The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent held Florida teacher's certificate number 681506, covering the areas of Pre-K through Grade 3, which was valid until June 30, 1995. On or about November 4, 1986, Respondent was charged with battery by information filed in Dade County Court Case No. 86-79409. On December 29, 1986, following a non-jury trial, Respondent was found guilty as charged. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was ordered to pay $77.00 in court costs. In 1990, Respondent submitted an Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau of Teacher Certification of the Department of Education (Bureau). On the application, she checked "no" in response to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) even if adjudication was withheld? Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. Please Check One: Yes No If yes, you must give complete details for each charge. As Respondent was aware, her negative response to this question was untrue inasmuch as, in 1986, she had been found guilty of the crime of battery in Dade County Court Case No. 86-79409. In 1992, Respondent submitted another Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau. On the application, knowing that her response was false, she answered "no" in response to the following question: Yes No Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) to a crime other than a traffic violation? A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge In 1993, Respondent submitted a third Application for Florida Educator's Certificate to the Bureau. On the application, she knowingly gave false information by checking "no" in response to the following question: Yes No Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. On February 7, 1994, while working as a teacher at Golden Glades Elementary School, a public school located in Dade County, Respondent was involved in an altercation with a student, C.K., in the doorway to Respondent's classroom.2
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations of subsection (1) of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, concerning her falsification of the 1990, 1992, and 1993 certification applications she submitted to the Bureau; (2) barring Respondent from applying for certification for a period of three years for having committed these violations; and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated, as recommended by the then-Interim Superintendent of Schools, and, if not, whether Respondent (who has been suspended without pay pending the outcome of this dismissal proceeding) should be reinstated with "back salary."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the stipulations of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida, including Plantation Middle School (Plantation). Jean Jones is now, and has been since the beginning of the 1998-99 school year, the principal of Plantation. The 1998- 99 school year was her first as a principal of any school. She had served as an assistant principal for seven years before becoming Plantation's principal. Thomas Fegers is now, and has been since 1993, an assistant principal at Plantation. Milton Roseburr is now, and has been since August of 1995, an assistant principal at Plantation. At all times material to the instant case, Carol Mendelson has been an assistant principal at Plantation. Respondent is a veteran educator. He has been teaching since 1964. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher since 1975. He holds a continuing contract of employment, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Teacher agrees to teach the full period of service for which this contract is made, in no event be absent from duty without leave or to leave his position without first being released from this contract by the School Board, to observe and to enforce faithfully the laws, rules regulations, and policies lawfully prescribed by legally constituted school authorities insofar as such laws, rules, regulations, and policies are applicable to the position held by him. The Teacher agrees that the last salary payment in each academic year may be withheld upon proper notice to the Teacher as to the reasons for said withholding if all duties have not been performed as required by law and regulations of the School Board and the State Board of Education. The services to be performed hereunder shall begin on the beginning date shown above [August 23, 1978] and thereafter as determined by the School Board and are to be performed in the position and school as assigned from time to time by the said School Board. . . . 8. This continuing contract of employment shall remain in full force and effect from year to year, subject to all the provisions herein set forth, unless modified by mutual consent in writing by the Parties hereto, except the teacher may be suspended or removed for cause as provided by law. The Teacher agrees that he may not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Teacher be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. This contract may also be terminated by the written resignation of the Teacher submitted not later than four (4) weeks before the close of the post-school conference period, to take effect at the end of the school year. Such resignation shall be submitted in substantially the form hereto attached described as Exhibit A, and by reference made a part hereof. . . . Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions hereof, unless prevented from so doing by reason of personal illness of the Teacher or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice and, if timely requested by the Teacher, hearing. The contract shall at all times be subject to any and all laws and all lawful rules and regulations, and policies of the State Board of Education and the School Board now existing or hereafter enacted. . . . 14. This contract may be changed or modified only by an amendment in writing executed in the same fashion as the original or by a collective bargaining agreement ratified by the School Board and bargaining agent. No person, officer or employee may modify the provisions of this agreement or make any other contract with the Teacher for and on behalf of the School Board without expressed ratification by the School Board. Provided, however, in accordance with paragraph two hereof both parties agree that this contract shall be modified by the adoption of a subsequent salary schedule as provided in paragraph two and that adoption of such amended salary schedule by the School Board shall constitute expressed ratification. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a classroom teacher at Plantation. For the three school years immediately preceding Ms. Jones' arrival at Plantation (the 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 school years), Respondent was supervised and evaluated by Mr. Roseburr. During this period of time, Respondent had an extremely difficult and challenging teaching assignment. He taught a "self-contained" class of sixth, seventh, and eight grade "drop out prevention" students. "Drop out prevention" students generally struggle academically, lack motivation and focus, have short attention spans, are easily distracted, come to class ill-prepared, do not complete all of their classwork, and are unruly and disruptive in class. Respondent and these "problem" students remained together in the same classroom the majority of the school day, with Respondent providing the students with instruction in all of their academic subjects. Because conventional teaching and behavior management methods did not always work with these students, Respondent needed to be creative and innovative to effectively discharge his classroom duties. Mr. Roseburr was in Respondent's classroom on a daily basis during the three-year period he supervised Respondent. Impressed with Respondent's performance and his "unique knack of knowing what to say and how to say it to students that are difficult," Mr. Roseburr gave Respondent satisfactory evaluations each of the three school years Respondent was under his supervision. The first quarter of the 1998-99 school year, Respondent had the same teaching assignment he had had the previous three school years, notwithstanding his expressed desire to have his assignment changed. In or around September of 1998, Respondent spoke with Ms. Jones about the possibility of having a parent volunteer (Sybil Moton) assist him in the classroom. Shortly after his discussion with Ms. Jones, Respondent sent her the following letter, dated September 14, 1998: I have been assigned to teach 6th, 7th & 8th grade self-contained D.O.P. for several years. I have been doing this at a great disadvantage. There are many Teachers, Team Leader and Department Heads, at this school who would not accept this assignment or be successful with it. I have accepted this assignment and I'm ready to do the best job I can under the circumstances. I have to plan for three grade levels, while other teachers only plan for one. I have to prepare for five subjects, while other teachers only prepare for one. I have five subject area meetings to attend, while other teachers only have one. I have not read any research that support[s] the notion that a teacher, who has as many duties and responsibilities as have been placed upon me, will be more successful or as successful as a teacher, who teaches one subject area or one grade level. Does the research indicate that children placed in this kind of class situation, will be more successful than in the traditional class situation? Is it possible that the children might be at a disadvantage? Each of the previous times when I requested an assistant, I was denied. It was all about money. Now when I ask a parent to help "FOR FREE," I'm told, "I don't think I'll be able to approve Ms. Moton as a parent volunteer." All I'm saying is that, now that I have been loaded down with all of the above, where is the help that goes with it? As of now, I feel that I have been placed in a situation that is headed for failure, and that's not me. I want to be successful at whatever I do, that's why I keep asking for help. These children need so much help, and I want to help them very badly. My difficulty comes from the situation I've been placed in, more so tha[n] the children I work with. After receiving the letter, Ms. Jones circled the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the letter, and, on the upper right hand corner of the letter, wrote the following concerning the representation made by Respondent in this sentence: This is blatantly untrue. If you quote people, make sure you quote them correctly. See me please. She then returned the letter (with her handwritten notations on it) to Respondent. Respondent thereafter, as directed, met with Ms. Jones, who cautioned him that he could not "just . . . go out and recruit parents to work in [his] classroom and not have them approved by the School Board." Mr. Roseburr, although he remained an assistant principal at Plantation, did not supervise Respondent during the 1998-99 school year. Respondent's new supervisor was another assistant principal at the school, Carol Mendelson. On October 7, 1998, Ms. Mendelson conducted a classroom observation of Respondent. Following the observation, she sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated October 12, 1998: OBSERVATIONS During my observation of your class, you were introducing personal narratives to your students. You explained the concept of the first draft and the idea that students would choose their own topic for this assignment. Students were walking around the classroom, talking, drawing, had heads down on the desk without consequences from you. A review of your planbook indicates that plans for the day do not coincide with the lesson being taught by you. SUGGESTIONS Please consider the following recommendations to better assist the students: Setting clear, precise, classroom management rules that are reviewed daily with students will help enforce the rules. Consequences must be fair and consistent. Students were walking around the classroom, talking, drawing, had heads down without consequences from you. It is imperative that you establish and implement specific behavioral and procedural expectations, rules, and consequences in order to stop inappropriate behavior before it becomes more serious. Develop plans which match the curriculum you are addressing on each given day. Please make sure that your grade/planbook is in compliance with School Board policy and includes grades, entry dates, transfer dates, absences, interim grades, ESOL strategies, Standards of Service, and all mandated, pertinent information. Please meet me on Monday, October 22 during your planning period with your grade/planbook up- to-date with the abovementioned information. At the end of the first quarter of the 1998-99 school year, in approximately the first week of November of 1998, Respondent was given a new teaching assignment at Plantation, as well as a new classroom (an uncarpeted portable, smaller than his old classroom). He was assigned to a team consisting of four teachers (including himself) responsible for teaching approximately 120 students divided into four separate groups (Groups A through D), one of which (Group D) contained the students who had been in the "self-contained" class of "drop out prevention" students that Respondent had taught during the first quarter of the school year. Although only one of the four groups had students who were in the school's "drop out prevention" program, many of the students in the other three groups were as difficult for the teachers on the team to deal with as were the "drop out prevention" students. Respondent was the team's math and advanced communication skills teacher. The leader of Respondent's team was Ronald Jackson, the team's social studies teacher. Like Respondent, Mr. Jackson joined the team in November of the school year. In addition to Respondent and Mr. Jackson, there was also a language arts teacher, as well as a science teacher, on the team. On November 19, 1998, shortly after he had undertaken his new assignment, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Ms. Jones. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum describing what she had observed during the observation: This letter is being written to inform you that on this date, I came to your classroom on two different occasions and found the following: Students not on task (talking, 1/ no materials) Students out of their seats and/or being permitted to sit wherever they wished with no management from you and no consequences for non-compliance. 2/ Your plan book was not updated by November 13 as requested. You have been asked to rectify this situation by Friday, November 20. Your plan book reflected no attendance or grades for students. 3/ Your lesson plans are not written appropriately, do not reflect the Sunshine State Standards, and do not reflect acceptable practice for lesson plans as discussed with all teachers during the pre- planning days. Your back is turned to students during your lesson 4/ and you are not aware or monitoring what is happening in your classroom while you are instructing. There is very little instructional organization and no classroom participation from the students. There is no indication that you are doing the daily FCAT warm-ups required for all math students in the school. There is no FCAT folder required for each student to use on a daily basis. Ms. Jones again observed Respondent in the classroom on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, during first period. Respondent had been off from work the previous five days (Thursday, November 27, 1998, Thanksgiving Day, through Monday, November 30, 1998). Upon his arrival at school that morning, before entering his classroom, he was called into an unscheduled student services meeting. Because of the length of the meeting, he arrived at his classroom a "couple [of] minutes" after the first period bell had rung. When he opened the classroom door, he noticed that "the fire extinguisher had been sprayed all over the room." With the students' assistance, he cleaned up as best he could and then started his lesson. When Ms. Jones entered the room, Respondent was in the back of the room taking attendance. The students were "out of control." They had no books and there was no assignment on the blackboard. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated December 1, 1998, describing what she had observed during the observation: On this date I visited you classroom and observed the following: It was 9:00 a.m. and the students were totally out of control. There was no assignment on the board, students had no books. You were in the back of the room finishing your attendance, oblivious to what was going on around you. There were absolutely no reprimands from you for their behavior. In fact, it was I who had to quiet the class down. The class was so loud and unruly, that you did not even hear Ms. Milligan call you over the loudspeaker. I also had to inform you that someone was calling you over the public address system. Although your plan book appears to be updated, you were not following the plans as outlined. In fact, no FCAT warm up was on the board, no books were in use and absolutely nothing in terms of teaching and learning was occurring. This was one half hour after class had started. After I quieted the class down, you proceeded to give out paperwork to students apparently to review it. You handed out papers one by one to students who began to be unruly again. At 10:00 a.m. I visited your classroom again, because I wanted to speak with Mr. Roseburr who was outside your door. However, when I went inside the classroom, there was still no work on the board for students, although books were on the desks. Students were talking and looking around and not on task because there was no task to be on. When I questioned what the students were doing, you explained that you had papers to return and that you[] were going to review their work. Once again, you passed out papers one by one, taking away from instructional time and giving students opportunity to misbehave. 5/ It is apparent to me that there is a lack of classroom management in terms of student behavior, and a greater lack of lesson management since there are no clear expectations for students and no method for simple housekeeping chores as attendance and returning papers. You are oblivious to their behavior 6/ and provide no consequences. Most obvious, is the lack of meaningful work for students. There was none provided. Given those circumstances, students will find an easy opportunity to misbehave. Should these conditions, including delivering lessons as outlined in your plan book, not improve immediately, you will be placed in documentation for unsatisfactory performance. On December 7, 1998, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated December 16, 1998, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: On Monday, December 7, 1998 I observed you teaching your class from 9:15-9:45 A. M. Based upon my observation the following are suggestions/comments for your consideration. I found the classroom to be orderly; however, your students were talking loudly as you attempted to teach by talking louder. The class continued talking out loud with no consequence or redirection by you. While the entire class was being disruptive you gave one check to a student for talking, even though the entire class was talking. Never once did you get the class under control and, for some unknown reasons, you continued talking with no one listening. Please be advised that this is unacceptable. It does not make sense to try to shout louder than your class. You must first bring the class under control by confronting the misbehavior. This did not occur. Your attendance was neatly done, listing tardies and absences. Grades were virtually non-existent, and the few that were there did not have names to identify who they belong to. Grades must be clearly recorded next to the appropriate student's name. 7/ Lesson plans from 11/9/98-11/30/98 were incomplete. There were no warm up activities. Additionally, you identified the 504 student's strategies as they were to "do 1/2 of the assignment." The strategies need to be based on the student's needs as they related[] to the written 504 plan. 8/ ESOL strategies written were, "Students may sign out a book if requested." This is unacceptable. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. On December 17, 1998, Respondent received a memorandum from Ms. Jones notifying him that his "performance [was] unsatisfactory and that [he was being] placed in the Documentation process of the IPAS System effective December 17, 1998." In the memorandum, Ms. Jones explained that she was "moving [Respondent] from Development to Documentation" because of her "concern" regarding his performance in the areas of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management." The memorandum further advised Respondent that "the 1997 Florida Legislature [had] amended Florida Statu[t]e 231.29 [to] state[] that the School District shall place a teacher on performance probation for 90 calendar days from the receipt of this notice of unsatisfactory performance." Respondent signed the memorandum and dated it (December 17, 1998), acknowledging his receipt of the document. "IPAS" is the acronym for the School Board's "Instructional Personnel Assessment System." Under "IPAS," "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" are three of the ten "performance areas" in which instructional personnel are evaluated. The other seven are "instructional planning," "lesson management," "student performance evaluation," "communication," "records management," "subject matter knowledge," and "professional competencies." 9/ Ratings of either "S" (satisfactory), "N" (needs improvement), or "U" (unsatisfactory) are given in each "performance area." With input from Respondent and Gary Itzkowitz, a Broward Teachers Union field staff representative, Ms. Jones, Mr. Fegers, and Dr. Cathy Kirk, the School Board's coordinator of teacher evaluation, developed Performance Development Plans for Respondent in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "behavior management," and "classroom management." Each plan was dated January 7, 1999, and indicated that Mr. Fegers would be the "assessor" and that the "follow- up/review date" was March 5, 1999. The "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to create interest through the use of materials and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and backgrounds of students (6B-5.004). Fails to use different types of questions to obtain desired learner responses. Fails to ask questions which are clear and requires students to reflect before responding. Fails to circulate about the room as students engage in seatwork and assist students as needed. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Ms. Greifinger [the chairperson of Plantation's math department] will meet and discuss various motivational teaching techniques such as (a) Use of visual aids, manipulatives, and critical thinking activities, etc. by January 14, 1999. Ms. Cranshaw will assist with scripting questions related to the content during lesson planning 2-3 weeks in a row by January 29, 1999. Mr. Jones will observe Ms. Greifinger focusing on questioning techniques and follow-up by discussing implementation in classroom during his planning time by January 22, 1999. Mr. Jones will read the FPMS Domain document (domain 3) on circulating and assisting and discuss with Mr. Fegers. Follow-up assistance will be provided by Mr. Fegers and/or Mrs. Jones via observation and follow-up conferencing. Expected Outcomes and Timeline Teacher Will: Create interest through use of material and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and backgrounds of students (6B- 5.004) by April 13, 1999. Use different types of questions to obtain desired learner responses by April 13, 1999. Ask questions which are clear and require students to reflect before responding by April 13, 1999. Circulate about the room as students engage in seatwork and assist students as needed by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "behavior management" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by: Establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. Formulating appropriate standards for student behavior. Identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction (6B-5.007). -Fails to demonstrate an awareness of what all students are doing. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Mr. Jones will observe Ms. Greifinger's class to witness her technique in behavior management. Discussion to follow by January 21, 1999. Mr. Jones will observe Mr. Lyons' class to witness his techniques in behavior management by January 28, 1999. Discussion with Mr. Fegers and Mr. Lyons to follow. Mr. Jones will observe Mr. Watkins' class to witness his techniques in behavior management by January 28, 1999. Mr. Jones will receive assistance from Ms. Mendelson, Mr. Fegers, Mr. Roseburr and selected teacher(s) to develop a behavior management plan including rules, rewards and including consequences by January 14, 1999. Mr. Jones will develop a phone log system which will indicate conversations, conferences with parents, specific student infractions, and disposition of all of the above with the assistance of Ms. Mendelson by January 21, 1999. Mr. Fegers will observe classroom to help identify inappropriate behaviors and follow-up with discussion to include appropriate ways to desist inappropriate behavior by January 28, 1999. Expected Outcomes and Timeline Maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice. Establish routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students by April 13, 1999. Formulate appropriate standards for student behavior by April 13, 1999. Identify inappropriate behavior and employ appropriate techniques for correction (6B-5.007) by April 13, 1999. Demonstrate an awareness of what all students are doing by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "classroom management" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to create and maintain an organized and pleasant working environment in the classroom. Fails to encourage students to participate and contribute to class activities. Fails to establish an environment conducive to positive peer interaction. Fails to identify individual social, emotional and/or physical needs that might affect school success. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Mr. Watkins will assist in the setting-up and organizing of the classroom to include aesthetically appealing academic and social environment by January 14, 1999. Ms. Greifinger will discuss different student activities that will foster participation and interaction 2-3 times by February 11, 1999. Should a 504 student be assigned to your team, Ms. Hogan will review 504 plans and discuss ways to modify curriculum and implement in classroom (Date to be determined). Expected Outcomes and Timeline Create and maintain an organized and pleasant working environment in the classroom by April 13, 1999. Encourage students to participate and contribute to class activities by April 13, 1999. Establish an environment conducive to positive peer interaction by April 13, 1999. Identify individual social, emotional and/or physical needs that might affect school success by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "[s]trategies" set forth in the Performance Development Plans were reasonably designed to enable Respondent to improve his performance in the areas of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management." These "[s]trategies" were implemented. Those at the school asked to assist Respondent provided him the requested assistance (with Respondent's cooperation). 10/ On January 27, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. On February 1, 1999, Mr. Fegers and Ms. Jones met with Respondent to discuss Mr. Feger's January 27, 1999, observation. In addition, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 9, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: This is a follow up to our conference on Monday, February 1, 1999. On Monday, February 1, 1999, we met to discuss my observation of your teaching that occurred on Thursday, January 27, 1999 from 1:38-2:13 P.M. Ms. Jeanie Jones, our Principal, was also present at the follow up conference. Based on my observation we discussed the following suggestions/comments for your consideration: All students were seated when I arrived. Your rules were not posted. 11/ You were working on F-CAT testing exercises. At 1:55 A.M. I observed eight students not doing any work. I stated my concerns that the students should not be given 30 minutes to do an assignment without you following up to see if they are on task. I recommend that additional assignments be given so that students do not sit and do nothing. The class is becoming increasingly noisy with no redirection from you. This is unacceptable. Finally, you stated to the class, "Alright people listen up!" Nothing followed that comment so the class continued talking. The talking continued because of down time, with students having nothing to do. You then started passing out papers one- by-one to students randomly which took a great deal of time. By this time most of the class was off task. This is unacceptable. Varied instructional activities as well as pacing of assignments would eliminate the majority of the misbehavior. This did not occur. We agreed that I would come back this week for another observation. Mr. Fegers next observed Respondent in the classroom on February 5, 1999. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 9, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during his February 5, 1999, observation: On Friday, February 5, 1999, I observed you teaching your class from 8:50-9:20 A.M. Based on my observation are the following suggestions/comments for your consideration. I found the classroom to be orderly with all students seated at t[]he beginning of my observation. You reviewed the rules and expectations with your class. Your rules were also posted. One student was seated with a washcloth on top of his head. He was not asked to remove it. This is unacceptable and you will need to redirect inappropriate behavior that does not follow the code of conduct. I observed you passing out six writing assignments to students for talking. I observed you circulating and assisting students on division, simplifying fractions and multiplication. I observed you redirecting inappropriate behavior back to the assignment. Some students were requesting pencils at 9:15. Please make sure all students have something to write with at the beginning of the class. This should also be part of your discipline plan, that students come to class with paper and pencil prepared to work. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Respondent provided Mr. Fegers with the following written response to Mr. Feger's memorandum concerning the February 5, 1999, observation: #1. Thanks for the positive observation. #2. Yes this is true. I will follow your suggestion. #3. Thanks for the positive observation. #4. Thanks for the positive observation. #5. I have tried your suggestion, it doesn't work. They don't care and they don't want to work. That's why they don't come prepared. On February 17, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Ms. Jones. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 17, 1999, regarding her "observation [of] February 17, 1999." It read as follows: On this date I observed your C group in a math class. You were teaching least common denominators for fractions and had several examples on the board. Students came into the room noisily and it took about 7 minutes to get them quieted down and settled for work. You reminded them of the behavior rules. Some students were unprepared for work and had no notebook paper or pencils. Although there were stated consequences for students who misbehaved, there were no consequences for unprepared students. At the beginning of the lesson, you had a student hand out SAT review packets to each student and told them it was due on Friday and that the packet would be their homework for the next two days. You said that anybody could help them with the answers. I am questioning why you would give such a large body of work to these students and then ask them to complete it on their own. These students would benefit far better from you working out each problem with them, and/or allowing them to work in cooperative groups on a small number of problems at a time. This assignment is a concern to me, because I feel that it is a frustrating assignment to these students. Additionally, and most importantly, this is review for the SAT and they need your direct instruction and supervision. They will give up on this assignment because it is too much for them to "bite off" at one time. Students need to be taught to their instructional level, not their frustration level. Again, I feel that teacher directed instruction and cooperative learning activities would be more successful with these students, especially for the SAT review which is critical. I did not feel the answers to the examples should have already been up on the board; however, you did go over each problem thoroughly and had the students figure out how you arrived at the answer. You stopped disruptive behavior and gave two writing assignments out to disruptive students. You helped them learn how to use their calculators properly. You got students to raise their hands for answers and had students contributing to the lesson. You told the students you were going to give them examples of similar math problems to work out themselves, but the four problems you gave them were not exactly the same as the examples i.e., you did not provide a problem with mixed numbers. I see that you are making an effort to work with your students and that you are preparing lessons for them. Your classroom discipline appears to be improving, but still needs some work as students are still coming unprepared for classwork. Please continue to pay attention to the needs of your students, particularly when it comes to assignments that you request they do on their own. On March 3, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated March 5, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: On Wednesday, March 3, 1999, I observed you teaching your class from 1:35-2:05 P.M. Based on my observation the following are suggestions/comments for your consideration: The students were extremely noisy. You were seated on a stool in the front corner of the room. 12/ You were not redirecting student misbehavior. No attempt to stop the misbehavior occurred. I did not observe you reviewing the rules and expectations that students were to follow. I strongly recommend that you follow the discipline plan as [you] indicated you would. You had three math problems on the overhead for students to do. One of which was the following, "5 is what % of 20?" The students were confused with not only this problem but also the other two. You went over the problem, but not step by step so that the students could follow along. They were confused. It would have been much more beneficial if the exercise or problems were broken down into simpler forms so that your class could understand. You did not take into consideration the appropriate levels or activities of classwork that meet the students' needs. Also the directions should have been clear, brief, and explicit for student understanding. This did not occur. 13/ Two students were reading a magazine, 14/ five were sleeping (literally), right under your nose, one was working with your attendance sheet while class was supposedly going on. This is unacceptable and you will need to redirect inappropriate behavior that does not follow the code of conduct. Additionally, I question why a student was working with a confidential document. 15/ I observed an atmosphere of animosity within the class, as evidenced by your voice inflection and you telling several students to shut up. You also asked me to speak to a student who you claimed had a beeper. I removed the student after the observation was finished and escorted him to the office. The student did not have a beeper. You accused the wrong student. You had claimed that the beeper went off in class, which it may have, but it was not the fault of the young man you requested I remove. Based on the observation done to date your performance in the areas identified in your Performance Development Plan are unsatisfactory. Ms. Jones, on March 5, 1999, filled out an "IPAS" evaluation form rating Respondent "unsatisfactory" in "overall performance" and in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" and rating him "satisfactory" in the remaining seven "performance areas." That same day, she and Mr. Fegers met with Respondent and Mr. Itzkowitz to discuss this "mid-point evaluation," which Ms. Jones showed to Respondent during the meeting. Respondent was advised that he ”needed to utilize appropriate instructional techniques to engage his students, encourage his students to participate and contribute to class activities, demonstrate an awareness of what his students are doing and stop all inappropriate behavior before it spreads or becomes more serious." In addition, he was reminded that "the 90th day [of his probationary period] was April 13 per Florida Statutes 231.29 and the documentation process of the IPAS system." Pursuant to a request made by Mr. Itzkowitz, on Respondent's behalf, at the "mid point evaluation" meeting, the following additional "strategy" was added, effective March 5, 1999, to the "Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance" portion of the "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan: Mr. Fegers, Ms. Greifinger and Mr. Jones will meet to plan a lesson, modeled by Ms. Greifinger and implemented by Jones & observed by Fegers by 3/17/99. On or about March 17, 1999, in accordance with the "model[ing]" requirement added to the "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan, Ms. Greifinger, in Respondent's presence, taught a lesson to Respondent's students. Mr. Fegers was present for approximately five to ten minutes of the lesson. During the lesson the students behaved, by and large, as they did when Respondent was teaching them. There were students off task and walking around the classroom to whom Ms. Greifinger "had to speak." Respondent noticed that there was one student who had his head on the desk and was listening to a Sony Walkman. Ms. Greifinger said nothing to this student. Mr. Fegers was supposed to observe Respondent teach the lesson that Ms. Greifinger had "modeled." He had initially planned to conduct such an observation the week before spring break, but upon reconsideration (without consulting with Respondent or Mr. Itzkowitz) he determined that, in fairness to Respondent, such an observation should be conducted after spring break. The last school day before spring break was March 26, 1999. Respondent worked that day. It was the last day he reported to work. Sometime after the beginning of spring break, Respondent determined that, because of job-related stress and anxiety (resulting, in part, from his belief that he was being treated unfairly by school administrators), he was not able to perform his assigned duties at Plantation. Accordingly, he did not return to work on April 5, 1999, after the end of spring break, and he remained out of work thereafter. In accordance with School Board policy, each week that he was out (prior to the initiation of disciplinary action against him), he provided advance notice that he would be absent by telephoning "sub- central" and advising of his anticipated absence and the resultant need for the School Board to hire a substitute teacher to teach his classes. On occasion, Respondent also telephoned Ms. Jones' secretary (at the secretary's home) to let the secretary know that he would be absent. Respondent, however, did not initiate any direct contact with Ms. Jones. On or about April 12, 1999, Ms. Jones sent to Respondent, by certified mail, a letter, which read as follows: Please be informed that your 90th day according to Florida Statute 231.29 and as indicated on your Performance Development Plan is April 13. Due to your absenteeism, we were unable to meet for a final evaluation. We will meet in my office on Monday, April 19 at 12:15 P.M. Please call this office as soon as possible to inform us if you will be attending this meeting. Respondent neither telephoned Ms. Jones, nor attended a meeting with her on April 19, 1999. On that date (April 19, 1999), Ms. Jones filled out an "IPAS" evaluation form rating Respondent "unsatisfactory" in "overall performance" and in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" and rating him "satisfactory" in the remaining seven "performance areas." In Ms. Jones' view, although at certain times during the probationary period Respondent had shown some improvement in his performance, "[t]here was nothing [in the way of improvement] on a consistent basis." At no time, however, did Ms. Jones believe that Respondent's performance was so deficient as to warrant his immediate removal from the classroom. Although Mr. Roseburr was not charged with the responsibility of supervising Respondent, he did have occasion to go to Respondent's classroom and see Respondent interact with his students. During these visits, it appeared to Mr. Roseburr that Respondent was discharging his teaching duties in the same satisfactory manner he had during the three previous school years. Respondent was "always in control and working with the students." Mr. Jackson, the leader of Respondent's team, also had a favorable view of Respondent's performance during the 1998-99 school year. According to Mr. Jackson, Respondent "always showed professionalism, spoke to the students in a positive light, . . . [and] would go out of his way to try to get them interested to do their work," employing "[v]ery creative" tactics to accomplish his objective. Another teacher at the school who had the opportunity to see Respondent perform in the classroom during the 1998-99 school year was Claire Peterson. Ms. Peterson provided special instruction to low performing students in the school's "pull out" program. She had occasion to visit Respondent's classroom about every other day to "pull out" students in the program. During these visits, she noted that Respondent's students "seemed to be on task" and "doing what he asked of them," for the most part, and that "education was taking place." 16/ She thought that Respondent was doing a "great job." On or about April 19, 1999, Ms. Jones began her efforts to make telephone contact with Respondent. Her efforts were unsuccessful. She left messages on Respondent's answering machine asking that he inform her when he intended to return to work. Respondent did not return Ms. Jones' telephone calls. By memorandum dated April 22, 1999, Ms. Jones recommended to Dr. Dorothy Or, the then-Interim Superintendent of Schools, that Respondent's employment be terminated. The memorandum read as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.29, I am writing to inform you that Eugene Jones, teacher, has completed his 90 calendar day performance probation and has failed to correct his performance deficiencies. I do not believe that Mr. Jones can correct said deficiencies and his employment should be immediately terminated. I have complied with all applicable provisions of Florida Statutes 231.29 and have appropriate documentation (see attached). Please inform me of your final decision in this matter. By letter dated April 30, 1999, Ms. Orr advised Respondent that she was recommending that the School Board formally suspend him, without pay, from his teaching position for "unsatisfactory job performance." On or about May 3, 1999, Mr. Itzkowitz, on behalf of Respondent, sent Ms. Jones the following letter: I have recently spoken with Eugene Jones. As you are aware, Mr. Jones has been ill and is currently under a doctor's care. He has informed me that you have tried to contact him by mail but that he is not in receipt of said correspondences. As a result, on behalf of Mr. Jones I request copies of any letters sent to him by your office in the past ninety days. Upon receipt, I shall forward them to Mr. Jones. Additionally, I request that a meeting be scheduled for the purpose of discussing Mr. Jones' annual assessment for the current school year. Both Mr. Jones and I would like to meet with you. I look forward to hearing from you on each of these matters. The meeting that Mr. Itzkowitz had requested in his May 3, 1999, letter was held in "the middle of May." At the meeting, Ms. Jones did not ask any questions regarding Respondent's absence from school. After seeing a physician about the stress and anxiety he was experiencing, Respondent applied for social security and long-term disability benefits. In applying for long-term disability benefits, Respondent submitted a completed Long Term Disability Claim Employee's Statement form, dated May 14, 1999, to the School Board's carrier, UNUM. The following are questions that were on the form concerning his "disability" and "the condition causing [his] disability" and the entries Respondent made in response to these questions: Why are you unable to work?-- c[h]ronic anxiety state/job stress. Does your current condition prevent you from caring for yourself?-- No. Before you stopped working, did your condition require you to change your job or the way you did your job?-- Yes. I could not perform my job d[ue] to my condition. Is your condition related to your occupation?-- Yes. Last day you worked before the disability-- 3-26-99 Did you work a full day?-- Yes. Date you were first unable to work?-- 4-5- 99. Have you returned to work?-- No. If you have not returned to work, do you expect to-- Yes, if I'm allowed, full time, (date) unknown. As part of the application process, Respondent also had his treating physician, Edwin Hamilton, M.D., complete and submit to UNUM a Long Term Disability Claim Physician's Statement. On the form, dated June 3, 1999, Dr. Hamilton stated, among other things, the following: Respondent's primary diagnosis was "chronic anxiety state"; Respondent's symptoms were "inability to sleep, stress, [and] nervousness"; Respondent's symptoms had first appeared "prior to 4/99"; Respondent had first been unable to work "prior to 4/99"; Respondent's first visit to his office had been April 1, 1999, and his last visit had been April 20, 1999; Respondent's condition was work related 17/ ; Respondent had been referred to a medical social worker and advised to see a psychiatrist 18/ ; Respondent should not and could not "work in the present school classroom environment"; Respondent's prognosis was "guarded at this point"; Respondent had not "achieved maximum medical improvement"; he "expect[ed] fundamental changes in [Respondent's] medical condition" in "more than 6 months"; Respondent "should remain out of the school classroom environment for the time being"; and Respondent "may be able to improve on medical/psychiatric consults." By letter to Ms. Orr, dated May 17, 1999, Mr. Itzkowitz "request[ed] a formal 120 hearing on [Respondent's] behalf." On May 18, 1999, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent, without pay, pending the outcome of the "formal 120 hearing" Respondent had requested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order immediately reinstating Respondent and paying him his "back salary." DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of April, 2001.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Samuel Vinson, has violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), (f), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a), (e), and (h), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed educator in the State of Florida, holding certificate number 735373. His certificate covers health, general science, and physical education, and is valid through June 2017. At all times relevant, Respondent was employed by the Pinellas County School District (District) as a physical education teacher at Dunedin High School (Dunedin) or as a science teacher at Clearwater Intermediate School (Clearwater).4/ Between February and April 2008, when Ms. Gilbert was a senior at Dunedin, Respondent engaged in inappropriate behavior towards her. One day, when Ms. Gilbert received a hall pass from Respondent, Respondent kissed her on her hand. Another day, Respondent kissed Ms. Gilbert on the cheek. On yet another day, Respondent made a suggestive and inappropriate comment to Ms. Gilbert about her clothing.5/ And on another day, Respondent insinuated that Ms. Gilbert was staying late at her employment because she was sleeping with her boss. Respondent’s actions and comments made Ms. Gilbert uncomfortable. Ms. Gilbert's testimony is credible. Ms. Gilbert was uncomfortable and upset as a result of Respondent's conduct. Ms. Gilbert went to talk with the assistant principal at Dunedin, Ms. Riel. According to Ms. Riel, Ms. Gilbert was visibly upset as she described Respondent’s actions. Ms. Gilbert left Dunedin and did not experience her senior graduation exercises because she was so distraught, and fearful of seeing or being around Respondent. Ms. Riel immediately contacted the school resource officer, Deputy Gregory. Both the Pinellas County Sheriff's office and the District conducted independent investigations of Ms. Gilbert's allegations. Respondent was removed from the classroom during the criminal investigation, and directed to work at the school board’s "warehouse," away from students. Respondent was initially charged with criminal battery; however, in August 2011, he pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct with respect to his behavior towards Ms. Gilbert. The criminal court withheld adjudication on this charge and ordered Respondent to pay court costs and the cost of prosecution. In March 2009, Respondent operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and was involved in a traffic accident. Respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. Respondent pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty. In November 2011, Respondent was in his seventh-grade class. For some inexplicable reason, Respondent "lost it" and yelled obscenities at his students. Although the sequence of words used is uncertain, there is no doubt that Respondent called the students “little bastards,” and used the “F” word. As his outburst was on-going, one student went to an adjoining classroom and asked Ms. Holston to help. Ms. Holston was able to effectively remove Respondent from his classroom for the students’ safety. Respondent admitted that he “blew up,” and that he used “a few obscenities” with his students. Respondent resigned his position with the District, effective January 10, 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), (f), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (e), and (h), and revoking his teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 29th day of January, 2015.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4.; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the evidence admitted in the record at the final hearing, and the documents officially recognized, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 878903, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2025. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as the athletic director at Evans High School (Evans) in the Orange County School District (District). Respondent was first employed by the District from 2004 to 2008, when he worked at Evans as a basketball coach and physical education teacher. He was re-employed by the District from 2014 until late in the 2017-2018 school year. He worked at Freedom High School (Freedom) as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. He then was employed at Evans as athletic director for most of the 2017-2018 school year. He resigned on April 5, 2018, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the School Board of Orange County (School Board), which is the District's governing body. Rolando Bailey was the assistant principal at Evans when Respondent was first employed there, and Mr. Bailey was the principal at Freedom when Respondent worked there through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Bailey acknowledged "situations" during Respondent's earlier time at Evans and while at Freedom that involved "conflict" and "communications" issues with Respondent and required administrative intervention, but these problems were handled without involving the Employee Relations office (now called the Employee Standards office) to impose discipline. Mr. Bailey left Freedom to become principal at Evans beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. He thought Respondent would be a good candidate for the athletic director position at Evans, because Respondent was familiar with the community and Mr. Bailey thought he would be good at program building, which is what Mr. Bailey thought the athletic department needed. When Mr. Bailey made the move from Freedom to Evans, he brought not only Respondent with him, but also, at least 15 other administrators and teachers. This set a bit of an "us against them" tone between the existing faculty and staff at Evans and the Freedom transplants. Respondent and Mr. Bailey had a close working relationship. The perception among Evans personnel, based on observed interactions between Respondent and Mr. Bailey, was that they were also close personal friends. At the hearing, Mr. Bailey and Respondent both denied being close personal friends, but they were alumni of the same college, members of the same fraternity, and would frequently meet after regular school working hours. Mr. Bailey acknowledged these frequent meetings, although he said that they were work-related: "The role itself gave us the opportunity to talk outside of hours." (Tr. 200-01). These meetings did nothing to dispel the perception among Evans personnel that Mr. Bailey and Respondent were close personal friends. Evans presented challenges for Mr. Bailey as incoming principal. The school had not been performing well academically, with a "D" rating by the state, and he was intent on improving that performance. As for the athletic department, Mr. Bailey saw the need for "program building," noting that facilities were in disrepair and resources such as uniforms and equipment were scarce, resulting in a lack of school pride. Respondent's objective was to turn the Evans sports teams into winning programs. Respondent's charge was to "lead and direct" the athletic department and allow Mr. Bailey to focus on academics. However, Mr. Bailey made a commitment to the Evans coaches who were already in place when Mr. Bailey came over from Freedom. Mr. Bailey told the Evans coaches that the 2017- 2018 school year would be an evaluative year, and there would not be any changes made until after the end of the year. Mr. Bailey committed to personally participating in each coach's evaluation at year-end, along with Respondent, and Mr. Bailey would make the decision then regarding whether changes were needed to move in a different direction. Mr. Bailey was of the view that certain changes would be needed after the evaluative year. For example, he noted that several coaches held more than one head coaching position, which he generally disagreed with except for certain "related" sports, such as cross-country and track, which had separate seasons so one individual could be head coach of both. Mr. Bailey also was of the view that an individual should probably not serve as both a head coach and an administrative dean, although exceptions could be allowed and Mr. Bailey was willing to wait and see if individuals at Evans were handling it well.2 For the 2017-2018 "evaluative" school year, Mr. Bailey was willing— and had committed—to not make changes to conform the staffing to his views, and instead, to await year-end evaluations to make these decisions. Respondent expressed a different view, stating that if it had been up to him, he would have terminated all existing coaches when he started at Evans and he would have made them all reapply. But it was not up to Respondent, and Mr. Bailey's commitment stood. Respondent started working at Evans during the last few days of July 2017. He immediately implemented some changes in how the athletic 2 For example, Mr. Thompson was an administrative dean and head football coach at Evans for years before Mr. Bailey became principal and he remained in both positions after Mr. Bailey became principal. department was run. One change involved employing Ms. Woodard, who came over from Freedom with Mr. Bailey and the others, as assistant athletic director with the responsibility for inputting team roster information, including documenting compliant physicals and grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on the roster. This apparently had the effect of revealing students who were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.0 GPA. Previously, coaches were responsible for inputting their own team rosters. The claim asserted at hearing was that coaches were "padding" their rosters with disqualified students3 or inactive students.4 The motive suggested for "padding" a roster would be that for "minor" sports like cross-country, track, swimming, golf, and others, higher roster numbers could result in supplements being authorized for assistant coaching positions. A reduction in roster numbers could mean a reduction or loss of supplements, which could mean that assistant coaches would have to coach on a volunteer basis, or a head coach might have to do without, or without as many, assistant coaches. There was no competent credible evidence proving specific instances of wrongful or inappropriate roster padding.5 3 Respondent explained how students without qualifying GPAs might have been mistakenly listed on rosters showing qualifying GPAs. He acknowledged that coaches did not have access to detailed GPA data, and instead, might input a student's cumulative GPA as shown on the prior year's report card. However, that GPA might include grades for classes that were not eligible for purposes of meeting the minimum GPA required to participate in sports. 4 Ms. Bellamy, the girls' basketball head coach, said she discouraged "her" girls from going out for cross-country, because they "probably" would not be allowed to compete in meets. Her comments were more suggestive of a turf war than credible evidence of roster padding. 5 Several witnesses who were not at Evans until 2017-2018 offered their belief that roster padding occurred before the 2017-2018 school year. The credible testimony established only that when rosters were prepared or updated under Respondent's system beginning in August 2017, inputting updated GPAs resulted in some students being disqualified. Ms. Woodard, who implemented the new system, admitted she was not sure how many supplements were lost or in which sport. She thought cross-country may have lost supplements, but then said the sport previously had four or six supplements and that it had four supplements after she updated the rosters. Whitney Poole claimed that rosters had been padded the previous year, but she did not explain how she could have known that, since she was not at Evans before August 2017, and then was only a math teacher. She did not have any position in the athletic department before January 2018 when she became an assistant coach. In general, Ms. Poole was not a credible witness, and with one exception, her testimony was not credited. Sheree Carter Sheree Carter was a coach and administrative dean at Evans in 2017- 2018, when Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and others came to Evans from Freedom. She had been employed at Evans since 2012. She remains employed at Evans to this day. During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Carter held the following positions at Evans: administrative dean over attendance; head coach of girls' cross-country and girls' track; and assistant coach for girls' weightlifting. Ms. Carter was slated for those same positions headed into the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Carter took comfort from Mr. Bailey's assurance that no changes would be made until he made the decisions after personally participating in the year-end evaluations. Ms. Carter testified that she met Respondent at the end of July, during the two-week pre-planning period before classes started. Within a week or two after they met, Respondent started saying things to let her know that he was interested in her. He made her uncomfortable, and she rebuffed his advances. But rather than discouraging his comments, the intensity and frequency of Respondent's advances escalated. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent would walk by her office, which was at the back of the front office, and he would poke his head in to see if anyone else was with her. Respondent never came into her office if someone else was with her; he waited until she was alone, and then he would come in. His conversation opener was that he was recently divorced and was trying to get his feet wet getting back into the dating game. She responded by saying okay, cool, good luck with that. Respondent then started coming by Ms. Carter's office to ask if she wanted to grab lunch together or come eat lunch in his office. She declined each time he asked. After the rebuffed lunch offers, Respondent started asking Ms. Carter if she wanted to go to the movies with him or grab drinks after work. Again, she turned him down each time. Respondent's next approach was to let Ms. Carter know that he had a sofa in his office, followed by repeated invitations to Ms. Carter to hang out and chill with him on the sofa in his office. These invitations were conveyed with a personal, intimate air. Ms. Carter always turned down these advances and let Respondent know she was uncomfortable with what he was asking. Respondent approached Ms. Carter with these advances not only when she was alone in her office, but also, on the practice fields and in the hallways or courtyard, if she was alone. Respondent only approached Ms. Carter to make these advances when no one else was around.6 Ms. Carter described it as "creepy," like "in a stalking type of way. Like he would just wait for that right moment to approach you when you're by yourself and then throw these advances at me." (Tr. 74). Respondent's stalking-type behavior and frequent approaches affected Ms. Carter's ability to do her job. She delayed or avoided communicating with Respondent about coaching matters, despite needing to communicate with the athletic director. She would check hallways before freely moving around to make sure Respondent was not present, and she took to closing her office door to give the impression she was not there. Ms. Carter's testimony was credible and clear. Her demeanor was earnest and believable. In contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the advances claimed by Ms. Carter lacked credibility. Respondent was evasive. He frequently avoiding a direct answer to the question, as illustrated by the following: Q: And did you invite her to your office to chill? A: I was hardly ever in the office. I mean, so, it's very hard to chill in there. I was very, very on the go. I was very, very on the go. You know, Mr. Bailey was big on the look and appearance. So there was stuff always that needed to be done with the field and 6 Mr. Bailey testified that he never observed Respondent engage in sexual harassment, but conceded that sexual harassment is not normally something that he sees people doing out in the open. with the cosmetics. So I was hardly ever in the office. The only time I was in the office if I had to be [sic]. But I was hardly ever in the office, so I definitely couldn't be there just to chill because it was just too much work to do. (Tr. 324). * * * Q: Did you ever invite her to eat lunch in your office? A: I never ate lunch. It's hard for me to eat lunch because I had lunch duty and we had three lunches. So, when am I going to eat lunch when I'm constantly being fussed at by Mr. Bailey about not answering e-mails. Because I was never in my office so my e-mails were forwarded to Ms. Woodard so I didn't have to hear from him about why I don't answer e-mails. So I never ate lunch during the day. (Tr. 327). Respondent avoided answering the questions posed—whether he ever invited Ms. Carter to chill or eat lunch in his office. Respondent danced around the subject, never denying or refuting Ms. Carter's clear testimony that he had, in fact, invited her multiple times to eat lunch in his office and to chill on the sofa in his office, but she turned him down each time. Respondent did deny that he had asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies7 or out for drinks with him, but he offered weak explanations, which were not persuasive, for why he would not have extended these invitations. When asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies with him, he responded: "No. I was too busy to be trying to go to the movies and live in a whole different county and try to work. You know, Evans was an hour and 20 minutes away. Freedom was 38. So there's no time to go to the movies. Especially with a person you don't know, you know." (Tr. 325-26). And when 7 Ms. Poole, a witness for Respondent who generally went out of her way attempting to testify favorably for Respondent, said that she had been friendly with Ms. Carter at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Poole admitted that during this time, Ms. Carter told Ms. Poole that Respondent had asked her out to the movies. To that extent, Ms. Poole's testimony was credible, and it corroborated Ms. Carter's testimony. asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter out for a drink, he said: "No, because I don't drink. … I just never had a drink, never smoked. So I don't drink. And because I don't drink, I'm not going to invite somebody out to watch them drink. So." (Tr. 326-27). Respondent's testimony on these points was less credible than Ms. Carter's testimony, and her testimony is credited. Ms. Carter testified that her discomfort with Respondent's advances came to a head at a soccer game, when he approached her and once again asked her out for drinks, and she got upset. She said that she blew up, emphatically reiterating (punctuated with curse words) that she had told him before she was not interested and expressing her frustration that he had not yet accepted the message that she wanted him to stop making advances at her. This was on a weeknight during the week of December 4, 2017. On Friday, December 8, 2017, Respondent went to Ms. Carter's office and told her: (1) that she was immediately removed, mid-season, from the assistant coach position for weightlifting, though she could keep the supplement; (2) that they would be moving in a different direction and she would no longer be head coach for girls' cross-country (which had ended its season one month earlier); and (3) that they would evaluate her position as head coach for girl's track after the spring. Respondent told Ms. Carter that he and Mr. Bailey had made these decisions because Mr. Bailey did not want her coaching and serving as an administrative dean at the same time.8 Ms. Carter was very upset because she loves coaching. She broke down crying and was so distraught, she was unable to perform her job duties to supervise during either lunch periods that day. Ms. Carter believed that 8 Respondent admitted to delivering this news to Ms. Carter, although he said it was in a routine meeting in his office that he had scheduled to give Ms. Carter her end-of-season evaluation for coaching girls' cross-country (conflicting with Mr. Bailey's clear testimony that he always participated in evaluations, which were done at the end of the year). Curiously, Respondent testified that his evaluation had no meaning, and its only purpose was to give coaches something for possible future employers wanting to see evaluations. Respondent failed to explain, if the meeting was only to address a meaningless end-of-season evaluation for one sport, why he used the occasion to deliver meaningful consequences or why he addressed more than that one sport. Respondent took this action to retaliate against her because she had rebuffed his advances, particularly after her strong rebuke of him earlier that week. Up to this point, Ms. Carter had confided in two different colleagues regarding Respondent's advances and her discomfort with them, but she had not lodged a formal complaint against Respondent with Mr. Bailey. She was concerned that Mr. Bailey would take Respondent's side in a dispute because of their longstanding relationship and apparent close personal friendship. Previously, when she had confided in Mr. Thompson, he had told her she should talk to Respondent regarding her discomfort, but she had tried that repeatedly. When she confided again in Mr. Thompson upon being reduced to tears on December 8, 2017, this time he told her she should not be talking with colleagues rather than going through proper channels, and he urged her to file a complaint. Ms. Carter followed that advice, submitting a complaint in an email to Mr. Bailey, which she sent to him just after midnight, very early on Monday morning, December 11, 2017. She asked if she could meet with Mr. Bailey to discuss what Respondent had told her regarding her coaching responsibilities and her concern that Respondent had taken this action because she had turned down his advances. Directly contradicting Respondent's claim, Mr. Bailey testified that he did not make the decision to remove Ms. Carter from her coaching duties during the 2017-2018 school year, nor did he direct Respondent to tell Ms. Carter in December—in the middle of the "evaluative year"—that she could not remain as coach and administrative dean.9 Instead, as he had committed to do at the beginning of the year, Mr. Bailey waited until the end of the school year to have the conversation with Ms. Carter about changes going forward. At that time, he informed her that he did not want her to continue in the dual roles of coaching and administrative dean in the 2018- 9 When Mr. Bailey found out that Respondent had that conversation with Ms. Carter on December 8, 2017, he had a meeting with Respondent to find out why he did that. 2019 school year. Ms. Carter wanted to remain in coaching to continue building her programs. With Mr. Bailey's agreement, she gave up the administrative dean position and returned to classroom teaching the next school year so she could continue coaching. Mr. Bailey was a witness for Respondent and he attempted to be supportive of Respondent in his testimony. However, Mr. Bailey clearly and directly contradicted Respondent's claim that he had instructed Respondent to remove Ms. Carter from coaching on December 8, 2017. Mr. Bailey was surprised by Ms. Carter's email reporting that Respondent had done so and had attributed the decision to Mr. Bailey. After meeting with Ms. Carter, Mr. Bailey reported Ms. Carter's complaint to the Employee Relations office for investigation.10 In contrast to the "situations" involving Respondent when he was first at Evans and again while at Freedom, which were handled by administrative interventions without involving Employee Relations, this time Mr. Bailey found it necessary to involve Employee Relations. Jamila Mitchell Jamila Mitchell, Ph.D., also provided testimony regarding inappropriate statements and conduct by Respondent that made her feel very uncomfortable and that interfered with her doing her job. Dr. Mitchell has been working at Evans since 2014. Her doctorate degree is in computer science. She has been the computer science instructor at Evans and the sports media sponsor. She held those two positions during the 2017-2018 school year. She was not a coach or assistant coach. As sports media sponsor, Dr. Mitchell is involved in all sports-related media, including film, photography, social media, and the school's website. 10 Two separate investigations were initiated: the first addressed alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Respondent, pursuant to the District's responsibilities under civil rights laws as Ms. Carter's employer not to commit unlawful employment practices. When that investigation was completed with a finding of probable cause to believe there was sexual harassment, Mr. Ganio, then-manager of the District's Employee Relations office, completed an investigation into whether Respondent had engaged in misconduct, which would provide just cause for the School Board to take action against him as a District employee. Her responsibilities include managing sports-related website content and ensuring information is disseminated for all sports-related events. She must keep up with schedules, rosters, college recruiting activities, and events such as college scholarship signing days and awards banquets. Frequent communications with the Evans athletic director are essential to her job duties, at least by the time sports activities are in full swing after the first couple of weeks of each school year. Dr. Mitchell testified that beginning in September 2017, when her job required her to be in frequent communications with Respondent, he started saying and doing things that made Dr. Mitchell uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent referred to Dr. Mitchell as his "little Mexican." Dr. Mitchell is not Mexican. Respondent would say this when passing her in the hallway, if they were both at a game or event, or when he came to her classroom. Sometimes she was alone when he said this, but sometimes other people overheard what Respondent said. She was offended by Respondent's words, and also, uncomfortable having to explain to others who heard Respondent call her his little Mexican that she was not Mexican, but was biracial. Despite taking offense, she tried to ignore it or laugh it off. Respondent frequently came by Dr. Mitchell's classroom during her planning period when she was the only one there. At least initially, they would discuss sports media matters. But then the conversations would turn to Respondent telling Dr. Mitchell that he "liked the way her butt looked" in the pants she was wearing that day, or how whatever she was wearing accentuated some part of her body. She tried to change the subject back to work, but his comments made her feel weird and "creeped out." Respondent's frequent comments about her clothing and body impeded communications regarding sports media issues. Respondent's comments also caused Dr. Mitchell to stop wearing form-fitting clothing, pants that were a little bit tight, or shirts cut a little bit low.11 She began wearing loose clothing and when Respondent came by her classroom, she stayed seated behind her desk so he would not comment on "how her butt looked." Her discomfort and worries distracted from needed communications and interfered with getting the job done. It got to the point where Dr. Mitchell avoided communicating in person with Respondent, resorting to communicating by text or phone call. Dr. Mitchell described the "tipping point" for her was when she was walking through a courtyard to go to the front office and Respondent was coming out of the front office. Dr. Mitchell was wearing her hair down (loose), which she rarely did. When they passed in the courtyard, Respondent commented that he liked it when she wore her hair down because it gave him something to grab onto. There were other people in the courtyard—teachers and students—and Dr. Mitchell testified that she just prayed that nobody heard what Respondent said to her. She was highly embarrassed by what she reasonably interpreted as a sexual reference. Dr. Mitchell did not immediately complain about Respondent's inappropriate conduct, in part because she was embarrassed, but also, because she did not know to whom she could complain. She had seen how Mr. Bailey interacted with Respondent, and observed that they seemed to have a very friendly, personal relationship. She was concerned that if she said anything, it would be her job on the line. But when she was contacted by an investigator looking into Sheree Carter's complaint, who had been told that Respondent may have also harassed Dr. Mitchell, she spoke with the 11 Respondent suggested in his PRO that Dr. Mitchell should be faulted for her choice of attire in a school "full of hormonal high school students that most likely has a dress code, stated or implied, for teachers." (Resp. PRO at 28). No credible evidence supports a finding that Dr. Mitchell's attire was provocative, inappropriate, or contrary to any dress code, and none was cited. Respondent's argument is, in effect, that Dr. Mitchell "asked for it"—a classic means to deflect blame and excuse inappropriate sexual conduct, which is, or should be, a relic of the past. Respondent's veiled hint that Dr. Mitchell asked for it is tantamount to a concession that "it" occurred, necessitating an excuse for his behavior. There is no excuse. investigator and provided the same information about Respondent's offensive conduct to which she testified at the hearing. Dr. Mitchell was very credible and genuinely distraught as she described these uncomfortable encounters with Respondent. As with Ms. Carter's specific complaints, Respondent denied (or gave evasive, less-than-clear answers) that he said or did the things described by Dr. Mitchell.12 Respondent's testimony was not as credible as Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Dr. Mitchell's testimony is credited. Jessica Kendrick Jessica Kendrick was the head swim coach at Evans, coaching both the boys' and girls' swim teams, from 2013 through the 2018-2019 school year. Her testimony was fairly narrow in scope, but clear and to the point: when Respondent was the head of the athletics department in the 2017-2018 school year, he made her uncomfortable by standing very close whenever they talked with no one else nearby—that is, when there were no witnesses. Ms. Kendrick is five feet, eight inches in height. Respondent is six feet, one inch tall. He used his height advantage to intimidate Ms. Kendrick, making her feel like he was towering over her when he stood very close and looked down at her. Ms. Kendrick's vivid description was that Respondent would be standing so close to her that she could tell what he had for lunch. Ms. Kendrick's reaction to these close encounters was to back up to create space between Respondent and herself. But Respondent would quickly move forward to close the space she had created. She would inch back again; he would inch toward her to close the gap again. Respondent made Ms. Kendrick feel very uncomfortable. 12 In contrast, the investigative summary of the District's investigation into Ms. Carter's sexual harassment complaint reported that Respondent stated he "does not recall if he made inappropriate comments to [Dr.] Mitchell." (Pet. Ex. 14, Bates p. 35). Although statements of non-party witnesses reported in the investigative summary are hearsay, and thereby limited in use to supplementing or explaining competent evidence, Respondent's statements reported in the investigative summary that was offered against him are party admissions, excepted from hearsay, and admissible for all purposes. See § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Kendrick had been the head swim head coach at Evans for four years before Respondent became athletic director. He made her so uncomfortable when they spoke in person that she went out of her way to avoid him. She told the two assistant swim coaches, Mr. Rivers and Mr. Ross, about her discomfort with Respondent. She asked her assistants to take her place for in-person meetings or discussions with Respondent so she could avoid any more uncomfortable close encounters with Respondent. It affected her job; communications with the athletic director were necessary for her to function effectively as head coach. Ms. Kendrick testified that rather than having to interact with Respondent, if Respondent had continued on as athletic director at Evans, she would have given up the head coaching position. Instead, Respondent resigned, and Ms. Kendrick decided to remain head swim coach at Evans for the 2018-2019 school year. Respondent testified that he had no idea what Ms. Kendrick was talking about. Ms. Kendrick's testimony was more credible than Respondent's and is credited. At the hearing, Respondent made the blanket statement that all the witnesses testifying against him were lying. He claimed that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kendrick were lying to get back at him for changing the procedures to prevent roster padding and costing them coaching supplements.13 He claimed that their colleagues, in whom they had confided and who corroborated their testimony, were also lying. Respondent's attempted attacks on the credibility 13 Ironically, the suggestion that Ms. Carter was mad because she lost supplements as a result of the changed roster procedures was contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. As for her head coaching positions, Respondent testified that head coaches receive supplemental pay irrespective of roster numbers. Ms. Carter might have lost those supplements as a result of Respondent's unauthorized attempt to remove Ms. Carter from cross-country head coach and to threaten removal from track, had those actions stood, but they were reversed by Mr. Bailey. As for the supplement Ms. Carter received as assistant weightlifting coach, Respondent admitted that when he told Ms. Carter she was relieved of her assistant coaching duties mid-season, he told her she could retain the supplement. Respondent's actions had nothing to do with supplements or rosters; Respondent acted to retaliate against Ms. Carter for rebuffing his repeated advances. of the witnesses testifying against him were not persuasive and did not undermine their clear, credible testimony. Most notably, although Respondent claimed some witnesses had a motive to lie to get back at him because of lost coaching supplements, no such motive was or could be attributed to Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell was not a coach or an assistant coach. Respondent offered no cogent theory to explain why Dr. Mitchell would fabricate her testimony. Respondent's accusation that Dr. Mitchell's testimony was invented does not square with her display of emotions at the hearing. She was visibly shaken and crying when she described her embarrassment with Respondent's sexual innuendos, and when she explained why she did not complain about Respondent at the time. Ulunda Frazier The pattern of behavior evident from the complaints of Ms. Carter, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Kendrick is further buttressed, at least generally, by court records regarding Ulunda Frazier and Respondent. Ms. Frazier is a teacher. At the time pertinent to this case, she taught at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge), within the District. At the hearing, Respondent described Ms. Frazier as a longtime personal friend he has known for 15 or 16 years. He said Ms. Frazier used to babysit for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant and toddler. Respondent admitted that his personal relationship with Ms. Frazier had turned "toxic." He did not offer any details to explain in what way the relationship turned toxic. Instead, alluding to a close intimate relationship gone bad, he said only that his relationship with Ms. Frazier "had become toxic and out of control that was actually birthed out of both of our pains. We -- she was going through an ugly divorce and I was going through my treatments and stuff. And so the relationship had just got toxic and it had -- it was no longer a friendly environment." (Tr. 351). Court records in Frazier v. Crawford, Case No. 48-2018-DR-000923-O, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, were officially recognized. The records reflect that on January 24, 2018, Ms. Frazier filed a Petition for Injunction Against Stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, seeking to enjoin Respondent from stalking her. That same day, the court issued a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Stalking. On January 25, 2018, the Polk County Sheriff's Office served the Temporary Injunction, Ms. Frazier's Petition, and a Notice of Hearing on Respondent at his residence. The hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2018, and was held as noticed. Both Ms. Frazier and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (Stalking Injunction). Respondent received a copy by hand delivery in open court, as acknowledged by his signature on the Stalking Injunction. He is therefore "deemed to have knowledge of and to be bound by all matters occurring at the hearing and on the face of" the Stalking Injunction. (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 51-52). The Stalking Injunction contains the following finding: "After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent of Respondent, the Court finds, based on the specific facts of this case, that Petitioner is a victim of stalking."14 (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 47). On that basis, the Stalking Injunction ordered as follows: "Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of stalking against Petitioner, including stalking, cyberstalking, aggravated stalking, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act to do violence to Petitioner." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 50). The Stalking Injunction is in effect until February 26, 2021. 14 "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]" § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 784.0485 creates a cause of action for a person who is a victim of stalking to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Stalking Injunction "reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an athletic director because it limited his ability to travel to that school and perform his duties." The terms of the Stalking Injunction do not support this allegation. While the Stalking Injunction generally and broadly prohibited Respondent from having any contact with Ms. Frazier, including at Oak Ridge where she worked and at her residence (both of which were in Orlando), there is an express exception to the no-contact prohibition, as follows: "The Respondent may go to Oakridge [sic] High School only for a valid business reason. If any contact occurs, it shall be non-hostile contact." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 49). In several respects, however, the Stalking Injunction contradicts Respondent's testimony. Respondent denied that he would have made advances on Ms. Carter because he was married and had been married to the same woman since 2010. Yet his close personal relationship with Ms. Frazier predated his marriage by five or six years. Respondent testified that Ms. Frazier babysat for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant. The fact that Respondent got married to someone else five years later did not prevent Respondent from engaging in a first "friendly" and then "toxic" close relationship with Ms. Frazier, or from stalking Ms. Frazier before the Stalking Injunction was issued against him on February 6, 2018. Whatever the details may be regarding Respondent's stalking of Ms. Frazier, it is noteworthy that she lived and worked in Orlando. This belies Respondent's claim that he could not have harassed Ms. Carter with the repeated advances she described, because he would not have had time to go to the movies or out for drinks near where he worked in Orange County. He attempted to paint the picture that he spent every moment in Orange County working or commuting to and from his home in distant Polk County. The Stalking Injunction stands as evidence that, contrary to Respondent's claim, in addition to working at Evans and commuting to and from Polk County, Respondent found time to have a first friendly, then toxic relationship with Ms. Frazier and to stalk Ms. Frazier where she lived and worked in Orange County. Respondent's Separation from the District The investigation into Ms. Carter's complaint identified individuals who were potential witnesses with relevant information or possible victims. After conducting interviews, the District held a pre-determination meeting on March 7, 2018, to share with Respondent the information learned during the investigation and give him an opportunity to respond. Respondent appeared with a union representative, who instructed him not to respond. On March 27, 2018, Respondent was suspended from work with pay while the District completed its investigation. This "Relief of Duty" status is employed when warranted by the seriousness of the allegations. "Relief of Duty" included an immediate suspension of network access, including email. During the process of completing the investigation, the District discovered a new allegation of inappropriate conduct by Respondent. The District learned of Ms. Frazier's Petition and the resulting Stalking Injunction. It held a second pre-determination meeting on April 3, 2018, to inform Respondent that it had learned about the Stalking Injunction. Again, Respondent was given the chance to respond, but again, he refused to say anything on advice of his union representative. On the same day as the second pre-determination meeting, Barbara Jenkins, the District Superintendent, issued a memorandum to the School Board, transmitting a complaint charging Respondent with misconduct in office and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and recommending that Respondent be terminated from employment for the charged violations. Immediately after the complaint and recommendation for termination were released, Respondent negotiated and finalized a Settlement Agreement and General Release (Agreement) with the School Board. The Agreement expressly stated that it was not to be construed as an admission by Respondent or the District of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent was required to resign as of April 5, 2018, and to tender a written letter of resignation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent agreed "he will not reapply for or accept employment [at a District school] at any time in the future." Respondent also acknowledged that the District would be submitting its investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct to the Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, as required by section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In form and substance, the Agreement is a common vehicle utilized for resignation of an employee in lieu of the employee having to answer to charges and face the prospect of termination. Respondent attempted to suggest that his resignation was purely voluntary, based on his decision that he did not want to work in a place where people would lie about him. His claim was not credible. Respondent fully understood when he took the position at Evans, along with at least 15 others brought over from Freedom by Mr. Bailey, that there would be an "us against them" air that he would have to overcome. Mr. Bailey attempted to set the stage for developing good relationships with existing Evans coaches and other staff, by deeming the first year an "evaluative year" in which there would not be any position changes until the evaluative year was discussed with Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and the coach at the end of the year. Respondent knew that Evans had challenging problems to overcome, with scarce resources in terms of facilities, equipment, and uniforms, and that he was expected to build winning programs and instill school pride. He knew he was expected to put in place the systems, policies, and procedures that would allow for program building, and he was well aware that his changes would be unpopular with some. It defies logic and credibility for Respondent to suggest that he chose to walk away from his commitment before completing one school year only because existing Evans coaches and assistant coaches were lying about him. Mr. Bailey acknowledged that, as principal, he was compelled to let the investigation process be carried out. As he put it: "[W]hat I performed is my role as a principal. That when there's conduct that's unbecoming of an employee, or an employee feeling as if they have been, in this case, harassed, I'm going to follow the guidance that has been presented to me in my role as the leader of the school." (Tr. 209). He acknowledged that at the culmination of that process, when it was reported to him, he followed the guidance that he was supposed to follow, and as a result, Respondent was no longer at his school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of three years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of three years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, which should include a requirement that Respondent take two college level courses, one in professional ethics for educators and one related to women's rights in the workplace; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2021. Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's, Brevard County School Board, decision to terminate Petitioner's, Ruth Henderson, continuing teaching contract was appropriate based on allegations that Petitioner physically abused three students.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a teacher who was employed by Respondent from September 1958 to December 2002. In May 1965, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Continuing Contract of Employment which continued until her termination. She had taught at Cambridge Elementary School, Cocoa, Florida, from September 1980 until her termination in 2002. Petitioner has a bachelor's of science degree in elementary education and a master's of science degree in reading, K-12. Petitioner's annual performance evaluations over her 44-year teaching career reflect that she was an effective teacher with no indication of the problems of which she stands accused. Respondent operates, controls, and supervises the free public schools of Brevard County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and publishes bylaws and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. School started on August 8, 2002, for the 2002-2003 school year. Historically, Petitioner had taught third grade; this year she was teaching kindergarten for the first time. On August 22, 2002, S.L. and R.G., two of the most active and disruptive children in Petitioner's kindergarten class, were engaged in a crayon fight (throwing crayons at each other). Petitioner removed S.L. from his normal seat and placed him in the "time out" chair, a form of approved discipline. S.L. required assistance in the form of taking him by the hand or arm and leading him to the "time out" chair because he sometimes refused to go as directed. On this occasion, August 22, 2002, Petitioner held S.L. by the arm and shook him as she placed him into the "time out" chair, accidentally causing him to bump his head against a bookcase. When S.L. arrived home from school that day, he tearfully reported the incident to his mother, Y.J. She observed a bump/lump on his head consistent with his story of bumping his head on the bookcase. The following morning, Friday, August 23, 2002, Y.J. went to Cambridge Elementary and, in the absence or unavailability of the principal, reported the incident to Bernadine Blake, a guidance counselor. Ms. Blake e- mailed Principal Sandra Brown, informing her of Y.J.'s report of the incident. This e-mail was first read by Principal Brown on Tuesday, August 27, 2002. On that day, August 27, 2002, R.G. was involved in a disciplinary incident with Petitioner. As a result of R.G.'s misconduct, Petitioner instructed R.G. to stay behind in the classroom while the other children left the room. Petitioner then removed her sandal and spanked R.G.'s buttocks with the sandal. Even though the children were removed outside the classroom, the incident was observed by a child, J.T. When R.G. was picked up at school that day, he reported the incident to his step-father; later the same afternoon, R.G.'s parents returned to Cambridge Elementary and reported the incident to Principal Brown. On August 27, 2002, a meeting took place among Petitioner, Principal Brown and R.G.'s parents; at that time, Petitioner denied the incident as reported by R.G. and later denied the incident as reported by S.L. On the same day, August 27, 2002, the incident involving R.G. was reported to the Cocoa Police Department. On August 28, 2002, Cocoa Police Department Detective David Baker, an officer specially trained in child abuse investigation, initiated an investigation of both incidents. He interviewed parents, student victims, and student witnesses and arranged to have several children interviewed by the Brevard County Child Protection Team. Most of the child victims and witnesses were interviewed by the Child Protection Team on September 3, 2002; one child witness was interviewed on September 10, 2002. Child Protection Team interviews are conducted in a non-threatening environment by individuals specially trained to elicit information by asking age-appropriate questions designed to educe responses regarding various forms of child abuse. These interviews take place in a children's playroom at a local hospital and are videotape recorded by hidden cameras. The testimony of the child victims and witnesses preserved on videotape and elicited at the final hearing contained inaccuracies and confusion one would expect of children who were five and six years old. However, each child's testimony was credible considering their age and innocence. On the whole, the testimony of the child victims and witnesses was consistent regarding the occurrence of the incidents giving rise to the Petition For Termination. One child, J.T., reported having been slapped by Petitioner. This report is not considered credible based on the lack of timeliness of the report and lack of corroborating witnesses. As a part of Petitioner's continuing contract with Respondent, she agreed to faithfully observe rules and regulations of Respondent as they related to her teaching responsibilities. Respondent has a rule against corporal punishment of students. Petitioner was aware of the rule against corporal punishment of students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner inappropriately utilized corporal punishment in the discipline of two students, endangering their physical health and safety; that she be suspended from employment without pay for seven months beginning December 11, 2002; and that she be placed on 24 months' probation upon her return to teaching. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 3rd day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan S. Diamond, Esquire Amari & Theriac, P.A. 96 Willard Street, Suite 302 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire 700 North Wickham Road, Suite 107 Melbourne, Florida 32935 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Richard A. DiPatri, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699
The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined in accordance with Sections 231.262(6) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, for alleged acts of misconduct as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint, dated May 19, 1993, in violation of Sections 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and the Florida Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 454394, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Junior High School Science, and Administration and Supervision, which is valid through June 30, 1994. At all times pertinent to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Mary Elementary School in the Seminole County School District. On or about March 14, 1988, Respondent was arrested in Volusia County, Florida, and charged with Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority and Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. A Felony Arrest Warrant for Respondent was issued by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, dated March 11, 1988. An Information was thereupon filed against Respondent in the case of State of Florida v. Larry O. Williams, Case No. 88-17776, and it charged Respondent with two (2) offenses: Count I: Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority, and Count II: Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. The state issued a Nolle Prosequi to the charge of Sexual Activity with a Child. Respondent entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to the lesser included charge in Count II of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child, a third degree felony. On or about April 16, 1990, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child by the circuit court. He was sentenced to serve three (3) years probation, pay $41.00 per month for the cost of supervision, pay $225.00 in court costs and fines, and successfully complete sexual offender counseling. He was also ordered to have no further contact with the victim or any other individuals involved in the case. Detective Diana Floyd, with the Edgewater Police Department, was one of the detectives who assisted in the investigation of Respondent. The victim of the criminal activity by Respondent was Kristina Adkins. Detective Diana Floyd interviewed Kristina Adkins as part of her investigation on March 9, 1988. or about March 15, 1988, the Respondent was suspended with pay by the Seminole County Superintendent of Schools, Robert W. Hughes. On or about March 24, 1988, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the School Board of Seminole County. Respondent was on an annual contract, and his contract called for a renewal each year. The School Board, on or about March 24, 1988, decided not to renew his contract for the following school year. During the 1987-1988 school year, Naomi Whitker was a fifth grade student at Lake Mary Elementary School, and was frequently in Respondent's classroom because her best friend, Cristie Braddy, was a student in Respondent's class. At that time, Naomi Whitker was ten years of age. Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy would regularly assist in Respondent's classroom, generally after school. On a regular basis, Respondent would touch Naomi Whitker's buttocks and hug her while she was in his classroom. This occurred during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School. The student would put her arms around Respondent's waist, and he would put his hands around her back and then move them slowly down until he touched her buttocks. Naomi Whitker did not think that it was right for a teacher to touch her in that way, and she felt uncomfortable and confused. A similar incident occurred when Respondent hugged Naomi and grabbed her buttocks as he was dropping the two girls off after taking them to dance class. On one occasion in late February or early March, 1988, Naomi was hanging up something on Respondent's classroom wall, and was standing on a chair. Respondent came over, reached under her clothing, and put his hands on her stomach while he was holding her. As a result of this touching of Naomi's stomach, she turned and ran out of the class. She felt afraid, angry, and embarrassed. She did not tell him to stop, but was so afraid that she ran out of the room. On another occasion, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker, Cristie Braddy, and another girl out during the 1987-1988 school year to Monday night skate night, and to Show Biz Pizza thereafter. Respondent paid for the entire evening. As they were driving Respondent asked Cristie if she had any underwear on. Respondent also told Cristie that he was not wearing any underwear either. Cristie Braddy, a student in Respondent's fifth grade class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, and best friend of Naomi Whitker at that time, was touched by Respondent. He would rub Cristie's back and stomach and then go down to her buttocks. He would also rub her shoulders. Respondent also touched Cristie Braddy outside of the classroom, specifically at Show Biz Pizza, where he touched her back and shoulders. Also on a school sponsored camping trip he rubbed Cristie Braddy and touched her on the outside of her clothes, when he touched her back and shoulders, but on the inside when he touched her stomach. The touching of Cristie Braddy by Respondent occurred during the entire 1987-1988 school year, and was not an isolated incident. It occurred on a daily basis. On separate occasions, Respondent asked Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to come over to his apartment, and help clean it. However, they declined. On another occasion, Respondent gave Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy a silver ring which said "love" on it. In handing the ring to Naomi and Cristie, Respondent said that he wanted them to have it because "I love you". Also during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to the beach or to the mall with him, but they did not go with him. Respondent made inappropriate comments to students in his classroom. For example, he would talk about how he and his wife got divorced because she would not have sex with him. He would also look at Naomi, and say that she needed to shave her legs, or that she was in a bad mood because she was beginning her period. He would also ask about whether the girls were kissing boys. On another occasion in Respondent's fifth grade classroom at Lake Mary Elementary School, Cristie Braddy was sitting in the teacher's chair. Respondent came up from behind her and sat on the chair directly behind her with his legs spread around her. Cristie Braddy quickly jumped out of the chair and went to a different part of the room. Monica Graham, a student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, was also touched by Respondent. Respondent touched Monica Graham inappropriately on the shoulders and buttocks on the outside of her clothing, and on one occasion, he pinched her buttocks. Monica Graham, as a result of the touching by Respondent, felt weird and embarrassed because he did it to her in front of the other students. She was also angry and hurt by Respondent touching her. On the same camping trip that Christie Braddy and Monica Graham attended, Respondent, who was a chaperon, told the girls on the camping trip that if they got scared at night, they could come sleep in his tent. Respondent invited Monica Graham to go swimming at his house, and one night asked if she wanted to come over and eat dinner with him. Monica Graham did not go because she told her parents, and they said it was inappropriate. Respondent gave Monica Graham his home phone number. He told Monica it was for help in homework, but when she called, he did not talk about homework. Tiffany Gormly, a fifth grade student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary school class at Lake Mary Elementary School during the 1987-1988 school year, was touched by Respondent. Respondent rubbed her shoulders, and tried to hold her hand. When Respondent tried to hold Tiffany Gormly's hand, she kicked him. As a result of Respondent's touching Tiffany Gormly, she felt uncomfortable and embarrassed. There were other students in front of her when Respondent rubbed her shoulders. She was angry, and told Respondent to stop. Respondent also invited Tiffany Gormly to come to his apartment and go swimming. It bothered her, and she did not go. On occasion, Respondent would look under the long table where students sat, as they watched movies in his classroom, and would try to look up the dresses of the girls.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Larry O. Williams is not guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; but is guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes, for having been convicted of a felony; and is guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, due to his inappropriate touching and conduct with four of his students. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for the above violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2215 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 117. Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43. Rejected as irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 7(in part), 8 (in part), 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 55, 63, 67, 70, 71, 77, 78, 79, 90, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire BOND & BOYD, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry O. Williams 403 North Monroe Street Versailles, Missouri 65084 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Since April 19, 1991, Respondent has held Florida teaching certificate 637552, which covers the areas of business education (grades 6 through 12) and physical education (grades 6 through 12). The certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, including January 4, 1992, employed as a teacher by the Broward County School Board. On January 4, 1992, while operating her motor vehicle, Respondent was involved in an incident which led to her arrest and to the filing of an information against her in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 92-2200CF10A. The information contained the following allegations, all of which were true: MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that [P]AULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January, A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully commit an assault upon Lieutenant Tom McKane, a duly qualified and legally authorized officer of the City of Sunrise, knowing at the time that he was a law enforcement officer, with a deadly weapon, to wit: an automobile, while he was in the lawful performance of his duties, without intent to kill, by striking the police car being drive[n] by Lieutenant Tom McKane with [s]aid automobile thereby placing Lieutenant Tom McKane in fear of imminent violence, contrary to F.S. 784.021 and 784.07(2)(c), COUNT II AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully commit an assault upon Lieutenant John George, a duly qualified and legally authorized officer of the Town of Davie, knowing at the time that he was a law enforcement officer, with a deadly weapon, to wit: an automobile, while he was in the lawful performance of his duties, without intent to kill, by driving said automobile toward the police car being driven by Lieutenant John George thereby placing John George in fear of imminent violence, contrary to F.S. 784.021 and 784.07(2)(c), COUNT III AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully commit an assault upon Sergeant Gary Silvestri, a duly qualified and legally authorized officer of the Town of Davie, knowing at the time that he was a law enforcement officer, with a deadly weapon, to wit: an automobile, while he was in the lawful performance of his duties, without intent to kill, by driving said automobile toward the police car being driven by Sergeant Gary Silvestri thereby placing Sergeant Gary Silvestri in fear of imminent violence, contrary to F.S. 784.021 and 784.07(2)(c), COUNT IV AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, willfully and maliciously injure the property of another, to wit: a police car, property of City of Sunrise, by striking said police car with another automobile, the damage to the said property so injured being greater than two hundred dollars ($200.00) but less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), contrary to F.S. 806.13(1) and F.S. 806.13(2), COUNT V AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, while being the operator of a motor vehicle upon a street or highway, and having knowledge that she had been directed to stop the said motor vehicle by a duly authorized police officer, did unlawfully and willfully refuse or fail to stop in compliance with the said directive, contrary to F.S. 316.1935, COUNT VI AND MICHAEL J. SATZ, State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, as Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Florida in the County of Broward, by and through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney charges that PAULA DAWN REDO on the 4th day of January A.D. 1992, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there operate a motor vehicle in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property in that said Defendant did drive at a high rate of speed disregarding a number of traffic control devices, contrary to F.S. 316.192. The incident was the subject of newspaper article published in the Metro Section of the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel on January 9, 1992. Because of the publicity surrounding the incident, Respondent was asked to transfer from the school at which she had been teaching before the incident (Western High School) to another school (Pines Middle School). Respondent agreed to the transfer, which was thereafter effectuated. She has remained on the instructional staff at Pines Middle School since the transfer. On August 8, 1994, after having discussed the matter with her attorney, Respondent entered a guilty plea to each of the counts of the information that had been filed against her in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 92- 2200CF10A. Court records reflect that the plea was entered in Respondent's "best interest." 1/ Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the crimes alleged in Counts IV through VI of the information and sentenced to time served (three days in jail) for having committed these crimes. With respect to the crimes alleged in Counts I through III of the information, adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on two years probation. To date, Respondent has conducted herself in accordance with the terms and condition of her probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of subsection (1) of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining her for having committed these violations by suspending her teaching certificate for a period of 60 days and placing her on probation, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission may deem appropriate, for a period of one year following the end of the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of December, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1995.
