Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In September of 1979, John Williamson, an undercover police agent with the Department of Law Enforcement, was involved in narcotic investigations in the Pensacola area. Mike Abbott, who is the brother of respondent Thomas Abbott, and Williamson negotiated for the purchase of one kilo of cocaine in October of 1979. The transaction was to occur in West Palm Beach. On or about October 15 or 16, 1979, Mike Abbott and Robert Covington came from Pensacola to West Palm Beach and stayed at the home of respondent Thomas Abbott. Mike Abbott came to West Palm Beach for the purpose of introducing "one person to another person for the sale" of the cocaine. Apparently, the two people who were to be introduced were Robert Covington and Duane Hutchins. For this degree of involvement in the transaction, Mike Abbott was to receive $7,000.00. On October 16, 1979, Duane Hutchins came to the respondent's West Palm Beach residence for the purpose of meeting Mike Abbott and Robert Covington. The meeting lasted approximately thirty to forty minutes, during most of which time respondent Thomas Abbott was sleeping on the living room floor. Respondent did awaken several minutes before Hutchins left and was introduced to him. At some point after this meeting at respondent's home, Mike Abbott returned to Pensacola with the understanding that his $7,000.00 fee would be delivered to him after the sale of cocaine was consummated. Covington remained at respondent's home, and he and respondent went out for drinks that evening. According to Hutchins, Mike Abbott told him that he had to return to Pensacola and that respondent Thomas Abbott, Mike's brother, would be the person to contact in absence. It was arranged that Hutchins would call respondent's house the following day and speak to either respondent or Mr. Covington to determine the details of the meeting with the purchasers. Undercover agent John Williamson arrived in West Palm Beach on October 17, 1979, and met with Jack Maxwell, a vice officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department. Williamson placed a telephone call to the respondent's residence, but he did not know to whom he spoke. Arrangements were made to meet at Victoria Station, a local restaurant and lounge in West Palm Beach, at approximately 4:30 that afternoon. When respondent returned to his residence after school at about 3:00 p.m. on October 17, 1979, Covington and Hutchins were there. They invited respondent to go to Victoria Station with them. Respondent drove back to school to ask a student to fill in for him on a part-time job that evening, and Covington and Hutchins followed respondent in another car. Respondent then left his car at school and rode to Victoria Station with Covington and Hutchins. Covington, Hutchins and respondent arrived at Victoria Station at about 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. on October 17, 1979. Shortly thereafter, agents John Williamson and Jack Maxwell arrived. The five men sat at one table, conversed and ordered several rounds of alcoholic beverages which were made of double strength. It was Hutchins plan to view the money to be used for the cocaine purchase and then place a telephone call to a Mr. Cunningham who was to join them for the purpose of finalizing the location of the transaction. After spending approximately forty-five minutes at the table, agents Maxwell and Williamson took Hutchins across the street to their Sheraton Motel room in order to show him the cash money. Hutchins was shown a briefcase containing some $100,000.00 in cash. He then returned to Victoria Station and placed a phone call to Cunningham. Hutchins left to pick up Cunningham in his car and then returned to Victoria Station with Cunningham. The six men then had discussions as to the location of the transaction. During these conversations, respondent Thomas Abbott offered the use of his house as the location for the exchange of the money for the cocaine. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Hutchins left Victoria Station for another engagement. Agents Maxwell and Williamson returned to their motel room for the purpose of waiting for information as to the location of the final transaction. Respondent Abbott and Covington left Victoria Station with Cunningham and went to Cunningham's apartment. While there, Cunningham made several phone calls. Thereafter, Cunningham drove Covington and respondent to respondent's house and dropped them off. Cunningham then went over to the Sheraton Motel room where final plans were made with agents Maxwell and Williamson for the purchase to occur in Miami. Thereafter several persons, not including the respondent, drove to Miami and completed the purchase and sale of cocaine. Those participants were arrested, and nearly one kilo of 43 percent to 52 percent pure cocaine was confiscated. Agent Williamson returned to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department during the early morning hours of October 18, 1979. At approximately 4:30 a.m. he placed a telephone call to Mike Abbott in Pensacola for the purpose of obtaining instructions as to how he was to be paid for his part of the transaction. The telephone conversation was recorded on tape. After determining that Mike Abbott expected $7,000.00 for his part of the transaction, Williamson asked Mike Abbott "Do you want me to bring the $7,000.00 to you or do you want me to give it to your brother." "Give it to my brother," was Mike Abbott's response. Later in the same conversation, Williamson told Mike that what he was going to do was "see your brother now, and then I'll lay the seven on him." Mike responded, "Okay, that'll be excellent." After that taped telephone conversation between Williamson and Mike Abbott, law enforcement officers went to the respondent's residence and arrested respondent Thomas Abbott and Robert Covington. Mike Abbott testified that his brother knew nothing about the purchase and sale of cocaine until he was arrested on October 18, 1979. Respondent testified that he knew nothing about the drug deal and that he was too intoxicated to realize what the conversation concerned while in Victoria Station. Agent Maxwell testified that while they all were drinking alcoholic beverages at Victoria Station, respondent appeared to be cognizant of occurring events and conversation. Some three to four weeks after respondent was arrested, he went to the residence of Deputy Sheriff Robert C. Anderson whom he had known since 1969. When Anderson asked him why he had gotten involved in drugs, respondent replied that he thought it was exciting, very professional and that he wanted to be in big money. Respondent went on to describe the excitement of talking of $50,000.00, throwing money around and everybody buying drinks for each other. Anderson and respondent discussed the morality of dealing with drugs and respondent stated that he did not feel it was morally wrong since drugs had been accepted by society. During the same conversation, respondent later told Anderson that the reason be became involved was for his brother. Two administrative officials of the Palm Beach County School Board testified that, in their opinion, respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would be diminished if the charges of conspiracy to sell or traffic cocaine were sustained.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: That portion of the "Petition for the Revocation of the Teacher's Certificate" charging that respondent conspired to traffic cocaine in his home on or about October 16, 1979, be DISMISSED; Respondent be found guilty of conspiracy to sell cocaine while drinking in the Victoria Station in West Palm Beach on or about October 17, 1979; The conduct described in paragraph (2) above constitutes gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude and seriously reduces respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board; and Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of three (3) years. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 6th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson Ruffolo and Wilson 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas Abbott, Jr. and Thomas Abbott, Sr. Route 9, Box 514D Jasper, Alabama 33501 Robert C. Apgar Peeples, Earl, Smith, Moore and Blank 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Educational Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION RALPH D. TURLINGTON COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-002-RT DOAH CASE NO. 80-1515 THOMAS H. ABBOTT, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a child assigned to Respondent's Youth Services Program. He was attending the Palm Beach Marine Institute/Florida Ocean Science Institute (FOSI) and living at home prior to January 13, 1983, when he was transferred to the Youth Development Center (YDC) in Okeechobee, a more restrictive facility. Petitioner was charged with violating his supervision agreement with Respondent by failing to attend classes at FOSI on January 4, 5, 6 and 7, 1953. A hearing before Respondent's program specialist was held where Petitioner was found guilty of the alleged violation and ordered to be transferred to the YDC. Petitioner concedes he was absent without cause in November, 1982. He had further absences in December due to illness where the required medical excuse was not timely furnished. As a result of the absences and apparent personality conflict with his instructor, Petitioner was told not to return to FOSI by an official of that facility on January 3, 1983. Therefore, Petitioner's absences on January 4, 5, 6 and 7, 1983, were not in violation of his supervision agreement.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order correcting Petitioner's record to reflect that his transfer to the Youth Development Center was not based on violation of his supervision agreement or other misconduct. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Joan Solomini 3017 Grove Road Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 K.C. Collette, Esquire District IX Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Ave., 3rd Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School District and was assigned as principal at John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK). On or about March 9, 1998, a guidance counselor at JFK spoke with the Respondent regarding a complaint from a female student that she had been inappropriately touched by a male teacher at the school. Given the casual nature of the complaint, the Respondent believed the matter to be a "rumor" and made a note to himself to "check on" the allegation. The Respondent did not follow up on the allegation and did not "check on" the rumor. The Respondent also did not verify whether or not the guidance counselor investigated the allegation. Subsequently the Respondent became aware of other allegations involving the same teacher. The complaints alleged inappropriate acts with students. At least one of the incidents was witnessed by a student who supported the complainant's allegation. All of the incidents involving the teacher occurred before a criminal complaint was filed by a parent. It is undisputed that the Respondent knew of one or more of the alleged complaints. At no time prior to the teacher's arrest did the Respondent notify school authorities or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) of the allegations previously made against the teacher. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Palm Beach County School District had a policy in effect that required the Respondent to notify HRS and school district authorities regarding the types of complaints involved in this case. Such policy is set forth in its entirety within the Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent did not view the incidents complained of as sufficiently serious to merit notification of authorities, as he maintained he did not have a reasonable cause to suspect that a child had been abused. Notwithstanding this position, the Respondent did nothing to confirm or disprove the allegations. At least one female student complainant continued to be enrolled in the alleged perpetrator's class before the arrest of the suspect. The failure of the Respondent to report the incidents seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Palm Beach School District. As a result, the Respondent was relieved of his position as principal at JFK and reassigned to another position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Sammy Berry, Jr., Esquire 516 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Florida Education Center, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the teaching certificate of Raymond A. Brooks, Respondent, should be revoked based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail for alleged violations of Sections 231.28 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Rules of the State Board of Education, as alleged in the Petition filed herein.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. Raymond A. Brooks, Respondent, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 150640, Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1979, covering the area of auto mechanics. During times material, Respondent has been employed in the public schools of Brevard County at Cocoa Beach High School as a shop teacher. He is currently on temporary duty elsewhere outside a classroom setting. This case was initiated based on a report received by the Florida Professional Practices Council on November 15, 1978, by officials of the Brevard County School Board alleging that Respondent may have committed acts providing grounds for revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.37, an investigation of the matter was undertaken and a report submitted to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council (Petitioner). On January 9, 1979, the Executive Committee found that there existed probable cause to believe that Respondent was guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate, which finding was forwarded to the Commissioner of Education who also found such probable cause and directed the filing of the instant Petition filed herein on January 25, 1979. Said Petition alleged that Respondent had engaged in conduct that is "inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, conduct which is not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Raymond A. Brooks and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect." It is further alleged that his alleged conduct reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee. The material allegations of the Petition are that: Respondent, while acting in his capacity as a teacher at Cocoa Beach High School, entered into discussions with students in his classroom regarding the growth and cultivation of marijuana, which led them to believe that he condoned the use of marijuana. Respondent allowed students to clean stems and seeds from marijuana in his classroom. Respondent allowed students to roll marijuana cigarettes in his classroom. Respondent allowed students to bring marijuana to his classroom. Respondent bought a camera from a student who told him the camera was stolen. Respondent misrepresented to students, provisions of the school's student handbook regarding possession of marijuana on school grounds. Respondent served as a "lookout" for students while they smoked marijuana. On March 27, 1979, Respondent answered the allegations admitting jurisdiction, but denying the substantive allegations contained in the Petition. The Petitioner presented the testimony of eight (8) male high school students: Perry Morton, Paulo Carlini, Mark Murphy, Thomas Miller, John Gore, Hugh Baker, John Mason and Kirk Vanomer (by deposition). In addition, Petitioner offered the testimony of H. D. Smith, Principal of Cocoa Beach High School, who testified that, in his opinion, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Brevard County School System had been seriously reduced as a result of the alleged misconduct on Respondent's part. All of the student witnesses who testified were enrolled in Respondent's fourth period power mechanics class and were present when Respondent discussed the growing of marijuana with them in their classroom during their fourth period class. It suffices to say that according to their testimony, Respondent explained to them how to cut marijuana stalks in order to increase the potency of marijuana in the plant leaves. Respondent also made known to his fourth period students his personal belief that marijuana should be legalized. Testimony also reveals that at least on one occasion, Respondent told his students that they could roll a joint in his class but that they could not light it up. Student Carlini also testified that other teachers at the high school talked to them about drugs. (TR. 34-35) The testimony is clear that all of the student witnesses recalled Respondent advising them that the possession and use of marijuana was against school regulations and against the law. In this regard, Respondent testified that when the subject of marijuana came up during a free period in class, he related what information he knew based on his personal observations and a pamphlet provided him by the Brevard Sheriff's Department to advise students and address questions posed to him by such students. And, as stated, Respondent advised students that it was his personal opinion that the use of marijuana should be legalized based on the costs of enforcement and increased revenues derived from a "use" tax on marijuana. Respondent further testified that he neither advocated nor condoned the use of marijuana. In support of its allegations that Respondent permitted and/or allowed students to clean and roll marijuana in his classroom, Petitioner presented the testimony of student Paulo Carlini. Carlini acknowledged the fact that during each of two prior days before the date in question, he and other students had been rolling pencil shavings in the form of marijuana cigarettes. Carlini further acknowledged that Respondent told them that the possession of marijuana was against school regulations. A second witness presented by Petitioner was Perry Morton. Morton testified that he gave a bag of marijuana to Joe Schraffenberger during class on the day of the incident in questions. Like Carlini, Morton acknowledged that during the two days immediately preceding the incident the students had been rolling pencil shavings in the form of marijuana cigarettes. The purpose of this was to trick the teachers and administration into believing that they had marijuana in their possession and then embarrassing them when it proved to be pencil shavings. Rollin Burch, one of the student witnesses who testified indicated that he also saw pencil shavings being rolled that day on which it is alleged that the Respondent permitted marijuana cigarettes to be rolled in his class. The substance claimed to be marijuana was not presented during the hearing. Additionally, Respondent denied having any knowledge of marijuana in his classroom, nor did he give permission for his students to roll marijuana in his classroom. Respondent testified that on the two days prior to the incident involved herein, several students had been rolling pencil shavings contained in a transparent bag in the form of marijuana cigarettes. Respondent, on each of the two days in question, checked the bag and the cigarettes to make sure that what they were rolling were in fact pencil shavings. On each instance, pencil shavings were being rolled by the students. On the day of the incident, Respondent was busy working at his desk on student failure reports that were due. Carlini showed him a transparent bag and asked permission to roll the substance inside. Respondent glanced up, viewed what he thought to be pencil shavings, nodded his consent and resumed work on his reports. Later, seeing a rolled cigarette, Respondent smelled it, concluded that it smelled like pencil shavings, and returned it to the student. Finally, in response to the allegations that Respondent misrepresented school regulations by permitting students to roll marijuana in his classroom, Respondent acknowledged that he made the statement that, "You can roll them, but you can't light them up." Respondent further acknowledged that he represented to the students that nothing in the school regulations prohibited the rolling of pencil shavings into the form of marijuana cigarettes, although all smoking is prohibited. During the period in which the pencil shavings were being rolled, a student asked whether he could smoke one of the pencil shaving cigarettes, whereupon Respondent replied: "You can roll them, but don't light them up." All of the students testified during cross-examination that the above statement was made during the time when pencil shavings were being rolled. Respondent confronted several students in a prohibited area of the school grounds and advised them that they should carefully return to the school grounds inasmuch as Dean Wright was in the area. By such statement, the students apparently assumed that Respondent knew that they were there to "smoke some pot." Marijuana was never mentioned and, although Respondent's comment was made in the form of a warning, the students assumed that Respondent knew some of them smoked marijuana and that that was their purpose for being there. The students questioned on the subject acknowledged that at the time of the incident, they were doing nothing illegal and that Respondent had no way of knowing their purpose for being in that area. The Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the allegation that the Respondent bought a camera which he knew was stolen. Finally, Petitioner, through the testimony of Principal H. D. Smith, urges a finding that Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals, public conscience or sufficiently notorious as to bring Respondent and the educational profession into public disgrace and disrespect or that it has impaired his effectiveness a teacher. Principal Smith acknowledged the fact that Respondent was employed to teach power mechanics and vocational shop during his tenure as principal for the past three years. Principal Smith, prompted by reports that he received from two parents and a student, Kirk Vanomer, contacted school security who investigated reports that Respondent was permitting students to clean seeds and roll marijuana in his power mechanics class. (TR. 119-120) Based on the findings of the investigation conducted by school security, Principal Smith voiced his opinion that Respondent violated the Code of Ethics in that he permitted students to engage in an activity that was "both criminal and in violation of school board regulations." (TR. 126) Principal Smith pointed to page 25 of the School Board Regulations, Section 44.7, which provides in pertinent part that, "It is against school board regulations for students to have possession of or be under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages." He further testified that students are given copies of the student handbook during the pre-planning period (the first week of the school year) and that the teachers are responsible for advising students of their rights and responsibilities as related to the student handbook. (TR. 128) Principal Smith indicated that several parents called in inquire about what disciplinary measures would be taken against Respondent and that several students had expressed anxiety to him about being assigned to Respondent's inasmuch as they had testified against him. (TR. 130-131) George Arthur Powell, Jr., a woodworking instructor at Brevard County Public School System for approximately fifteen years, testified that the Respondent is regarded as a strict disciplinarian among fellow teachers in the school system. Mr. Powell testified that he encountered disciplinary problems with the administration supporting him with respect to his attempts to discipline students at Cocoa Beach High School. According to Mr. Powell, during the October of 1978, he queried Respondent about students using fake marijuana cigarettes rolled from pencil dust or shavings from sawdust. Powell testified that based on his experience, it would serve no purpose to send a student to the administrators for disciplining inasmuch as the administration would probably make fund of the instructor who made such a referral. (TR. 142-144) The Respondent testified on his own behalf indicating that he had been employed by the Brevard County School District for approximately eight years during which time he had taught auto mechanics and mathematics. Prior to the subject incident, Respondent had not been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings. During his initial employment as a teacher at Rockledge High School, Respondent was admonished because of his strict enforcement of the discipline code. During this same period, Respondent's performance and evaluation ratings were excellent. When Respondent was transferred to Cocoa Beach High School during the school year 1978, he was questioned extensively by Principals Hank Smith and Nelson Rutledge regarding his policy on discipline. Testimony reveals that Respondent was selected due to his reputation for being a strict disciplinarian at Rockledge High School during the prior six years. As previously stated, Respondent voiced his opinion that marijuana should be legalized based on the fact that millions of dollars are spent of taxpayers' money each year to "corral, confiscate and apprehend the various pushers and peddlers of drugs and marijuana." Secondly, he indicated that if marijuana was a controlled substance, the taxpayer or the government would realize some revenue from the legalization. Finally, he thought that if marijuana was controlled, like tobacco, alcohol and drugs, it could be regulated and the taxpayers would realize revenues rather than expending revenues to police the borders, towns and cities for pushers and sellers. (TR. 157) Respondent conveyed this opinion to his students during discussions when the subject of marijuana, etc. was initiated or brought up in class. (TR. 158) Respondent denied telling students that he condoned the use of marijuana or advocated its use and advised them that it was illegal, both lawfully and by school rule and regulation, to possess marijuana; that the penalties were whatever the law imposed because in most cases, the student not only received a school suspension but also faced a juvenile court judge because it (possession) was definitely illegal. (TR. 160-161) Respondent admitted advising students, in response to questions posed to him, about the cultivation of drugs. Respondent denied any knowledge that marijuana was, in fact, being rolled in his classroom. Additionally, Respondent denied that he served as a "lookout" for a group of students. (TR. 174) Inasmuch as the instant proceeding is one wherein the Respondent's means of livelihood is threatened, the evidence to substantiate the allegations must be both clear and convincing. See The Florida Bar v. Rayman, 238 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1970), and Walker v. Florida State Board of Optometry, 322 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975). The mere fact of Respondent's warning students that they should return to a permissible area of the school grounds provides no basis of concluding that the Respondent served as a "lookout" for students while they smoked marijuana. Testimony reveals that the students were not smoking marijuana in the restricted area nor did the Respondent have any way of knowing the students' purpose for being in the restricted area. No evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent purchased a camera known to be stolen as alleged. Based on the evidence presented, no competent and substantial evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent, during class discussions, advocated or condoned the use of marijuana. Likewise, Petitioner failed to satisfy is burden of proof of establishing that Respondent allowed students to clean and roll marijuana in his classroom or misrepresent to the students, school regulations regarding such matters. Finally, in view of the above conclusions, Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals, public conscience or sufficiently notorious as to bring Respondent and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect, or that his effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired, as alleged. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the Petition filed herein be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Revocation filed herein be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esquire Staff Attorney, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: RAYMOND A. BROOKS CASE NO. 79-478 /
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Claudia Walker, was employed as a continuing contract teacher by Petitioner Broward County School Board. The Respondent taught from January 1979 through November 1, 1984 at Bright Horizons School. In November 1984, she transferred to South Florida State Exceptional Student Center and thereafter taught elementary school age children with behavioral problems. Among those assigned to her Self-contained classroom were some homicidal and suicidal students with low impulse control. During the time Respondent has worked for the Broward County School Board, her teaching evaluations have been good, to outstanding, to exceptional. She has never previously been cited or disciplined. Doris Seitner was employed by Petitioner as a teaching assistant from approximately September 3, 1985 to December 3, 1985 and was assigned to Respondent's class. On Thursday, November 7, 1985, Respondent and Seitner took the class of about 25 students on a field trip to the Metro Zoo. Prior to their departure on the bus, Ms. Seitner noticed Respondent entering the staff restroom. When Respondent emerged, a student immediately entered the restroom. Upon the student exiting the restroom, Ms. Seitner also entered the restroom where she found a small pink glasses case. Believing the case belonged to the student, the aide opened the purse and saw a plastic baggie containing a white powder, a small vial, a razor blade, and several cut up straws. Upon leaving the restroom, Ms. Seitner encountered the Respondent, who identified the case as hers and took it. At this point, the state of events was that Doris Seitner had seen a substance she thought was cocaine. Doris Seitner is not an expert on drug identification. She admits never previously having seen cocaine up close. Although she had seen some drug abuse classes at the school, she had no courses in cocaine and had never smelled or tasted it. She did not open the plastic baggie or examine its contents on November 7, 1985. However, believing that the case contained cocaine and drug related paraphernalia, Ms. Seitner confided what she had found, together with her suspicions to a number of people and sought their advice on how to proceed. Shawn Joseph, another teacher's aide, suggested Ms. Seitner inform the school officials of what she had found. Later in the evening, Ms. Seitner contacted Pam Tepsic, a teacher on task assignment, who suggested she advise the principal immediately. The acting principal, Kathryn Mangan, upon learning of the discovery, contacted Howard Stearns, Petitioner's Director of Internal Affairs, who referred her to William Bohan. At all times material, William Bohan was employed by Petitioner as an investigator for Internal Affairs and has been a certified law enforcement officer. On November 12, 1985, Mangan told Bohan about Ms. Seitner's belief that she had seen cocaine in Respondent's glasses case. Bohan instructed Mangan to take no action but to call him in case the glasses case was seen again. Bohan interviewed Ms. Seitner and instructed her to watch out for the case. On the morning of Monday, November 25, 1985, while Respondent was in her classroom, Ms. Seitner came in and asked if she could fetch lunch for Respondent. Respondent retrieved her purse from the back room of the self- contained classroom, a location called "the teacher planning area", wherein she normally isolates her purse from the students, and gave Ms. Seitner money to pay for her lunch. Doris Seitner sat at the desk, and looking down into the Respondent's unzipped purse, spotted the pink glasses case. Seitner notified Tepsic, who notified John Smith, acting principal, who notified Bohan, who came to the school. Bohan and Tepsic walked to Respondent's classroom. When they arrived there, Tepsic approached Respondent in the classroom; Bohan stationed himself at the door. Tepsic told Respondent that a man wanted to see her in the principal's office. Tepsic avoided responding to Respondent's repeated requests to know what was going on or answered Respondent that she did not know what was going on. Respondent walked with Tepsic to the door. Bohan asked Respondent if the purse by her classroom desk was hers. The Respondent answered, "yes" whereupon Bohan walked over, picked up the purse, and, retaining the purse, began walking with Respondent and Pam Tepsic to John Smith's office. On the way to Smith's office, Respondent told Bohan she could carry her own purse but Bohan responded that he could carry it. She repeated her questions to Pam Tepsic, asking what was going on and received the same evasions. In making the immediately preceding finding of fact, the testimony of Pam Tepsic, Investigator Bohan, and Respondent have been considered and weighed. While Investigator Bohan testified that Respondent said and did nothing to claim her purse after he seized it and Pam Tepsic initially related that Respondent said nothing about her purse at any time in the classroom or while walking over to the principal's office, Pam Tepsic's testimony as a whole reveals that she was particularly nervous during all these incidents and that at a point in time closer to the actual events, she had believed some such conversation took place between Bohan and Respondent, but that on the date of formal hearing she simply could not recall any conversation between Bohan and the Respondent, including Bohan's asking Respondent if the purse were hers and Respondent's reply, "yes", statements Bohan and Respondent each testified had been made. The Respondent's account of her request to carry her own purse is highly credible. It is simply not credible that any adult woman would not request return of such an intimate item as her purse, containing all her personal effects, including valuables and money, from a man whom she had never seen before in the absence of any explanation of what was going on. Bohan, Tepsic, and Respondent entered John Smith's office. Bohan placed Respondent's purse on Smith's desk in front of himself. Bohan told Respondent he had been informed she was in possession of an illegal drug and asked if she would consent to Bohan's searching her purse. Pam Tepsic's recollection of what happened next was that either Respondent said she would consent to the search or that someone else said Respondent had consented or said something like, "Well, then you consent," to Respondent. Respondent denies ever being asked to consent to a search of her purse. John Smith understood Bohan to ask permission to search the purse and understood that Respondent said "yes" to Bohan's request. Bohan relates an affirmative answer from Respondent. Before he started searching her purse, but after the question concerning consent/permission, Bohan asked Respondent did she have anything in her purse that might be a problem that she might want to tell him about before he searched her purse. Tepsic, Bohan, Smith, and Respondent are in agreement that Respondent replied, "yes" that she did want to tell Bohan what was in the purse. The explanation given at that time was that early that morning she had taken cocaine and other items from her estranged husband who had a drug problem. Bohan removed from Respondent's purse the pink glasses case; some other unrelated items; four small plastic bags containing a white powdery residue; four straws cut 2-1/4 inches to 2-3/4 inches long; one GEM single edge razor blade; one small, 3/4 inch empty vial; one piece of aluminum foil 2-1/2 inches by 3-1/4 inches; eight straws in Wendy's wrappers; one wooden toothpick; and one nickel. When Respondent persisted in her explanation that the drugs and paraphernalia were her husband's property and that she had taken them to protect him but in response to further questioning by Bohan, Respondent was unable to flesh out an explanation she had begun concerning the husband's drug counselling and treatment and her participation therein, Bohan told Respondent that her options were either jail in Fort Lauderdale via the Broward County Sheriff's Department or discussing the matter at Petitioner's Internal Affairs Office. Although Bohan asserted that he made no "threats," Bohan, Tepsic, Smith, and Respondent concur that these were the only alternatives Bohan provided Respondent during their confrontation in Smith's office. A subsequent laboratory analysis conducted on the items seized November 25, 1985 revealed the presence of cocaine only in the small plastic bag containing the white powder. The property in the purse was taken into the Internal Affairs Office for inventory. These items, including the cocaine, were described by Ms. Seitner as "similar" to the items she saw in the pink case on November 7, 1985. Respondent customarily keeps a razor blade in her purse to use for arts and crafts projects in her class. Other teachers at the center also use razor blades to perform art projects. The Respondent customarily keeps drinking straws in her purse to give to her three small children to drink with while they are riding in her car. Article XVIII, Section K, of the current collective bargaining agreement between the Broward Teachers Union and Petitioner provides: "No investigation of an em- ployee, beyond preliminary inquiry, by the Internal Affairs Department may be undertaken without written notice to the employee, such notice to include a statement of the cause giving rise to the investigation." No written notice was given to Respondent by Petitioner. A sign posted on the grounds of the school at the front gate notifies anyone entering that they are subject to being searched while on the grounds. (TR 149-150) Respondent accompanied Bohan to Internal Affairs where Bohan and Stearns interrogated her. Respondent again told them the drugs inventoried belonged to her husband. She further revealed to Stearns, apparently in hopes of receiving counselling instead of dismissal, that she had been clean of cocaine during the nine months of her recent pregnancy and clean recently until the immediately preceding Saturday night. (TR-205) After Internal Affairs finished questioning Respondent, Bohan took her to the Employee Assistance Program and then later to the Broward Alcohol and Rehabilitation Center. Respondent claims she was denied use of a phone to contact anyone until she reached the Employee Assistance Program, but she concedes there were public phones available at the school and she did not insist on using any. At hearing, Respondent testified that she had never used cocaine and would not have used it in November, 1985 because she was breastfeeding her new daughter. She also testified that the contraband items were taken from her husband the morning of November 25, however, rather than corroborating this story, the testimony of Wilton Johnson, her estranged husband, is contrary to Respondent's account of the incident in so many details as to adversely affect Respondent's credibility that the incident occurred. Respondent was suspended with pay November 26-28, 1985, the remainder of the school week. On Monday, December 2, 1985, she was permitted to resume her classroom duties until she was notified of suspension with pay, December 6, 1985. On December 19, 1985, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Counts I and II, finding Respondent guilty as charged in Counts III and IV, and dismissing her from employment. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held Florida Educator Certificate 477777, covering Physical Education and Social Sciences. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School Board and assigned to a classroom at BRHS, where he taught psychology and history. In recent years, Respondent has taught advanced placement classes. The evidence established that Respondent is well-liked by students, parents, and faculty. The present principal of BRHS, who was not at the school during the 1985-86 or 2001-2002 school years, considers Respondent to be an asset to the school. FACTS PERTAINING TO K.P. AND B.K. Prior to the end of the 1985-86 school year, Respondent invited several female senior students to join him for dinner in celebration of their upcoming graduation. Respondent was 33 years old at that time. Each of these females was either 17 or 18-years-of-age. K.P. (now known as K.F.) was 17 and B.K. (now known as B.M.) was 18. K.P. and B.K. were invited to and attended the dinner and subsequent celebration. The dinner invitations were extended by Respondent, who was their teacher, during the school year. There was a conflict in the evidence as to when this dinner engagement occurred.2 That conflict is resolved by finding that the dinner engagement occurred at the Cork and Cleaver restaurant in Boca Raton prior to the graduation ceremonies for the class of 1986. At least four female seniors were invited to Respondent’s celebration. K.P., B.K., and two other female students attended the dinner. All four of the students consumed alcohol at the restaurant that was purchased by Respondent. Respondent knew that the drinking age was 21 and he knew that each of the girls was under that age. Respondent also consumed alcohol at the restaurant. Following the meal, K.P. and B.K. sat on a bench outside the restaurant and continued to drink alcoholic beverages with Respondent. After approximately five bottles of champagne and/or wine had been consumed, Respondent K.P. and B.K. went from the bench outside the restaurant to Respondent’s house. The three of them were alone in Respondent’s house for several hours. At Respondent’s house they drank four to five additional bottles of wine. The quantity of alcohol consumed by Respondent, B.K., and K.P. that evening impaired their judgment. By all accounts, K.P. was inebriated and incapable of consenting to the acts that followed. Both B.K. and K.P. were excellent students who had little or no experience with alcohol. During the 1985-86 school year, K.P. had been a member of BRHS’s varsity teams in basketball, volleyball, and softball. During that school year, B.K. had been a member of BRHS’s varsity tennis team. After K.P. became inebriated, Respondent and K.P. went to Respondent’s bedroom where Respondent had inappropriate sexual relations with her. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent had sexual intercourse with K.P. K.P. testified, credibly, that Respondent had sexual intercourse with her and that she suffered bleeding and discomfort the following day. K.P. also testified, credibly, that she had been a virgin up until that evening. Respondent admitted that K.P. was with him in his darkened bedroom with little or no clothes on, but he denied having sexual intercourse with her. Respondent admitted that he fondled K.P.’s breasts and engaged in what he described as “heavy petting.” The undersigned finds Respondent’s denial that he had sexual intercourse with K.P. also to be credible. In view of conflicting, credible testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence to substantiate the fact of sexual intercourse as opposed to the fact that there was the opportunity for sexual intercourse, the undersigned is constrained to conclude that Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with K.P. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that K.P. did not consent to Respondent’s inappropriate sexual behavior because she was too intoxicated and too young to do so. Respondent knew or should have known that K.P. was incapable of consenting to his behavior. After Respondent and K.P. entered Respondent’s bedroom, B.K. left Respondent’s house and drove around the block in her car for approximately 20 minutes. Because she was concerned about K.P., B.K. returned to Respondent’s house. When she returned to Respondent’s house, B.K. looked for K.P. She stepped into the doorway of Respondent’s bedroom and saw Respondent and K.P. in bed together. K.P. was not fully clothed, and the clothes she had on were in disarray. K.P. told B.K. to come in and get in the bed with them. K.P. grabbed B.K.’s arm and pulled her toward the bed. B.K. entered the bedroom and briefly lay on the bed with Respondent and K.P. Shortly thereafter, B.K. got up and left Respondent’s bedroom. Because she was feeling dizzy, B.K. lay down on a mattress in another bedroom. There was a conflict in the evidence as to what next occurred. It is clear that K.P. either intentionally cut herself or accidentally opened a cut on her hand. Respondent testified that K.P. accidentally opened up a cut on her finger while in his bedroom and then went to the kitchen. K.P. testified that she went from Respondent’s bedroom to the kitchen and intentionally cut herself in reaction to what had happened with Respondent. How the cut occurred is not relevant. It is relevant that Respondent went in the kitchen and helped K.P. stop the bleeding. After leaving the kitchen area, Respondent observed B.K. lying on the mattress in the second bedroom. He lay down on the mattress with B.K. with his body touching hers. He tried to kiss B.K., but she resisted his efforts. Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with B.K. by lying next to her with his body in contact with hers and trying to kiss her. Respondent was obviously attempting to sexually arouse B.K. When K.P. saw Respondent and B.K. together in the second bedroom, she yelled at B.K. that they needed to get out of Respondent’s house. B.K. and K.P. then exited Respondent’s house and they returned to their respective homes in B.K.’s car without further incident. The next day, Respondent contacted B.K. and K.P. separately and apologized to them for his conduct. Respondent also apologized to B.K. for his conduct with K.P. Respondent stated that he had been unable to resist their athletic bodies. Respondent gave each of these girls a pair of diamond earrings as a gift. K.P. and B.K. did not report these events to any authority figure until 1993.3 As a result of difficulties K.P. (then known as K.F.) was having with sex in her marriage, she and her husband underwent counseling. It was during a session she and her husband had with their therapist that she revealed the events of the evening in 1986. Her husband, a teacher, felt obliged to report the incident to the Palm Beach County School District, which he did without naming K.P. and B.K. as being the students involved. His wife became upset when she learned of the report. After further reflection, K.P. revealed to the Palm Beach County School District that she and B.K. were the students involved with Respondent on the evening in question. The Palm Beach School District investigated the allegations, but it did not report these allegations to Petitioner. Petitioner learned of these events during its investigation of the facts pertaining to K.S. FACTS PERTAINING TO L.E. L.E., a female, graduated from BRHS in 1986. Respondent met L.E. when she was a freshman at BRHS and he subsequently became attracted to her. During her senior year, Respondent offered tickets to a Miami Dolphins football game to L.E. and other students as a reward for helping him grade papers in the class they took from him. Before she graduated, Respondent told L.E. that after she graduated he wanted to take her to dinner. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with L.E. before she graduated. After she graduated, Respondent treated L.E. to dinner,4 gave her a pair of diamond earrings, and told her he wanted to be more than friends. Later during the summer of 1986, Respondent and L.E. went to Marathon, Florida, together and also traveled to San Francisco, California, at Respondent’s expense. DISCIPLINE PERTAINING TO K.S. K.S., a female, attended BRHS for her freshman through her senior years. She graduated in 2003. Respondent was K.S.’s history teacher in her junior year and her psychology teacher her senior year. During the 2001-2002 school year, K.S. confided certain personal family matters to Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct toward K.S. On at least five occasions toward the end of the 2001-02 school year Respondent came to her place of employment (a Kmart) looking for her. On one occasion he left her a gift of a cheesecake and on another he left a bag of M & M candy as a gift. These visits upset and frightened K.S. At the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, Respondent physically hugged K.S. when he first saw her in his psychology class. On several occasions Respondent put his hands on K.S.’s shoulders and massaged them. On one occasion he rubbed her hair. This type physical contact continued even after K.S. told Respondent not to touch her. On one occasion Respondent referred to K.S. in front of her classmates as being his “baby.” Respondent’s conduct upset and embarrassed K.S. K.S. complained to Robert O’Leath, a dean of students at BRHS, about Respondent’s behavior. Following an investigation of these allegations, the School Board of Palm Beach County suspended Respondent’s employment without pay for a period of ten days and required him to attend diversity and sensitivity training. Respondent did not contest this discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the final order permanently revoke Respondent’s educator certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of February, 2005.
