No." When asked how his students reacted to Mr. Merica, Ms. Wilson replied: Oh, they were glad to see him every day. I mean, a lot of times they would be hungry before lunch, and Mr. Merica would go to Sam's that night before and have snacks in the classroom to make sure they have snacks to eat before they went to lunch. I mean, he was a wonderful teacher. Nobody could never ask of --and I mean, he was outnumbered as male teachers at the school. There was only two, you know, and I think he was a wonderful teacher. Presence Outside His Classroom When asked if she personally received calls for Mr. Merica to assist someone with their computers, Ms. Wilson answered: Yes. It comes over the intercom and he always asked, will you be okay for five or ten minutes? Let me see what's wrong with the computer and that's the only time he would leave the classroom. When asked if she knew "specifically" where Mr. Merica went on computer calls, Ms. Wilson answered: The school has changed a lot with teachers. A lot of the teachers has left. A lot of times he would go to like an autistic class which is down the hallway from us. He would go to the room next door to us to help with the computer. Now, with names I'm not familiar with the teachers because like I said, the school has changed a lot since I've been there and maybe those teachers are not even working there. He used to help Rita Airwood (ph.) a lot with the computer because she wasn't--she didn't know where the power button was. Most of the teachers there didn't know where the power was. A lot of us would, after school, when all the kids were gone, we would have him to teach how to work the computer and be on task when the next day come. So, therefore, a lot of the teachers would come to our classroom to let Neil show them were the computer--what screen you start on and all before the next day because a lot of times we would get worksheets. We didn't have workbooks. A lot of times we would get worksheets off the computer. So when I say names, it's a whole bunch of names I would have to go through. When asked, "[h]ow do you personally know, from viewing him going to that room--witness him go to where he said he was going?" Ms. Wilson answered: Because we have windows. The aisles run from east to west. We have -- and I'm looking out the door to make sure he gets to that classroom. A lot of times when he gets to that classroom, he'll either do this here, a thumbs up, and he's on his way back. According to Ms. Wilson, she always knew where Mr. Merica went when he left his class because he would tell her before leaving; i.e. "They want me in the front office." "I need to be here." He would not just walk out of the class. Though she did not follow him out the classroom, she testified: A lot of times I would be doing bathroom and he would say, "Hey, I'll be right back." He may go and get a cup of tea and he's right back there helping me in the bathroom, because normally I think we had -- at the time I worked with him, we maybe four to five wheelchairs, and a lot of times he would give me help with the boys, you know, and then I would do the young ladies. I would take the girls first and he would stand right outside the bathroom and wait with them if I said I needed him, he'll come inside and help me. Through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Wilson, Mr. Merica established those purposes for his frequent departures from his classroom; to assist other teachers with computer problems in their classrooms. Whether or not one agrees with the stated purposes Mr. Merica gave for being out of his classroom, that fact does not affirm the Commissioner’s allegation of unprofessional conduct by his frequent presence outside his classroom. When asked if he was called upon by the Administration to provide technical computer assistance to the teachers Mr. Merica replied: Very often. I would not fix a computer unless it was on my planning time, unless it was instructed by the administration office, by Ms. Pils or Mr. Drennan--Ms. Payne, I'm sorry--or Ms. Drennan--that they needed me and it was a real emergency and I would also make sure with my class that there was the kind of instruction that wasn't going to hurt me to be pulled out for a few minutes. Regarding ACT training and physical restraint of students, Mr. Merica admitted that he received ACT training and was certified only for the 1995 school year. He was aware of the policy requirement of annual ACT re-certification, but he elected not to be re-certified. Mr. Merica admitted physically restraining students on approximately three to five separate occasions during the period of 1995 to 1999. When questioned as to his understanding of physically restraining students when his ACT certification had expired, Mr. Merica responded: That is not my understanding. I think another ESE teacher touched upon it that if a person is about to harm themselves or others or harm you, where you really feel that they're going to physically harm themselves, another student or yourself, then you can restrain them because what you are trying to do is keep a dangerous situation from becoming more dangerous. Mr. Merica denied having classroom behavior problems during his tenure as a SLD resource teacher (1987-1988 through 1992-1993 school years) as well as during his tenure as a PI resource teacher. Mr. Merica admitted engaging in disruptive conduct when attending faculty and staff meetings. He characterized his disruptive actions as "tapping a pencil on the table or tapping his fingers on the table," but denied "pounding his shoe on the table." He matter-of-factly acknowledged making arguably argumentative comments when he agreed or disagreed with some things presented by the speaker with callous disregard that the speaker was speaking. I find that such callous disregard of rendering reasonable respect to the person speaking and those of his colleagues in attendance under the circumstances demonstrated unprofessional conduct by Mr. Merica. I further find Mr. Merica's ". . . constitutional right" justification for unprofessional conduct unconvincing. Mr. Merica acknowledged he has a loud voice and a strong personality, and he is sometimes loud, but not "always" loud as testified by co-workers. Mr. Merica testified that he got along and related very well to the PI and the SLD students in his classes, and he believed they related very well to him and none of his children came to him personally with a complaint. According to Mr. Merica, during his tenure at Foster, he never received a written document from a parent that said "we have a complaint." Mr. Merica opined that other than academic concerns-- normal academic concerns--when he asked for a conference with parents of his children, a few parents would come on conference nights because most of the parents of his kids knew him because he had been there for a while. Regarding Principal Griffin's decision to move him from his PI resource class to a regular SLD class, Mr. Merica recalled that before summer school of the 1998-1999 school year, Principal Griffin and he discussed the matter. His recollection of their discussion follows: She basically said --she looked at my record and said, "As far as discipline goes -- I know we have some other issues, but as far as discipline goes, you look like somebody who could handle that class because it's very difficult class with mostly boys and we'd like to see a man in there,"--and to be perfectly honest, I told her I just went through a divorce. I needed stability. I would prefer to stay in PI or I would like a transfer, and unfortunately at that time, the transfer period was over or they had a freeze. It was one or the other. I think they might have had budget problems and had a freeze at the time. It was one of the two reasons.--It's just that I needed that stability and I hadn't done -- I had done resource before, and I've done PI, which I felt really comfortable in, but hadn't done a full time SLD unit. Even though I was qualified to do it, I just didn't really feel comfortable going into another area after the domestic problems I was having at home. I went through a divorce, which was not an easy thing, during that summer. (emphasis supplied) Mr. Merica's recall of Principal Griffin's comment, "[w]e'd like to see a man in there," was corroborated by Ms. Lipari testimony that during the 1997-1998 school year she was moved down to teach kindergarten and first grade level PI students to provide "mothering and maternal type activities," and Mr. Merica was moved to third/fourth grade to teach older, larger male students. Mr. Merica gave the following reason for resigning as CTA representative in the spring of school year 1998-1999: I resigned because there was undue pressure from the principal [Principal Griffin] and they actually were putting some pressure on my child that was going to that school. Concerning his role as a resource teacher, Mr. Merica stated: As a resource teacher, I had to implement the IEP that was generated by either me or a teacher before me, describing the amount of pullout time, and pullout means that they were in a "regular education class" and they were pulled out for special services. What special services I generally gave them was either math or reading, but it could be social studies or science. Those were rare occasions. Most of them were math or reading. You pull them out for the amounted time specified by the IEP at the level that the IEP indicates, and when that period of time during the day is over, you send them back or you walk them back. In Hillsborough County they had some problems at that time with kids running off campus, so they recommended that we pick up our students and take them back to class. Administrative Leave and Observation of Model Class According to Mr. Merica, on or about August 12, 1999, he was assigned to the SLD class and his last day in that class was November 2, 1999, a total of 83 days before he was placed on administrative leave for five work days plus the weekend. Mr. Merica's assignment by Foster administration to Lake Magdalene was for him to observe a class at Lake Magdalene similar to his SLD class at Foster. After he sat in the Lake Magdalene class for approximately two hours, he spent the next few days sitting next to the principal's office trying to compile materials that would work for his SLD class. Mr. Merica concluded that the Lake Magdalene (SLD) class was not similar (as a model) to his Foster (SLD) class based on following reasons: I was working in an inner city school, this was a very rich, affluent area with totally different set of behavior problems. The makeup of the class was totally different. There were more girls. They were more [sic] white. It was just a totally different makeup. They were younger. And I sat in the classroom for about two hours and then I spent the next few days sitting next to the principal's office supposedly trying to compile materials that would work for my class. Lock Down Drill and Student Running Out of Classroom Responding to questions raised about the "lockdown drill" situation when students were observed running from the classroom onto the PE field, Mr. Merica testified he was given a walkie-talkie because the school intercom system was down. He did not receive notification of the lockdown drill via the walkie-talkie, and so he was not made aware of the scheduled lockdown drill. The evidence is undisputed that students that were seen by his co-workers running "about" the facility during the lockdown drill were not under the supervision of Mr. Merica at that time. The evidence demonstrated those kids were in their scheduled PE class under the supervision of the PE teacher, who put them in "time-outs" and sent them to Mr. Merica for their "time-outs" periods. Undisputed evidence demonstrated and it is found as fact that during this "time-out" period that the incident of students kicking the ball and playing in the classroom and being generally unruly and disobedient that Mr. Merica had justifiable cause to defend himself when a student put his/her hands around his neck and attempted to choke him. His testimony regarding the conduct of students in his class was corroborated, in part, by the testimony of two students, Jarmaal Rumlin and Demetrie White. Mr. Merica denied yelling at either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin. In defense of his voice volume, he characterized his discussions as "forceful," "assertive," and sometimes with a "loud voice." He described pointing of his finger as [u]nder normal conversation when some people use their hands, they might consider that pointing, were I was just, you know, just using my normal gestures of speaking, as far as I was concerned, and if I was pointing, it was only --again, it was not to be pointing at anybody. It might be, that's point number 1; that's point number 2; that's point number 3. Continuing, Mr. Merica said he never lost his temper at school with either principal, was never "out of control" with any students under his supervision, and never injured a student under his supervision. Mr. Merica's explanations for his finger-pointing and verbal barrages during conversations with authority figures evidenced a defensive attitude that did not lend itself to the appearance of a professional team player. Principal Payne did not testify that Mr. Merica pointed his finger in her face during their many meetings over the years. Principal Griffin's testimony of "pointing his finger in her face by Mr. Merica" was not accompanied by specific circumstances and situational context of the incidents. Accordingly, the appropriateness of such conduct, without evidence of each party's participation in the conversation and the specific circumstances and situational context at the time of occurrence, was not shown by the evidence of record to be, clearly and convincingly, inappropriate. Answering allegations of making derogatory or disrespectful remarks about Principal Payne or Principal Griffin, Mr. Merica replied: That's the eye of the beholder, but as far as I was concerned, I was just trying to make them a better person and there were some things that they were criticizing me about. I criticize people for things that I feel they have weaknesses too. So, you know, it's the eye of the beholder. Responding to Offered Assistance and Suggestions When asked if he had received assistance to help improve his classroom management techniques with regard to his regular SLD class, Mr. Merica replied: Yes. I always took suggestions and implemented every suggestion. Some things did work and some things did not work. You know, sometimes certain personalities -- certain things won't work and certain things will, but I certainly implemented every plan. Now, hey, I can even say this: some plans that I wasn't that good at and probably somebody else could have made it work -- maybe. But I know that some things I did that they implemented -- some things worked and some things didn't and I can even go further without trying to be editorializing that we learn from others. Some of the other teachers have suggestions --not just the ones from administration. There were some teachers that came up with some plans that worked for me. Mr. Merica's above recollection of receptivity and implementation of constructive assistance was confirmed through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Hindman, who on three separate occasions documented specific improvements she observed in Mr. Merica's classroom on each of her return visits. Use of Computer, Games, and Newspaper as Teaching Aids Answering those allegations regarding his use of video and computer games as teaching tools, Mr. Merica's undisputed response was: I said I never played them [video games] during instructional time. Students played them sometimes and it was part of the IEP. There were various video games. There was many of them and one they talked about a lot was the golf. But, you see, these kids have kinesthetic problems and we're trying to teach them how to manipulate the mouse, keyboards and other things. There was a racecar game that they used to use, plus it was good for their eye-hand coordination because they were kinesthetically challenged kids. They were in IEP. It was in the IEP that they were supposed to be kinesthetically challenged to whatever level they were to try to take them another year's worth. They didn't even call it grade level, but another year's worth of progress. They were approved, by the way. As far as I know, every game that I brought was approved by the school board or if it was not, nobody told me it was not. There was a list of computer software that you could use for kinesthetic(s), but the list was not always complete. There was also ones for learning and some of the software I even created myself and I made sure it was approved by the office before I even used it because I created it. I wrote it and I wanted to make sure that it was okay with them. But they were very, very, academic. Mine dealt more with reading and -- it never had any kinesthetic(s) in it at all. So mine was easy to approve. ---I knew the list, but again the list -- it even says it does not include all the new software. It does not include all the new software. There are ones that we know about. And the same thing with video list. They had a video list. They have a video list, but it also said under these circumstances, these are -- generally a "G" movie is approved, but you know -- the list was always being compiled. It was always new it always had a little thing in there like, we may be incomplete, check with your principal. Answering the question, "[w]hat is kinesthetic?" Mr. Merica stated: Kinesthetic is using hand-eye coordination. They are physically impaired kids. Some of them were trying -- they might even some kind of physical deformity or nerve damage or cerebral palsy and they were trying to get them to manipulate their hands. Mr. Merica's selections of newspapers, computer games, and specific TV programs as associative resource educational tools for his students were undeniably appropriate resource materials and activities related to learning goals for his students with various learning and physical disabilities. No witness for the Commissioner, including Principal Griffin, the ART, and the ESE specialists, testified to the contrary. Mr. Merica denied that he had sexually harassed his co-workers, and his denials were confirmed by the testimonies of the alleged victims who were called to testify by the Commissioner. He denied "being off task when in the classroom." He denied playing video games in class during teaching and instruction time. Mr. Merica's denials of essential elements in the Amended Administrative complaint, even if unbelievable, does not prove the accusations. The burden remains with the Commissioner. Answering the allegation of "reading the newspaper in class," Mr. Merica stated: If there was a current event and we were talking about current events or -- the kids even had papers at that time, so we have used the paper in an educational way in the school before. Answering the allegation of allowing his class to watch the television program, The Price is Right, Mr. Merica stated: That's a possibility, because at one time in PI, our kids were not going to the lunchroom. They were served lunch in the room. Well, that was a time where I was not present. It was the aides on attendance. It was their duty. That was my time. I have a duty-free lunch is what they call it. It's part of the contract. I didn't always take that time. They knew if they needed help, I would help. If there was some special function going on or something like that, I would not necessarily go to lunch. But as a general rule I did do lunch, and those kids were in the room and sometimes the TV was on and the news during lunch period. It was lunch period for the children, too. Mr. Merica added that he was not aware of any prohibition against putting the TV on during the children's lunch period. Answering his attorney's question why he placed a "Do you need a Sub?" note (the Board's Exhibit 62) in some but not all his co-workers mailboxes, Mr. Merica stated: That's self-explanatory. It says: "Do you need a sub? If so please call Mr. Merica at 985-0203. Do not call before 6:00 a.m., or, you will have to deal with me personally. Can you spell DEAD?" I put it in a few teachers' mailboxes--friends mainly--I'm not a sub. People know that. The people that I gave this to know that I was not a sub. It's obviously a joke. The joke means that I don't think its appropriate to call anybody before 6:00 a.m. in the morning, you know, to disturb their family.--- As far as I know, they wanted to have a new policy because the secretaries didn't want to have to deal with sub calls anymore. So they said to start calling the subs before 6:00 o'clock in the morning to make sure they get there, and by the way, it doesn't say--can you spell dead? That's a little inside pedagogy, whatever you want to call it. It's a little inside teaching joke. "I hope you can spell." Based on the situations and circumstances at the time he engaged in activities and conduct in findings 206 through 211 and findings 229 through 234, I find Mr. Merica's explanations were plausible, reasonable, and within a teacher's authority and obligation to be creative and innovative by providing one or more methods of training to attain specific individual educational goals, based upon the physical and/or mental limitations of students and in concert with the educational goals as stated in their respective IEPs. Realizing that Foster administration and the Board were in the process of terminating his employment contract at the next Board meeting, Mr. Merica wrote a November 2, 1999, memorandum to Dr. Binnie and Principal Griffin, suggesting that he be transferred (to another school) as an alternative solution. The request of transfer was denied. By letter of January 13, 2000, Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent, the Board, suspended Mr. Merica with pay until the Board meeting on January 18, 2000, at which point his contractual employment with the School Board was terminated. The School Board's annual renewal of Mr. Merica's yearly contract of employment during Principal Payne's tenure as principal of Foster provides a reasonable inference, and I so infer, that the 2000 termination of Mr. Merica's annual contractual employment was based primarily upon issues that were identified and raised by Principal Griffin during the mid-1998 through 2000 period when she, and not Ms. Payne, was principal at Foster. There is no evidence of record that Foster brought to the attention of the Board or that the Board considered allegations of or findings of professional misconduct that had occurred during the 1994 through 1998 time period when Ms. Payne was principal at Foster Elementary. Amended Administrative Complaint Material Allegations Paragraph 3(a) The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica, at unspecified times, demonstrated heightened anger while conferencing with Principal Payne. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that between 1998 and 1999,8 Mr. Merica yelled at Principal Griffin while conferencing with her as alleged in Paragraph 3(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. I do not find that Mr. Merica "pointed his finger in his principal's face and being emotionally out of control while conferencing with Principal Griffin." The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Mr. Merica failed or refused to comply with specific requests or specific instructions given by Principal Payne during her tenure as principal at Foster during the period of 1994 through mid 1998 or that Mr. Merica refused to comply with specific requests or specific instructions given by Principal Griffin during her tenure from mid-1998 through 1999, as alleged in paragraph 3(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica made derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks specifically about Principal Payne or specifically about Principal Griffin to and in the presence of his co-workers as alleged in paragraph 3(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 4 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica rejected constructive criticism and assistance from those whose positions required giving such constructive criticism and assistance as alleged in paragraph 4(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the reliable evidence proved that between 1994 and 1999, specifically in the mid and latter part of the 1999 calendar year, Mr. Merica accepted and responded positively to constructive criticism and offers of assistance from those whose position required giving such constructive criticism and assistance. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that on unspecified dates between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica was disruptive at faculty meetings by speaking aloud; speaking to co-workers, sometimes argumentatively; and interrupting speakers when they were speaking during faculty meetings as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica was disruptive at faculty meetings by banging on tables and by making subversive and derogatory statements about the administration, in the presence of students and parent and faculty as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 5 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker, Ms. Kolinsky, during February 1999 as alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker, Ms. Kolinsky, an intern and teacher at Foster as alleged in paragraph 5(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica sexually harassed co-worker, K.R., a teacher at Foster Elementary as alleged in paragraph 5(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 6 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica frequently left his class with his aides so that he could walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students as alleged in paragraph 6(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material evidence proved on those occasions, recalled by Mr. Merica and his DEES attendant who was an on-scene observer, that his absences from his classroom were for legitimate purposes within his obligations as a professional teacher in the Hillsborough County school system. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica's use of alternative methods such as video games, newspapers, and other tools and equipment to teach his students were "ineffective teaching tools and student management" as alleged in paragraph 6(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence proved that Mr. Merica's use of other supportive, available, and permissible means and methods such as video games, newspapers, and other tools and equipment for stimulating his PI students' interest were effective teaching tools. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, the factual basis to support allegations that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica (1) utilized ineffective lesson plans, (2) utilized ineffective behavioral management plans, (3) failed to keep students academically engaged, and (4) failed to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class as alleged in paragraph 6(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 7 The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica restrained students without the required ACT certification as alleged in paragraph 7(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The evidence proved that Mr. Merica restrained "unruly" students and restrained "a student" in defense of his personal safety and that of other students in the time-out class incident herein found. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica yelled in the faces of students as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Through the testimony of two students, Demetrie White and Jarmaal Rumlin, it is clear when Mr. Merica was yelling in their face(s) it was, in part, to be heard over their yelling at him and/or each other when they were kicking the ball and playing during time-out. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, within the circumstances and context of each encounter of record, Mr. Merica exhibited out-of-control or emotional forms of discipline as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence proved that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica restrained one unruly large male ESE student that was not enrolled in his class without a request from the teacher who was responsible for the class, as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 7(d) was withdrawn by the Commissioner. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica's teaching and student behavior management was ineffective, including: frequently leaving his class with aides so that he could walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students. when in his class, frequently playing video games on his computer, reading a newspaper, or reviewing architectural designs. utilizing ineffective lesson plans and behavioral management plans, failing to keep students academically engaged, and failing to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, within the circumstances and context of each encounter of record, Mr. Merica restrained unruly students without the required ACT certification. The evidence demonstrated that in each proven encounter of unruly student restraint, Mr. Merica acted to protect the unruly student, other classmates, and, on two occasions, protect himself and another colleague. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica restrained an unruly male student who was not enrolled in his class without waiting for the female teacher to ask for such assistance as alleged in paragraph 7(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The evidence demonstrated and it is found that by restraining the unruly male student, Mr. Merica prevented possible potential injury to the unruly student, to the female teacher, to the grandmother volunteer, and to other students of both classes who were present in the hallway at the time of the incident. Paragraph 7(d), alleging inappropriate discipline of several students on or about September 23, 1999, was withdrawn by Petitioner. Paragraph 8 The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, allegations in paragraph 8 of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent met with his principal and county employees to discuss and received letters of reprimand for each act alleged in paragraphs 1 through 7 of the Amended Administrative Compliant. Paragraph 9 The Commissioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Board terminated Respondent's contractual employment as a teacher with Hillsborough County in 2000. The burden of proof required to terminate a contract of employment is not the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof standard required to revoke a license. The Commissioner offered no documented proof, however, proving the Board's decision was based specifically on the allegations found in paragraph 9 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. There is no documented evidence of record that identifies the specific basis upon which the ultimate determination to terminate Mr. Merica's 2000 school year employment contract was made by the Board. The Commissioner did not prove, clearly and convincingly, by material and relevant evidence of record, the allegations that "[E]ffective September 22, 2000, the school board terminated Respondent's employment on charges on [sic] insubordination, persistent violation or willful refusal to obey laws or policies relating to the public schools, and failure to demonstrate competency relating to the instruction, evaluation and management of students in accordance with accepted standards," as alleged in paragraph 9 of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order finding Respondent, Neil Merica, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), and imposing the following penalties: Suspend Respondent's right of renewal of his teacher certificate and place Respondent on probation for a period of three years, to require successful completion of an anger management course and other such conditions as the Commissioner may specify upon re-application under existing requirements for certification by the State Board at the time the suspension expires. Impose a fine on Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 for violation of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), to be paid prior to or at the time of re-application for certification, and other such conditions as the Commissioner may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 31st day of March, 2005.
