The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Sarasota County should suspend the Respondent, William Keith Stark, without pay for ten days on charges that he violated F.A.C. Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make "reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety."
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William Keith Stark, is the band director at Sarasota High School. The Respondent's office is in an area of the school that houses both the band room and the chorus room, as well as the music library. The entrance to the Respondent's office is off a vestibule to the west of the office. There is a storage/copy room directly behind (to the east of) the Respondent's office. It is the same width as the Respondent's office. The only access to the storage/copy room is through a door in the rear of the Respondent's office. The music library is behind (to the east of) the storage/copy room, but it is only half the width of the Respondent's office and the storage/copy room. It is behind the southern half of the storage/copy room. Access to the music library is only through the band room; there is no access through the storage/copy room. The band room is a large room that runs along, and shares a wall with, the south side of the Respondent's office, the storage/copy room, and the music library. The chorus room is an equally large room that runs along, and shares a wall with, the north side of the Respondent's office, the storage/copy room and another, unidentified room behind (to the east of) the northern half of the storage/copy room. The entrances to the band room and to the chorus room are off the same vestibule containing the entrance to the Respondent's office. Since before the time the Respondent first came to Sarasota High School as an assistant band director in 1984, it has been the practice for band members to use the band and chorus rooms (and sometimes the music library) for changing clothes before practices and performances. If, for example, the boys used the chorus room, the girls in the band would use the band room, or vice versa. It was obvious and well known to anyone familiar with the band program that there was a window between the band room and what is now the storage/copy room. No privacy issue arose; apparently, appropriate steps were taken to insure the privacy of band members using the band room to change clothes. In approximately 1985, band booster parents suggested putting a dark, reflective film on the band room side of the window between the band room and the storage/copy room so that, from the band room side, the window could be used as a mirror for grooming purposes. The band director concurred, and it was done. The addition of the reflective film was viewed as an improvement to the facility and was obvious and well known to anyone familiar with the band program. Initially, there was no need to make a formal announcement as to the presence and nature of the reflective film. Although the dark film placed on the window was reflective, it was obvious and well known to anyone familiar with the band program that it was not a mirror. Band booster parents who chaperoned when the band room was being used as a dressing room before performances sometimes were in the storage/copy room and could see out the window into the band room. They also had access to and sometimes used the storage/copy room during monthly band booster parent meetings that were held in the Respondent's office. In addition, looking closely, it was possible under most conditions to see through the reflective film into the storage/copy room from the band room side. Even if vision was not clear, it would be possible to see shadows and movement. When a light was turned on in the storage/copy room (or, when the door between the two rooms was open, in the Respondent's office), it was easy to see into the storage/copy room from the band room side. The Respondent became the band director in approximately 1986. Over the years, the presence and nature of the reflective film continued to be common knowledge that was acquired by new band members and their parents by personal observation or passed along to them from others by word of mouth. No formal announcements were made. No privacy issue arose after the addition of the reflective film. First, as explained above, the presence and nature of the reflective film was obvious and well known. Second, as band director, the Respondent took appropriate steps to insure the privacy of band members using the band room to change clothes. He rarely was in his office, much less in the storage/copy room, while band members were using the band room to change clothes. When he was not in his office, it remained locked. In addition, the Respondent's wife is a full-time band volunteer, and she usually is stationed in the vestibule to control access to the band room and to the Respondent's office. In October, 1994, a privacy issue concerning the reflective film was raised for the first time. A dancer in "Palms," a dance group that is part of the school band, mentioned to her mother in the course of conversation that it was possible to see through the reflective film into the storage/copy room from the band room. In testimony at final hearing, the daughter admitted that she had known about the nature of the reflective film since she became a "Palms" dancer in the spring of 1994 and that she "didn't think anything of it" until her mother "explained it to her." Her mother "explained" that the presence of the reflective film was an invasion of her daughter's privacy and that the Respondent at least should have made an announcement as to the presence and nature of the reflective film. The complaining mother and daughter have been involved in ongoing disputes with the Respondent. One of their complaints was that the Respondent did away with the practice of having "Palms" team captains just before the daughter was to become a captain. Another complaint had to do with concerns about discipline within the "Palms" dance group. Perhaps, related to the discipline concern, the girl's mother also objected to the extent to which the Respondent's wife's was involved in the program. Eventually, she attempted to secure the school principal's promise to prohibit the Respondent's wife from further involvement in the program. When the principal refused to do so, the mother became angry and has been heard to vow that, before she was finished, she would have the Respondent fired. After sending her daughter and another student on a "spy" mission to ascertain the presence and nature of the reflective film, the mother complained to the principal. From what the mother told him, the principal thought the window should be covered. He contacted the school's custodian and instructed him to cover the window so that it was impossible to see through it. The next day, the Respondent saw the custodian as the custodian was getting ready to carry out the principal's instructions. When the Respondent asked the custodian what he was doing, and the custodian told him, the Respondent offered to do it himself. The Respondent generally tries to do the routine custodial work required in the area of his office so as to relieve the custodian from having to do it. In this case, the Respondent had additional innocent motivation for offering to cover the window for the custodian. The custodian had health problems (cancer, from which he has since died), and the principal had discussed with the Respondent the need to find ways to reduce the custodian's workload. The Respondent thought that the principal would have wanted him to offer to cover the window himself. The Respondent did not immediately get around to covering the window. But, in the meantime, and since approximately April, 1994, there had been a very large, stuffed, seated teddy bear on a shelf in front of the window. (Its shape was generally triangular, four feet wide at the base and four feet high. In the middle, it was about three feet wide.) There also were audio speakers on the shelf on either side of the teddy bear. These objects partially "covered" the window although it would still be possible to see around them. Before the Respondent got around to doing anything else about covering the window, another parent complained to an assistant school superintendent about a week later that the window still had not been covered. The assistant superintendent reported the complaint to the school principal. The school principal inquired of the custodian, who reported his conversation with the Respondent. The school principal then telephoned the Respondent at his home over the weekend and ordered him to immediately cover the window. First thing Monday morning, the Respondent hung and taped a piece of vinyl and poster board over the window to cover it. Later, the window was boarded over permanently. There was no evidence that anyone other than the vengeful mother and daughter, and the other parent who telephoned the school principal, ever has raised any privacy issue as to the window or the reflective film. All other band members and parents seem to fully support the Respondent and his wife. There is no evidence that any band or "Palms" member was unaware of the presence or nature of the reflective film on the window. Notwithstanding that there was no formal announcement as to the presence or nature of the reflective film on the window, it was not proven that the practice of using the band room for changing clothes invaded anyone's privacy, or that the Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental and/or physical health and/or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Sarasota County enter a final order dismissing the charges against the Respondent and to require that he be fully compensated for any period of suspension which he might have served. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2367 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-3. Rejected as not proven that it was a "mirror." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that it was a "mirror" or that only "some" knew "or strongly suspected" the presence and nature of the reflective film on the window. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven that Baus did not know of the presence and nature of the reflective film on the window; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, accepted and subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. Penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found, and to the greater weight of the evidence, to the extent that it implies that the Respondent covered the window immediately after his first conversation with the custodian. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Williams, Esquire 1900 Main Street, Suite 205 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides 34650 US 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Dr. Charles W. Fowler, Superintendent School Board of Sarasota County 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-6049 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's teacher's certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 609670, covering the areas of Physical Education, General Science, and Education Leadership. The certificate expired on June 30, 2000. However, Respondent has the option to ministerially renew his certificate. In 1989, Respondent was a teacher at Pensacola High School. During the summer of 1989, Dona Snyder, then 18 years old, was a student at Pensacola High School. Respondent would often speak with Dona at school and telephone her at home to ask her to go out with him. She turned him down. However, the day before summer school ended Dona and Respondent engaged in romantic hugging and kissing. The last day of school they went to eat at a local restaurant. Later in the year, after Ms. Snyder had graduated, Dona and Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse, which resulted in the birth of a child. From 1994-1998, Respondent was employed as a Physical Education teacher at Pine Forest High School, in Escambia County. In 1994, M.M., aged 14, was a ninth-grade student at Pine Forest High School. She met Respondent during that year. When M.M. was in the tenth grade, Respondent chaperoned M.M's. ROTC class to Seattle, Washington. M.M. and Respondent became more familiar with each other during the trip. They became very comfortable with each other and Respondent began making comments of a sexual nature about M.M's. appearance. M.M. developed a crush on Respondent. When Respondent and M.M. returned from the Seattle trip, they visited each other at various locations at Pine Forest High School. In April 1996, towards the end of M.M.'s tenth grade year, Respondent told M.M. that he would like to see her away from school. Respondent made it clear that he was interested in a sexual relationship with M.M. M.M. was around 16 years old at the time. Respondent encouraged M.M. to either lie to her mother or sneak out of her home at night in order to meet him. At first, M.M. refused Respondent's suggestions. She did not think sneaking out was right. Later in 1996, Respondent and M.M. saw each other at a football jamboree. Respondent gave M.M. his telephone number. M.M. later telephoned Respondent and they decided to meet at the University Mall. It was agreed that M.M. would concoct a pretextual reason to go to the mall which she would tell her mother. After they met at the mall, Respondent took M.M. to his home. They went to his bedroom and had sex. After this first sexual encounter, Respondent and M.M. started meeting each other and having sex almost every weekend for more than a year. M.M., with Respondent's encouragement and complicity, would sneak out of her mother's home from her bedroom window at approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent would pick her up several blocks away from her house. They would go to Respondent's house and have sex. Afterwards, Respondent would take M.M. back to the place where he picked her up. M.M. would then walk back to her house and enter through her bedroom window. Clearly, Respondent placed M.M. in a dangerous situation by encouraging and facilitating these late-night excursions. Respondent and M.M. had sex in various places, such as Respondent's home, Respondent's car, Belleview ball park, the school baseball field, and the baseball locker room. On one occasion, Respondent took M.M. and another female high school student to a local hotel for group sex. Respondent provided alcohol to the girls. He directed the girls to have sex with each other. While the girls had sex with each other, Respondent watched. Respondent had sex with the other student and then had sex with M.M. During their relationship, Respondent told M.M. not to tell anyone about their affair because he could lose his job and go to prison. Respondent also talked M.M. into foregoing her desire to pursue college and ROTC. Through this relationship, he directly contributed to M.M.'s grades deteriorating and a loss of self-esteem. The good relationship she had with her mother deteriorated. M.M. was known as Coach Bragg's girlfriend. He encouraged her to lie to her mother. None of these behaviors should be encouraged or promoted by a teacher. The relationship between Respondent and M.M. came to light when M.M's. mother woke one night and discovered her daughter missing. She confronted M.M. when M.M. was attempting to get back into her bedroom through the window. M.M's. mother telephoned the police. Later, Respondent lost his effectiveness as a teacher when he was removed from his teaching position. Respondent was arrested and charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor. On or about July 7, 1998, the case against Respondent was nolle prosequi by the court because Respondent had instructed M.M. to lie about their relationship. During the time of the prosecution, Respondent also caused M.M. to ignore her subpoena to testify at Respondent's trial and go into hiding until the prosecution was dismissed. However, a bench warrant was issued for M.M. Once it became clear that the prosecution would be pursued, M.M. returned to Escambia County and was arrested and jailed on a bench warrant which had been issued for her failure to appear at trial. Respondent concocted a story for M.M. to tell to the prosecution. He talked her into marrying a best friend of Respondent's so that she could say she was seeing this friend instead of seeing Respondent. Respondent's lack of moral character is apparent. As a teacher, Respondent held a position of trust towards M.M. and Dona Snyder. Clearly by engaging in a sexual relationship with them he breached that trust and violated both the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code. Respondent has repeated this predatory behavior over the course of his teaching career and cannot be trusted to protect female students from his amorous intentions. Clearly, Respondent does not have the moral character to be a teacher and should not be permitted to hold or renew his teaching certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 609670. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 15th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael D. Tidwell, Esquire 811 North Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Education Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent’s employment with the Sarasota County School Board should be terminated, pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(b) and (6)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: David DeWitt was born in Miami and attended Miami Sunset Senior High School, where he played varsity basketball, graduating in 1980. He met his wife, the former Karen Burmeister, in high school. They dated each other in high school and beyond, and were married in 1988. They have two children: a son, Ryan, born in 1990, and a daughter, Megan, born in 1994. Karen DeWitt has been a teacher since 1985, and currently serves as instructional technology facilitator at Ashton Elementary School in Sarasota. David DeWitt attended Miami-Dade Community College on a basketball scholarship, then graduated from Florida International University with a bachelor's degree in business administration in 1986. He received a master's degree in computer education from Barry University in 1993. He completed a program in educational leadership at Nova University, also in 1993. Mr. DeWitt applied for a teacher's position in the Miami-Dade public school system in 1988, and was assigned to a teaching position at Miami Sunset for the 1988-89 school year. He taught in the "diversified cooperative training" program, in which students received credit for off-campus employment. He also worked as an assistant basketball coach. After the sudden resignation of the head coach, Mr. DeWitt served as interim head basketball coach during the 1990-91 season. The principal of Miami Sunset, Barbara Silver, encouraged Mr. DeWitt to seek certification in administration, believing he had the potential to become a principal. As noted above, he completed an educational leadership program in 1993. He received his state certification, and midway through the 1993-94 school year transferred to Homestead Middle School as an assistant principal. The DeWitts were concerned about raising small children in the urban atmosphere of Miami, and David DeWitt began interviewing for jobs in other school systems. He ultimately took a position with the Sarasota County public school system, and began as an assistant principal at Riverview High School in the 1994-95 school year. He remained in that position until the time of his suspension. Prior to the events that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. DeWitt was never subjected to discipline in his employment, nor had complaints been lodged as to any of his actions at Riverview. The principal of Riverview, Kevin Flynn, testified that Mr. DeWitt had continuously progressed to higher levels of responsibility during his employment at Riverview. In 1997, Mr. DeWitt was chosen to lead the team establishing the International Baccalaureate ("IB") program at Riverview. Mr. Flynn testified that, prior to this proceeding, David DeWitt's reputation was that of a very able administrator, and that his standing was high among both teachers and parents. Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. DeWitt would have been a good candidate for principal at any high school in Sarasota County. The findings of fact below are arranged in the following order, based upon four discrete sets of events. First are the facts relating to the events of Fall 1997 through Spring 1998. These largely concern the allegations of Jennifer Bonelli about a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. Second are the facts relating to events of Spring 1999, which largely concern the allegations of Kendra Simpkins about a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. The investigation of the Bonelli and Simpkins allegations uncovered allegations about a sexual relationship between David DeWitt and Joy Perez. The allegations of Ms. Perez are dealt with as the third section of the findings of fact, though the events actually occurred several years before the Bonelli/Simpkins allegations, because Ms. Perez’ allegations were discovered by investigators during their investigation of the Bonelli/Simpkins allegations. The fourth section deals with events that occurred after Mr. DeWitt was suspended from his position at Riverview High School, chiefly allegations that Kendra Simpkins continued to stalk and harass the DeWitt family until the time of the final hearing. I. Fall 1997-Spring 1998 The allegations during this period focus on alleged sexual episodes with Riverview students Jennifer Bonelli and Kendra Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli claims that Mr. DeWitt had several sexual encounters with her at Twin Lakes Park during this time period. Ms. Simpkins claims that a single episode occurred in Mr. DeWitt's office during this time period. Mr. DeWitt flatly denies all the allegations, claiming that both girls were infatuated with him, and invented their stories. Jennifer Bonelli Jennifer Bonelli attended Riverview from 1996 through 1999. She graduated in 1999 and at the time of the hearing was attending the University of South Florida in Tampa. Her parents and two of her brothers still live in the Sarasota area. During the 1997-98 year, when she was a junior, Ms. Bonelli worked as a teacher's assistant in the guidance office. She was assigned to Ms. Chris Landes, who was Mr. DeWitt's secretary. Ms. Bonelli worked in the guidance office for one period each day, performing routine clerical duties under the supervision of Ms. Landes. Mr. DeWitt was Ms. Bonelli's grade level administrator, meaning that he was assigned to follow her class from its freshman through its senior year, handling disciplinary problems or problems the students may have in their classes. Mr. DeWitt was not a guidance counselor. Ms. Bonelli testified that she first saw David DeWitt either in the beginning of her junior year or during the summer after her sophomore year. She had asked to be assigned to the guidance office, and to Ms. Landes and Mr. DeWitt in particular. Ms. Bonelli testified that her initial impression of Mr. DeWitt was that he was a pleasant, nice, helpful, friendly person. Ms. Bonelli stated that she liked and was attracted to Mr. DeWitt, and soon developed a crush on him. Ms. Bonelli's testimony that she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt only after she met him cannot be credited. Blair Johnson, one of Ms. Bonelli's best friends, testified that Ms. Bonelli told him she found Mr. DeWitt attractive during her sophomore year, and expressed a romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt during the summer after her sophomore year. Christine Ross, another of Ms. Bonelli's friends at Riverview, also testified that Ms. Bonelli expressed a crush on Mr. DeWitt the year before she began working in the guidance office, and before she had met Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross testified that the crush was based simply on seeing Mr. DeWitt around the school. The testimony of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Ross is credited on this point. Blair Johnson testified that he and Ms. Bonelli had summer school classes at Riverview that year, and that one day Ms. Bonelli accompanied him to the guidance office, where he had to go to make changes to his fall schedule of classes. The secretary mentioned to them that Mr. DeWitt would be moving into the guidance office that fall. Mr. Johnson testified that as he filled out his fall class schedule, Ms. Bonelli asked the secretary detailed questions about when Mr. DeWitt would be moving in and what kind of furniture he would have. Mr. Johnson testified that he was a student assistant in the guidance office during Fall 1997, assigned to Mr. DeWitt's secretary during second, third, and fourth periods. Ms. Bonelli took lunch during fourth period, then worked in the guidance office during fifth period. Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. Bonelli regularly came into the guidance office and worked with him during her lunch period. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Johnson that she did so to be near Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she often talked with Mr. DeWitt, in the hallway and in his office. The discussions were not limited to school events and activities. Ms. Bonelli testified that they talked about their personal lives. Despite these frequent personal discussions, Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt never mentioned he was married. She asked him about it, and he never gave her a direct reply or ever volunteered anything about his marriage. She perceived that Mr. DeWitt was trying to avoid the subject of his marriage. Ms. Bonelli stated that she could not recall whether she asked Ms. Landes if Mr. DeWitt was married. She admitted that there were many people in the guidance office she could have asked. She stated that she was curious, and asked around, but never asked an adult. Ms. Bonelli's testimony as to her lack of knowledge of Mr. DeWitt's marital status was untrue. In June 1997, Ms. Bonelli masqueraded as David DeWitt in a series of prank e-mails that she sent to her friend Blair Johnson. In one of these e- mails, she correctly named Mr. DeWitt's wife and children. She knew the ages of the children and where they went to school. Further, Mr. Johnson testified that he heard Ms. Bonelli commenting about Karen DeWitt as early as Summer 1997, referring to her as a "bitch" and a "slut." Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli later began saying that "we need to get rid of Karen." Mr. Johnson testified that he was "pretty weirded out" by the fact that Ms. Bonelli knew the name of Mr. DeWitt's wife, and was later disturbed at the stories Ms. Bonelli was spreading about Mr. DeWitt, discussed below. Mr. Johnson's testimony on this point is credited. Karen DeWitt works with Mr. Johnson's mother, and Mr. Johnson met Karen DeWitt in October 1997. He considered telling Mrs. DeWitt about Ms. Bonelli's actions, but decided that it would seem "weird and possibly obnoxious" for a 17-year-old boy to bring up such subjects with a teacher. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had no clear recollection of when he met Ms. Bonelli. She was assigned to his secretary, Ms. Landes, and so could have been there for some time before he took notice of her. Mr. DeWitt did not dispute that Ms. Bonelli began as an aide in the guidance office in Fall 1997. He stated that as far as he knew, she did a fine job. He based this opinion on reports from Ms. Landes. Mr. DeWitt testified that his policy is to keep his home life and work life separate, and that he has no photographs of his wife and children in his office. He testified that he has never denied to anyone that he is married. As detailed below, several witnesses testified that Mr. DeWitt was unaccountably coy about discussing his marital status, to the point of even denying that he had a wife and children. Mr. DeWitt attempted to explain that he kept home and work separate, and believed that his personal life was not the business of students. This explanation does not answer why Mr. DeWitt would deny being married at all, when the true state of affairs could be easily ascertained by anyone with a genuine interest in the matter. Ms. Bonelli testified that she and Mr. DeWitt engaged in "casual flirting." They would compliment each other. She stated that the comments were such that they "could be taken either way," depending on one's demeanor or gestures. She believed he was flirting with her, and she liked it. Mr. DeWitt testified that he recalled no conversations with Ms. Bonelli during Fall 1997, other than of the "Hi, how are you?" variety. He had no real recollection of Ms. Bonelli ever being in his office during this period. Mr. DeWitt testified that he always looked for reasons to compliment students, whether on their appearance or their accomplishments, as a means of enhancing their self-esteem. Christine Ross testified that during this period, she would go to Riverview football games with Ms. Bonelli. She stated that Ms. Bonelli would always make an effort to speak with Mr. DeWitt, who was assigned to monitor the area between the players' bench and the fence separating the field from the grandstand. Mr. DeWitt had no specific recollection of talking to Ms. Bonelli at the football games, but stated that hundreds of students walked past the fence on their way to the concession stand, that he spoke to many of them, and that he very likely did have some brief conversations with Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt testified that in Fall 1997, he would go to Sarasota Middle School to run in the evenings. He saw Ms. Bonelli there once or twice. He did not speak with her and could not say what she was doing there. He did not like seeing her there, because he saw enough of students during the work day and did not want to be in the position of having to deal with them during his "down time." Mr. DeWitt also testified that there were three or four occasions when Ms. Bonelli drove up next to his car at stop lights on Proctor Road as he drove home from school or from Riverview football games. Ms. Bonelli would usually roll down her window and wave, though in one instance after a football game she asked him what he was doing. Mr. DeWitt said "hello" and told her he was on his way home. Mr. DeWitt testified that these apparently fortuitous meetings were infrequent enough that he did not yet feel uncomfortable or as if Ms. Bonelli was following him. Mr. DeWitt testified that in about January 1998, he started feeling uncomfortable about Ms. Bonelli. He was seeing her more and more. He saw her in his rear view mirror constantly. At least twice, he saw her coming down the road toward him in her Lexus, then make a U-turn to follow him. If he was leaving the school, driving home, he would see her somewhere on his way. If he then got back in his car to take his son to Twin Lakes Park for baseball practice, Ms. Bonelli would either be on the road or at the park. If Mr. DeWitt went to the mall, he would see Ms. Bonelli there. Ms. Bonelli denied following Mr. DeWitt. This denial cannot be credited. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him that she followed Mr. DeWitt around town to places where he did personal things, such as picking his children up from day care. Mr. Johnson stated that he was in the car with Ms. Bonelli on one occasion when she made a U-turn to follow Mr. DeWitt's car. Riverview students Christine Ross and Kendra Simpkins also related stories of riding in Ms. Bonelli's car and following Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that at some point in Fall 1997, the relationship began to go beyond flirting. She testified that one day Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of Twin Lakes Park, describing to her the days and times he went there to jog. Ms. Bonelli stated that around the end of September 1997, she began going to Twin Lakes Park at the times suggested by Mr. DeWitt. She went two to four days a week. She did not always see Mr. DeWitt there, and would simply jog on the days he was absent. She continued to go to Twin Lakes Park until some time in January 1998. Ms. Bonelli testified that on occasion she would go to the park with her school friends, including Christine Ross and Blair Johnson. She also went to Twin Lakes Park with her father and brother. When she went with a group, they would either jog or play football on the field next to the circular running path. Christine Ross testified that on one occasion, Mr. DeWitt tossed the football with the group for a few minutes. Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt approached her in November 1997 and told her he had a "problem," and would like her help. She asked him what the problem was, and Mr. DeWitt told her she would have to figure that out for herself. Ms. Bonelli stated that she had no idea what kind of problem Mr. DeWitt was talking about, whether school related or personal. For a period of weeks, Mr. DeWitt would ask her every day if she had thought about his "problem," and whether she could help him with it. Finally, she asked him if the problem had to do with the two of them, and he said yes. She took that to mean something sexual. Ms. Bonelli testified that in November 1997, she and Mr. DeWitt were leaving the park around dusk after running. She stated that they did not run together, but that Mr. DeWitt had asked her to come talk to him after he finished his run. Mr. DeWitt got into his Ford Explorer, then asked Ms. Bonelli if she wanted to "watch." She didn't know what he meant, but soon enough figured it out. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt was sitting in his car, hands in his lap. It looked as if his hands were moving. She was standing next to the car, outside the driver's side window. She could not actually see his hands, but his arm looked as if it were moving up and down. She could not see if he was exposing his genitalia. Ms. Bonelli stated that she "snickered" and walked away toward her car. Ms. Bonelli testified that during this period in late 1997, Mr. DeWitt would ask her to "talk dirty" to him, and that she did so on a few occasions. She stated that she didn't know how to "talk dirty," and asked friends what to say. Ms. Bonelli did not name these friends, and no witness at the hearing testified as to coaching Ms. Bonelli on "talking dirty." Ms. Bonelli testified that the "dirty talk" was graphic. She would describe sexual acts she wanted to perform on him, using terms such as "cock," "stroke," and "suck." Ms. Bonelli also stated that Mr. DeWitt would ask her to "help him out" or "give him a little," which she took to be an invitation to grab or fondle him as he masturbated. She testified that she did not accept the invitation. Two other students, Kendra Simpkins and Blair Johnson, testified that Ms. Bonelli told them that she did masturbate Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that these "talking dirty" sessions took place as they each sat in their own cars, parked next to each other in a small asphalt indentation near the front of Twin Lakes Park. She was on his left, looking over the passenger side window of her car to his driver's side window. Though she earlier testified that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Ford Explorer at the time of the first "watching" incident, Ms. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Honda during these "talking dirty" episodes. She drove a Lexus SE400, and recalled that Mr. DeWitt was sitting at her eye level. Ms. Bonelli testified that it looked as though Mr. Dewitt was "touching himself" and as though his right arm was moving while she talked dirty. She could not see his hands. Ms. Bonelli testified that these "talking dirty" sessions occurred at Twin Lakes Park from ten to twelve times. Each time, Mr. DeWitt's arms appeared to move toward his genitals. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt's facial expression never indicated that he reached orgasm. She stated that he smiled as she spoke. She admitted that she never actually saw him masturbate, but assumed he was doing so. She testified that she never had skin-to-skin contact with Mr. Dewitt during any of these episodes or at any other time. Ms. Bonelli testified that on one occasion she saw a glimpse of Mr. DeWitt's penis when he pulled it out of his shorts as she stood at his driver's side window. She said he then giggled nervously and put it back into his shorts. Ms. Bonelli testified that as time passed, Mr. DeWitt became more nervous about their activities at Twin Lakes Park. Mr. DeWitt would say that he saw people he knew at the park, and that he did not want to be seen together with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Bonelli testified that she told her friend, Christine Ross, all the details of her meetings with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park, and that she took Ms. Ross to the park more than once to prove that she was not making up the story. She testified that Ms. Ross saw her talking with Mr. DeWitt, but was not close enough to hear what was said. Ms. Ross testified that she did go to Twin Lakes Park with Ms. Bonelli in Fall 1997, for the dual purpose of exercising and observing Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross stated that it was Ms. Bonelli's idea to go there, so that she would believe Ms. Bonelli's stories about her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she recalled one occasion when Ms. Ross ducked down in passenger seat of her car and eavesdropped on Ms. Bonelli's conversation with Mr. DeWitt at the park. She stated that Mr. DeWitt was sitting in his car, which was parked next to the passenger side of Ms. Bonelli's car. Ms. Bonelli stated that she was not sure whether this was one of the "talking dirty" episodes, but that Ms. Ross would have heard whatever was said by her and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross testified she hid on the passenger side floor of Ms. Bonelli's car when it was parked next to Mr. DeWitt's, and that she overheard Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt having a conversation "of a sexual nature." She testified that Ms. Bonelli was "talking dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. She stated that Mr. DeWitt did not solicit these statements, but he did say that he liked them. Counsel for Mr. DeWitt confronted Ms. Ross with her deposition testimony, which averred that she had never heard any such talk between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Ross stated that she had had time since her deposition to think about the facts, and now recalled incidents that she could not recollect at her deposition. Ms. Ross' testimony cannot be credited. This finding is not based solely on the contradictions between her deposition testimony and her testimony at the hearing, though those discrepancies were significant and the revised testimony conveniently gibed with Ms. Bonelli's story. There were also internal contradictions in her testimony at the hearing that make it plain she was untruthful. She claimed to be hiding on the floorboard of Ms. Bonelli's car, out of Mr. DeWitt's sight, yet she also claimed that she could see Mr. DeWitt's head and shoulders in the adjacent car. Ms. Ross claimed that Mr. DeWitt was driving a green 1998 Honda, when Mr. DeWitt in fact drove a Ford Explorer and his wife drove a midnight blue 1991 Honda at the time of these events. In this regard, it is again a significant coincidence that Ms. Bonelli also erroneously stated that Mr. DeWitt was driving a Honda. Ms. Ross claimed that she could hear Ms. Bonelli's conversation with Mr. DeWitt, that she "definitely" recalled that the conversation was of a sexual nature, and that it went on for fifteen or twenty minutes. However, she could not recall any specifics of the conversation. Ms. Ross claimed that Mr. DeWitt later privately questioned her about what she had observed between Ms. Bonelli and him. Ms. Ross did not explain how Mr. DeWitt could know to ask such questions if he didn't know she had been hiding in the car. Mr. DeWitt recalled a conversation with Ms. Ross in which he asked her "how much do you know," but he was asking about the egging incident discussed below. Ms. Ross told other stories of standing at a distance and observing Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli interact at Twin Lakes Park. Even if these stories were credited, they would establish nothing more than the fact that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli were at the park at the same time, and acknowledged each other's presence. Ms. Ross testified that Ms. Bonelli told her stories about meeting Mr. DeWitt at the park, and speaking in a sexual manner while Mr. DeWitt masturbated. This testimony is credited insofar as it establishes that Ms. Bonelli was telling those stories at roughly the time she alleges the events occurred, but is not credited as establishing the truth of those stories. Ms. Bonelli testified that she also told Blair Johnson about events at Twin Lakes Park, though not in the detail she provided to Ms. Ross. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him about going to Twin Lakes Park. Mr. Johnson stated that he heard Ms. Bonelli tell different people three different versions of what happened at the park between Mr. DeWitt and her. The first story was that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli got into her car, and she masturbated him. In the second version, she told a group of friends that she performed oral sex on Mr. DeWitt in her car. The third version was that she and Mr. DeWitt had full sexual intercourse in her car. Mr. Johnson did not believe any of these stories, but he did not report them until after the trespassing incident, discussed below. Mr. Johnson testified that he tried to ignore the DeWitt discussions, because he believed Ms. Bonelli was telling these stories for the attention they brought her. He believed that she kept changing the stories for "greater attention availability." Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli would tell these stories to anyone who would listen, not merely to her close confidants. This testimony was effectively corroborated by another Riverview student, Dominique McAnn, who testified that stories about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli circulated widely among her group of friends, numbering about 40 students. Ms. Bonelli testified that these assignations occurred at twilight, and that people driving past could not necessarily see what was happening. She stated that Twin Lakes Park was not busy during the months these meetings were occurring. She never saw little league baseball or soccer games going on at the times she met Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Bonelli testified that the meetings at the park ended in mid-January 1998. She stated that there was no definitive break in the relationship, but that Mr. DeWitt began ignoring her to show attention to another student, Kendra Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt flatly denied that any of these events at Twin Lakes Park ever took place. As noted above, Mr. DeWitt testified that he saw Ms. Bonelli a few times when he went to run at Sarasota Middle School during Fall 1997. He testified that in early 1998, he switched to jogging at Twin Lakes Park to avoid seeing Ms. Bonelli or any other student. He stated that he considers running to be his personal "down time" for stress relief. He dealt with students all day and didn't want to see them when he ran. At that time, he harbored no particular animus for Ms. Bonelli, but simply wanted to go somewhere not frequented by students. Karen DeWitt testified that her husband conveyed these thoughts to her at the time he switched from jogging at Sarasota Middle School to Twin Lakes. She also testified that Mr. DeWitt never came home from running after dark. After school, he spent time playing with his son. He would go running only if he could get away by about four p.m. If it was getting dark, he would stay home and help out with the children. Karen DeWitt testified that her husband jogged three or four times per week, and that she and the children went with him about half the time. The children would play while their father ran. Mr. DeWitt testified that he chose Twin Lakes because it was close to his house, had a soft running trail, and also had open fields where his children could play while he ran. Ms. Bonelli denied ever seeing Karen DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park when David DeWitt was jogging there. Ms. Bonelli claimed not to know what Karen DeWitt looked like at the time of these events. It cannot be conclusively found that Ms. Bonelli's claim on this point is untrue. However, it is noted that Ms. Bonelli demonstrated to Blair Johnson knowledge of Mr. DeWitt's wife and children that she claimed in her testimony not to possess. Even before he began jogging there, Mr. DeWitt took his son to Twin Lakes for soccer and baseball practices and games in 1997. His son played soccer from October to January, and baseball from January to April. Mr. DeWitt coached both sports, and so was there with his son very often. Mr. DeWitt would go to run between four and five p.m. Contrary to Ms. Bonelli, Mr. DeWitt testified that there was a lot of traffic in and out of the park when he went running there. Twin Lakes is a public park. At the time, it was the spring training facility for the Baltimore Orioles. Mr. DeWitt testified that youth baseball is played there year-round, and that youth football practices took place in the fall in the area near the running trail. Twin Lakes Park is lighted. Mr. DeWitt testified as to a bank of lights around the baseball fields that comes on every evening. He also stated that the parking lot is lighted, and produced photographs showing the lights. He stated that there are no lights around the running trail, which was why he always tried to complete his run before dark. Teresa Flannelly, whose son played baseball and soccer with Mr. DeWitt's son starting in January 1998, testified that she drives past Twin Lakes Park eight to ten times a day. She testified that the park is busy at dusk, due to little league baseball, soccer, and football. She also testified that the lights in the parking lot are always on at night. Mr. DeWitt testified that at some point in early 1998, Ms. Bonelli began appearing at Twin Lakes Park when he was there. He stated that he did not run with her, and did not like seeing her there. On one occasion as he was jogging on the half-mile trail, Ms. Bonelli approached him unexpectedly. Mr. DeWitt testified that this startled him, and he made it clear to Ms. Bonelli that he was upset and unhappy at her uninvited and unwelcome approach. Mr. DeWitt testified that he told Ms. Bonelli, "I'm here to reduce stress. I don't need you here at this park. If you're going to be here, I'll find somewhere else to go running. I'm not sure how many more parks there are. You are not to be around me at this park. This is a public park. Are you going to be running here?" He stated this was the extent of their conversation. Mr. DeWitt denied ever playing catch with a football with Ms. Bonelli or her friends. He could not clearly recall ever seeing her at the park with anyone else. Mr. DeWitt stated that there were a couple of times that he talked to Ms. Bonelli from his car. He stated that Ms. Bonelli had a knack for showing up just when he finished running and was walking to his Ford Explorer. She would either pull in or would already be parked in the space next to his car. Mr. DeWitt stated that these conversations were similar to the one he described when Ms. Bonelli approached him on the running trail. Mr. DeWitt recalled another occasion when he returned to his car to find Ms. Bonelli's empty car parked next to his. This time, he managed to get into his car and drive away before Ms. Bonelli returned to her car. Mr. DeWitt flatly denied having sexual conversations with Ms. Bonelli at Twin Lakes Park or on any other occasion. Mr. DeWitt denied ever asking Ms. Bonelli to "talk dirty." He denied ever masturbating in his car or doing anything that might be mistaken for masturbating. James Clark, a teacher and athletic director at Riverview, credibly testified that he frequented Twin Lakes Park during this period because his daughters were cheerleaders in the junior football program. Mr. Clark testified that he often saw Mr. DeWitt running at Twin Lakes, and would say hello and chat with him there. Mr. Clark never saw Mr. DeWitt engaging in anything inappropriate at the park. Ms. Bonelli testified as to several other incidents involving her and Mr. DeWitt, aside from events at Twin Lakes Park. She stated that Mr. DeWitt had her talk dirty to him in his office as the two of them put together test packets. She stated that Mr. DeWitt would also motion for her to crawl under his desk, presumably for oral sex, even though his office door was open and students could see in through a large window. She testified that she declined. Mr. DeWitt denied that either the dirty talk or the desk incident ever occurred. He also pointed out that next to his office door was a window, eight feet high and three feet wide, without curtains or blinds, that allowed anyone walking past his office to look inside, and that the corridor outside his office was heavily used by students going to and from class. His description of the window was corroborated by several witnesses, including Ms. Bonelli herself. Mr. DeWitt also testified that the door to his office was always open, unless he was having a meeting with parents or a disciplinary meeting with a student, and that his secretary sat only a few feet from that open door. Mr. DeWitt's testimony as to his office practices and the physical layout of his office was supported by that of his secretary, Chris Landes, and by Dean Wait, the director of guidance, whose office was across the hall from Mr. DeWitt's. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt asked her to go into the school's media center bathroom with him. The media center was above the guidance office. To the left of Mr. DeWitt's office was a stairwell leading to the media center. Ms. Bonelli stated that she saw Mr. DeWitt walk into the teacher's bathroom near the media center, and that he motioned for her to follow him in. She testified that she declined. Mr. DeWitt denied that this incident ever occurred. It is noted that Ms. Bonelli's description of this alleged incident is remarkably similar to an admittedly false story she later helped concoct and spread through Riverview about Mr. DeWitt and Kendra Simpkins, discussed below. Ms. Bonelli vaguely recalled grabbing Mr. DeWitt's crotch over his clothes on one occasion. Christine Ross testified that she witnessed this event, and that it occurred in a crowded hallway between classes at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt denied that this ever happened. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt once asked her about "cybersex," which she defined as "a form of talking dirty over the internet." Mr. DeWitt asked her what it was, and she gave him some examples. He asked her what she would say to someone if she were having cybersex. Ms. Bonelli stated that she never engaged in cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli approached him at school one day early in 1998 and asked if he had ever "cybered." Mr. DeWitt told her he had no idea what she was talking about. Ms. Bonelli told him it was something people do on America On- Line ("AOL"), doing "fantasy things" with other people. Mr. DeWitt told her that he didn't have AOL. Mr. DeWitt's testimony on this point is credited. Mr. DeWitt testified that other disturbing computer- related incidents occurred at about the same time, approximately March 1998. Linda Brooks, the parent of a student in the IB program, had questions about her daughter's science class. She met with Mr. DeWitt, and they exchanged e-mail addresses. She saw Mr. DeWitt write down her e-mail address in his daily planner, which generally sat open on his desk. Ms. Brooks testified that she attempted to send an e- mail message to the school system address he had given her, but it came back as undeliverable. Shortly thereafter, she received an e-mail purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt. The message was short, something about wanting to make contact, and was signed, "Dave." Ms. Brooks testified that this seemed strange because it was too casual. She had never called him "Dave," and had never heard him refer to himself as anything other than "David DeWitt" or "Mr. DeWitt." She nonetheless wrote a lengthy response and used the "reply" button to send it. She noted that the address displayed was "DavidDeWitt@aol.com." Ms. Brooks testified that she never received a response to her e-mail, so she phoned Mr. DeWitt about the information she was requesting. During the conversation, she mentioned that she had sent an e-mail, and Mr. DeWitt told her he had never received it. Ms. Brooks told him that her e-mail was a response to the one he had sent her over the weekend. Mr. DeWitt told her that he had never sent her an e-mail. Ms. Brooks told him that the e- mail had come from an AOL account. Mr. DeWitt told her he had never had an AOL account. Ms. Brooks printed the e-mail and brought it to Mr. DeWitt at Riverview. She testified that Mr. DeWitt was very concerned that someone was pretending to be him. As they were discussing the situation, Ms. Brooks recalled that Mr. DeWitt had written her e-mail address in his daily planner, and she asked him who had access to the planner. Mr. DeWitt told her that he has an open door, and his planner usually sits open on his desk, meaning that any number of people could have copied Ms. Brooks' address. Mr. DeWitt suspected Ms. Bonelli. About a week later, he asked Ms. Bonelli if she had sent an e-mail to Ms. Brooks. Ms. Bonelli's answer was equivocal. Mr. DeWitt told her that he believed she took Ms. Brooks' e-mail address from his planner. Ms. Bonelli answered, "You think I'd go into your office and get the address out of your planner?" Mr. DeWitt said, "Yes." Ms. Bonelli said, "Well, maybe I did." Mr. DeWitt testified that he investigated no further, because this satisfied him that Ms. Bonelli was the culprit. Ms. Bonelli testified that she never sent an e-mail to Linda Brooks. Ms. Bonelli's denial is not credible. Blair Johnson testified that on June 18, 1997, he received an e-mail from an account named after Mr. DeWitt. He found it odd that Mr. DeWitt would send him an e-mail, because he didn't know Mr. DeWitt very well. Mr. Johnson's internet account was not identifiable as his, meaning that the sender could not have discovered his e-mail address by search or happenstance. Mr. Johnson would have had to give his address to the sender. This added to Mr. Johnson's suspicions concerning the sender's identity. Mr. Johnson testified that he knew Ms. Bonelli was interested in Mr. DeWitt, and he asked for her opinion on the e- mail. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Johnson that she had been chatting with Mr. DeWitt on-line and had given Mr. Johnson's e-mail address to Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Johnson found this strange, but did not ask Mr. DeWitt about the matter. The next day, Mr. Johnson received another e-mail from "David DeWitt." Mr. Johnson was now certain that Ms. Bonelli was the sender, and decided to play along with the game by responding to "DeWitt." He then telephoned Ms. Bonelli, who admitted to sending the bogus e-mails and to receiving Mr. Johnson's response. She told Mr. Johnson she did it as a joke, and told him he was not the only person receiving "DeWitt" e-mails. Concluding the joke, Ms. Bonelli sent a reply to Mr. Johnson's response, still in the "DeWitt" character. This e-mail was sent on June 24, 1997. As noted above, this e-mail indicates that Ms. Bonelli knew the names of Mr. DeWitt's wife and children, as well as the children's ages and where they went to school, months before she began working in the guidance office at Riverview. Ms. Bonelli testified that she never impersonated Mr. DeWitt on an e-mail. She claimed to have herself received an e- mail purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt. She testified that she tried to check the AOL profile of the sender, but there was no profile. Ms. Bonelli's testimony is not credible. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt quizzed her about what she had done sexually with boyfriends. She stated that Mr. DeWitt wanted details of these experiences, but that she refused to provide them. Mr. DeWitt denied that such conversations ever occurred. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt never asked her to have sexual intercourse with him. She stated that, at the Fall 1997 homecoming dance, she told him she would like to have sexual intercourse with him. Mr. DeWitt told her to wait until she graduated from high school. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did chaperone the Fall 1997 homecoming dance, but that no such conversation ever occurred with Ms. Bonelli. He stated that if Ms. Bonelli had made such an overture, he would have reported it to the principal and to Deputy Richard Foster, Riverview's Student Resource Officer ("SRO"). Ms. Bonelli testified that one night around New Years Day 1998, she was driving home from a Riverview basketball game. She pulled up at a stop light next to Mr. DeWitt, and he asked her to pull into Albritton's, a fruit stand off Proctor Road. She testified that they talked there for about an hour and a half. Mr. DeWitt asked her to try to find out who had been vandalizing his home mailbox, because he suspected Riverview students. He promised to take her to dinner if she found out the culprits. Mr. DeWitt denied that this meeting ever took place. Kendra Simpkins Ms. Bonelli testified that when Kendra Simpkins started working in the guidance office in mid-January 1998, Mr. DeWitt began speaking to Ms. Simpkins rather than to her during the period. Ms. Bonelli was upset and jealous over the attention Mr. DeWitt was showing Ms. Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt suddenly stopped reciprocating her advances, and that she assumed this was because Mr. DeWitt wanted to start an affair with Kendra Simpkins. As noted in more detail below, Ms. Bonelli habitually accused any female student she saw speaking to Mr. DeWitt of having an affair with him, or of wanting to have an affair with him. At the time of her testimony, Kendra Simpkins was a senior at Riverview, scheduled to graduate in June 2000. She began at Riverview in 1996, and attended the school throughout her high school career. She played on the softball and volleyball teams. Ms. Simpkins lives with her mother, stepfather, and two younger brothers, Clayton and Maxwell. In about January 1998, Ms. Simpkins began work in the guidance office. She testified that she did this to obtain community service credit hours, which enhance a student's resume. She worked there during sixth period, roughly noon to 12:45 p.m., performing clerical tasks assigned by Mr. DeWitt's secretary. At the time she began work in the guidance office, Ms. Simpkins was an ROTC cadet. She testified that her first personal contact with Mr. DeWitt was his passing compliment about her ROTC uniform. Ms. Simpkins stated that from that point, she and Mr. DeWitt began having conversations about school, her activities, and her personal life, including boyfriends. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did compliment Ms. Simpkins on her ROTC uniform, but did so at the suggestion of Colonel McClellan, the ROTC instructor at Riverview. Col. McClellan had seen Ms. Simpkins in the guidance office, and inquired of Mr. DeWitt whether she worked there. When Mr. DeWitt answered in the affirmative, Col. McClellan told him that Ms. Simpkins was having trouble in school, and trouble in general, but that she liked ROTC and might benefit from some positive reinforcement in that regard. Mr. DeWitt complimented her the first time he saw her in the uniform, but stated that he did so in the interest of Ms. Simpkins' self-esteem. Mr. DeWitt testified that this was no different than the positive comments he gives to students generally, whenever he can find a reason to do so. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had conversations with Ms. Simpkins. These conversations were similar to those he had with other students seeking direction and looking for advice. He recalled that Ms. Simpkins was on the junior varsity volleyball team, but had the opportunity to play on the varsity team. She was very anxious about the situation and went to Mr. DeWitt for advice, saying she was more comfortable playing with the junior varsity team. Mr. DeWitt advised her to play on the varsity, because playing with better people would make her a better player. Mr. DeWitt also recalled that Ms. Simpkins came to him with problems she was having at home, concerning the relationship between her mother and stepfather. Mr. DeWitt stated that their conversations never veered into areas that made him feel uncomfortable. He saw her speaking with female counselors, and assumed she would go to them with any "deep problems." Ms. Simpkins testified that the subject of "cybersex" came up during the course of her conversations with Mr. DeWitt. She stated that while browsing America On-Line ("AOL") one day, she found a screen name that appeared to be Mr. DeWitt's, and wrote an e-mail to him. An on-line chat ensued, during which cybersex arose as a topic. Ms. Simpkins later asked Mr. DeWitt in person about the chat, but he denied having an AOL account or knowing anything about the on-line chat. However, Mr. DeWitt was interested in the subject of cybersex and pressed Ms. Simpkins for an explanation. Ms. Simpkins testified that she responded that she wasn't "into that," and declined to talk about cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt denied having "cybersex" conversations with Ms. Simpkins, and denied ever chatting with Ms. Simpkins on AOL. Mr. DeWitt's denial is credited. If Ms. Simpkins indeed innocently chatted on AOL with someone pretending to be Mr. DeWitt, that person was likely Jennifer Bonelli. It is also noted that, as will be discussed below, a time came when Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli got together and compared their stories about Mr. DeWitt. It is likely that Ms. Simpkins' "cybersex" story had its origins in these conversations with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt touched her in Spring 1998. One day, she walked into his office to get a yearbook for someone who needed to see a photo of a graduate. Mr. DeWitt was sitting at his conference table. As Ms. Simpkins passed behind his chair, he leaned back in his chair and pretended to stretch his arms. While stretching, he grabbed Ms. Simpkins' genitals. Ms. Simpkins believed this was not accidental, though she admitted it might have been. She stated that Mr. DeWitt offered a sarcastic apology. She said she accepted the insincere apology because she really didn't mind what he did. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt always avoided the subject of his personal life. If she asked about his wife and children, he would change the subject. Ms. Simpkins knew Mr. DeWitt was married because Ms. Bonelli had told her so. She knew Mr. DeWitt had children because her brother played baseball at Twin Lakes Park, where Mr. DeWitt's son played. Ms. Simpkins stated that during the spring of 1998, she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt. She said this was because Mr. DeWitt seemed to take an interest in her. He came to one of her softball games. He was polite and "looked out for me." She believed that Mr. DeWitt reciprocated her feelings, but admitted that Mr. DeWitt's actions were equivocal and that she chose to interpret them in a manner to her liking. Ms. Bonelli testified that she and Ms. Simpkins developed a "very superficial" relationship in the spring of 1998. This relationship consisted primarily of the two young women quizzing each other as to their dealings with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli was trying to figure out if "something was going on" between Ms. Simpkins and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli stated that after about a month of this relationship, she opened up to Ms. Simpkins and told her what had gone on between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Simpkins replied that Mr. DeWitt had also asked her to "talk dirty" to him, and that she did it, but she would not tell Ms. Bonelli exactly what she said to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Simpkins everything she had done with Mr. DeWitt, including the masturbation incidents. Ms. Simpkins seemed upset at learning that Mr. DeWitt also had a relationship with Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Bonelli admitted to being fiercely jealous of Ms. Simpkins. Ms. Simpkins stated that her earliest experience of Ms. Bonelli was unpleasant. Ms. Bonelli was jealous and spreading rumors about Ms. Simpkins, because she had seen Ms. Simpkins talking to Mr. DeWitt and assumed that "things were going on." Christine Ross confirmed that Ms. Bonelli was telling stories about Ms. Simpkins and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that she told Ms. Bonelli that nothing was going on between her and Mr. DeWitt, and that Ms. Bonelli had no place spreading such rumors. Ms. Simpkins testified that she then "talked things out" with Ms. Bonelli and they became friends. Ms. Bonelli did not characterize Ms. Simpkins as her "friend." After they became friendly, in about March 1998, Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Simpkins that she had a crush on Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she would meet Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park, and that "he didn't want anything to do with her." Ms. Bonelli's story changed after Ms. Simpkins admitted that she, too, had a crush on Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli then told Ms. Simpkins that she and Mr. DeWitt "actually did stuff." Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Simpkins that she would kiss and masturbate Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. "She would do him" or give him a "hand job" was Ms. Simpkins' recollection of Ms. Bonelli's claim. Ms. Bonelli did not tell her how many times this occurred. Ms. Bonelli also claimed she had brought someone with her to witness the fact that Mr. DeWitt would meet her at the park. Ms. Simpkins testified that she believed Ms. Bonelli's stories, though she admitted that the changes in the stories gave her reason to doubt Ms. Bonelli's truthfulness. Ms. Simpkins thought that the stories sounded like things Mr. DeWitt would do. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him about her discussions with Ms. Simpkins. It appeared to Mr. Johnson that the two girls were engaged in a one-upmanship contest concerning their alleged encounters with Mr. DeWitt. One girl would say she talked to Mr. DeWitt. Then the other would say she went into Mr. DeWitt's office and talked to him. Then the first girl would relate a story about intimate discussions of family matters, and so the tales would escalate. Ms. Bonelli testified that once after school, she and Ms. Simpkins went through Mr. DeWitt's desk looking for photographs of female students. Ms. Simpkins did not believe Ms. Bonelli's assertion that Mr. DeWitt had photographs of Ms. Bonelli and Jennifer Rizi, another student assistant in the guidance office. Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins rifled Mr. DeWitt's desk in search of the photos. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli was jealous of Jennifer Rizi, and believed something was going on between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Rizi. Bonelli admitted confronting Jennifer Rizi and asking her if she was having a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt, and that Ms. Rizi denied it. Ms. Rizi testified that she knew Mr. DeWitt from church, and that he also knew her stepsister and mother. Ms. Rizi considered Mr. DeWitt a friend of the family and spoke to him often about school, family, and boyfriend problems. She never felt Mr. DeWitt was prying into her sex life or otherwise acting inappropriately. Ms. Rizi testified that she knew Ms. Bonelli as an acquaintance. Ms. Bonelli had introduced herself to Ms. Rizi and "pumped" her for information about Mr. DeWitt whenever she saw her. In April or May 1998, Ms. Bonelli asked her if she and Mr. DeWitt had "hooked up" in a romantic way. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Rizi that she had an unrequited crush on Mr. DeWitt and was jealous of Ms. Rizi talking to him. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Rizi that nothing inappropriate had occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Rizi testified that she was completely appalled at the suggestion that she and Mr. DeWitt had some sort of romantic relationship. She told Ms. Bonelli that nothing was going on between Mr. DeWitt and her, and inquired why she would even ask such a thing. Ms. Rizi testified that she did not speak to Ms. Bonelli again after this incident. Ms. Simpkins recalled that she was in Ms. Bonelli's car one day that spring when Ms. Bonelli saw Mr. DeWitt driving his car in the opposite direction. Ms. Bonelli made a U-turn and followed Mr. DeWitt down Proctor Road for a few blocks, close enough that Mr. DeWitt could see who was following him. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli did not tell her why she turned to follow Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she jogged at Sarasota Middle School. Ms. Simpkins also testified that she once accompanied Ms. Bonelli to Sarasota Middle School in search of Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli denied ever going to Sarasota Middle School for the purpose of seeking out Mr. DeWitt. The Trespassing Incident Mr. DeWitt testified that in early 1998, he and his wife suspected that someone was coming onto their property at night. During this period, Mr. DeWitt also told Mr. Flynn, the principal of Riverview, that he believed Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins were "stalking" him. Ms. Bonelli testified that she knew where Mr. DeWitt lived because she had friends in his neighborhood, Saddle Creek. The DeWitts live in the first house on the left, just past the entrance to Saddle Creek. They own a five-acre lot, and their house is set back about 330 feet from the road. Ms. Bonelli admitted that she trespassed on Mr. DeWitt's property three or four times in Spring 1998. She and a group of friends would drive out to Saddle Creek at night and walk on Mr. DeWitt's property. Ms. Bonelli named Christine Ross, Kendra Simpkins, Blair Johnson, and several other boys as her companions on one or more of these trips. In fact, Mr. Johnson did not accompany Ms. Bonelli on these excursions. Ms. Bonelli stated that they did "stupid kid things," such as running around in Mr. DeWitt's back yard and looking into the windows of the house. She stated that they would stay on the property for as long as an hour. Ms. Bonelli testified that they would sometimes go up to the windows to look inside, and that she would see both Mr. DeWitt and his wife, thus confirming in her mind that Mr. DeWitt was indeed married. As found above, Ms. Bonelli well knew that Mr. DeWitt was married long before these trespassing incidents. Blair Johnson testified that Ms. Bonelli told him that she had been at Mr. DeWitt's house on two or three occasions. She told him she had dressed in dark or camouflage clothing and looked in Mr. DeWitt's windows, observing his family. She told Mr. Johnson that she hid in an enclosure next to the house and watched Mr. DeWitt take out his trash. Mr. Johnson testified that he knew where Mr. DeWitt lived because Ms. Bonelli had pointed it out to him. One evening, as Mr. Johnson was driving home from the house of a friend who lived in Mr. DeWitt's neighborhood, his way was blocked by two cars, a Jeep and a sedan, stopped in the middle of the road near Mr. DeWitt's property. The occupants of the cars appeared to be talking to each other. Several teenage boys were standing in the Jeep, talking loudly. Mr. Johnson pulled up close, waiting for them to move so that he could get by. At that moment, he saw Ms. Bonelli run out of the woods fronting Mr. DeWitt's property. She was dressed in dark clothing. She jumped into the sedan, which drove off. The Jeep sat there, and its occupants watched Mr. Johnson as he drove past. Mr. Johnson confronted Ms. Bonelli later about the incident. She seemed surprised, then relieved that the person in the car that night was a friend who would not report her. Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. Bonelli laughed and joked about the incident. Ms. Bonelli testified that she did not personally vandalize Mr. DeWitt's house or steal anything from his property, but that on one occasion her companions did. On Saturday, April 17, 1998, at around 11 p.m., Ms. Bonelli drove to the DeWitt residence, dropped off Kendra Simpkins and Christine Ross, then drove through the neighborhood. Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross threw eggs at Mr. DeWitt's front door, put eggs in his mailbox, and stole from the yard an animal skull belonging to Mr. DeWitt's young son. Ms. Bonelli returned to the house, picked up Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross, and drove away. Ms. Bonelli attempted to minimize her role in this incident, testifying that Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross asked her to drop them off and that she couldn't see what they were doing. She said they asked her to give them a couple of minutes, so she drove away, then turned around in a church down the road and came back. Ms. Bonelli's testimony that she merely dropped off the other girls and was unaware of what they did is not credible. Ms. Simpkins admitted that it was she and Ms. Ross who actually egged the house, and admitted that she and Ms. Ross stole the animal skull "as a souvenir." However, Ms. Simpkins testified that egging the house was Ms. Bonelli's idea. Ms. Bonelli picked up Ms. Simpkins, then stopped at Kash'n'Karry on the way to Ms. Ross' house and bought the eggs. Ms. Simpkins stated that Ms. Bonelli gave her the receipt for the eggs to place in Mr. DeWitt's desk as a joke. Ms. Simpkins stated that she later placed the receipt in Mr. DeWitt's desk. Ms. Simpkins' testimony is credited on this point. Ms. Ross testified that the eggs were already in the car when the other two girls arrived to pick her up. She stated that both Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli told her that egging the house was Ms. Simpkins' idea. Ms. Ross is believable in stating that Ms. Bonelli told her that it was Ms. Simpkins' idea to egg the house, but she is not credible when she claims that Ms. Simpkins herself took credit for the idea. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife were in bed when he heard a loud banging against the front door. He got up, ran to the front door, took the alarm off, and opened the door. When he went out the door, he stepped on some eggs. He ran out and saw two females running away from the house. Mr. DeWitt could see two female figures as they ran from the house to the edge of the property, but he could not positively identify them in the dark. He had a "hunch" that it was Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and/or Ms. Ross. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife found unbroken eggs on window ledges and other places around the house, which he took as a message that the perpetrators had been looking in the windows. Mr. DeWitt also noticed that his son's animal skull was missing. Because of the late hour, Mr. DeWitt took no action that evening, aside from cleaning up his front door and steps. He did not call the police that weekend, because he believed the incident was school related and that he could deal with it on Monday morning. Mr. DeWitt testified that when he arrived at school on Monday, April 20, 1998, the animal skull had been placed on his parking spot. He wondered if the perpetrators thought they were casting a hex on him. Ms. Simpkins testified that she placed the skull in Mr. DeWitt's parking space so that he would find it on Monday morning. Ms. Bonelli drove Ms. Simpkins to the school to place the skull on Mr. DeWitt's parking space. Mr. DeWitt told School Resource Officer (SRO) Rick Foster about Saturday evening's events. The two men agreed they would look into the matter. SRO Foster would seek leads through his sources in the school, and Mr. DeWitt would talk to people in the Saddle Creek area. Mr. DeWitt testified that he didn't immediately drop everything to investigate this incident. He maintained a regular schedule of parent conferences and other daily activities. During that week, Mr. DeWitt questioned Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and Ms. Ross separately. All three girls denied any involvement in the egging. Also during that week, Mr. DeWitt found in his desk the Kash'n'Karry receipt for the eggs. Ms. Simpkins later slipped into his office and took back the receipt. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli, after initially claiming no knowledge, returned to his office and told him that she knew it was Ms. Simpkins who egged his house. As proof, Ms. Bonelli provided Mr. DeWitt with a print-out of an on-line discussion she had with Ms. Simpkins, in which Ms. Simpkins admitted to "doing some snooping" in Mr. DeWitt's desk and retrieving the receipt for the eggs. Mr. DeWitt then called Ms. Simpkins into his office. SRO Foster was also present at this meeting. Ms. Simpkins again denied any knowledge of the egging. Mr. DeWitt bluffed Ms. Simpkins by asking if she was aware he had considered placing a surveillance camera on his property. Ms. Simpkins asked if Mr. DeWitt had caught her on tape, thus admitting her involvement. Mr. DeWitt produced the print-out Ms. Bonelli had given him, and he asked Ms. Simpkins to quit playing games and tell the truth. At this point, Ms. Simpkins confessed to participating, but quickly added that Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross were also involved. She told Mr. DeWitt that it was Ms. Bonelli's idea, and that Ms. Bonelli bought the eggs. She falsely claimed that Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross threw the eggs. Ms. Simpkins claimed she didn't even know what Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross were doing. SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt then brought in Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Ross, each of whom also admitted to the incident. Mr. DeWitt bluffed Ms. Bonelli about the presence of a surveillance camera, and Ms. Bonelli responded that he might have Ms. Ross and Ms. Simpkins on tape, but he couldn't have her because she never got out of the car. Ms. Bonelli also told Mr. DeWitt that she thought she had seen the nonexistent surveillance camera when she was walking around his house. Since she did not leave her car during the egging incident, this statement amounted to a confession that she had been on Mr. DeWitt's property on at least one other occasion. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and his wife had actually considered buying a surveillance camera, due to their suspicions that people were trespassing on their property and due to the fact that over a period of weeks their mailbox had been repeatedly vandalized. No evidence was presented to establish the culprits in the mailbox vandalism, which was a problem for the whole neighborhood, not only for the DeWitts. Mr. DeWitt stated that he did not actually tell the girls there was a camera on his property, but that he did not deny it when his hints led the girls to that conclusion. Ms. Bonelli's recollection was that Mr. DeWitt did affirmatively claim he had somebody on film, and it was this claim that caused her to admit her participation while contending she never got out of the car. Even if Ms. Bonelli's testimony on this point is credited, it still amounts to no more than Mr. DeWitt bluffing Ms. Bonelli to prod an admission from her. Petitioner contends that Mr. DeWitt's bluff is evidence of his dishonesty. This contention ignores the context of Mr. DeWitt's actions, which was an effort to get the truth from three girls who had already lied during their initial questioning. Petitioner's contention is rejected. SRO Foster recalled that his involvement in these incidents commenced with a conversation with Mr. DeWitt in the lunchroom, at some time prior to the egging. Mr. DeWitt told SRO Foster that he suspected someone was trespassing on his property, and asked SRO Foster for his advice. SRO Foster told Mr. DeWitt that because he lived fairly far out of town, he needed to be cautious. SRO Foster said that he might be able to call the Crime Suppression Unit if matters required surveillance, but for the time being Mr. DeWitt should take precautions until he could get information as to the identity of the trespassers. Mr. DeWitt testified that this conversation occurred in January 1998. He stated that for some time previous, he would walk into his yard and think he saw someone. At first he dismissed these suspicions, thinking that he was only seeing a deer, but eventually he became certain that he was seeing people in his yard. Mr. DeWitt testified that on about March 17, 1998, he had another conversation with SRO Foster. Ms. Bonelli had approached Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park on the previous day. Mr. DeWitt was becoming uncomfortable with the frequency of Ms. Bonelli's appearances and, to a lesser extent, of Ms. Simpkins' appearances in his daily travels. He wanted SRO Foster to know these concerns and look into the situation. SRO Foster testified that Mr. DeWitt later came to him and said he had information about students who may have been involved in the trespassing. SRO Foster stated that Mr. DeWitt gave him the names of Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and several others. SRO Foster did not recall asking Mr. DeWitt how he learned those names. SRO Foster testified that he called his supervisor and told him an administrator at Riverview was complaining about students trespassing on his property. SRO Foster requested an intervention officer to come in and investigate the matter. SRO Foster testified that it was standard procedure to call in another detective to work on cases involving teachers or staff members, so that there could be no allegations of favoritism or bias. Detective Carolyn Price was sent to lead the investigation. After Det. Price arrived, the detectives pulled the named students from their classes one at a time and talked to them about the incident. SRO Foster testified that at first they were strictly investigating a trespassing incident, because Mr. DeWitt had not told them about the theft of the skull or about any stalking or sexual allegations. SRO Foster recalled that they spoke to all the students named by Mr. DeWitt and to some others whose names came up during the course of the interviews. Det. Price recalled that her first meeting with Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster was on April 29, 1998 at 10:30 a.m. They told her that Mr. DeWitt had a problem with people trespassing on his property in the late evening. The trespassing had occurred off and on for the last month. There had been some vandalism and there was at least one item missing from the yard. Mr. DeWitt had since discovered that students at Riverview were involved. Det. Price stated that SRO Foster had a list of students potentially involved, but she didn't know where he got the list. Det. Price could not recall whether Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster told her on the first day that there was stalking or harassment involved in the case. She returned to Riverview several days in a row between April 29 and May 8, and said that it could have been on the second day that all the information came out. However, it was "very definitely" her understanding that she was investigating a crime involving stalking, though the primary complaint was trespassing, loitering, and prowling. Det. Price recalled Mr. DeWitt coming to her and telling her that one of the items missing from his property had turned up at school in front of his parking space. He also told her that a couple of the people involved in the trespassing had shown up at Twin Lakes Park and Sarasota Middle School when he had gone to jog, prior to the trespassing incident. SRO Foster also recalled Mr. DeWitt telling him of seeing the girls when he went to jog, but did not recall the precise timing of Mr. DeWitt's statements. As noted above, Mr. DeWitt testified that this conversation occurred in March 1998. Det. Price could not recall the order in which the students were interviewed, but recollected that they interviewed the girls on the first day and the boys the next day. She stated that all of the students were cooperative, and all admitted to trespassing on Mr. DeWitt's property. She stated that Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster were present during the interviews. SRO Foster recalled that they interviewed Ms. Bonelli at least twice, first alone, then with her parents, and that Ms. Bonelli admitted to the trespassing when they called her parents. Det. Price testified that they called in her parents because the matter involved criminal charges and there was as yet no indication that Mr. DeWitt would forego prosecution. Det. Price recalled speaking only to Ms. Bonelli's mother, because her father was not available to come in on that day. SRO Foster recalled speaking to Ms. Bonelli's mother at one point, and to both parents later. Mr. DeWitt had a more specific recollection. He stated that Mrs. Bonelli arrived for the conference without her husband, and told Mr. DeWitt and the detectives that her husband was Italian, had a temper, and she would prefer that he not be involved. Mr. DeWitt spoke up and insisted that Mr. Bonelli be involved. Mrs. Bonelli telephoned her husband and he came to the school. While they waited for Mr. Bonelli to arrive, they went through the facts with Mrs. Bonelli. They later explained the situation to Mr. Bonelli. Det. Price did not recall discussing with Mrs. Bonelli the subject of Jennifer's crush on Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster testified that Ms. Bonelli's parents were upset and apologetic to Mr. DeWitt. Linda Bonelli, the mother of Jennifer Bonelli, testified that she received a phone call from Mr. DeWitt's secretary, who said that something serious had happened and that she and her husband needed to come to the school and meet with Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Landes that her husband was out walking and that she would have to come in alone. Mrs. Bonelli came in to the school. She testified that she met with her daughter, Mr. DeWitt, and SRO Foster. Mr. DeWitt started the meeting, stating that Jennifer had been on his property. Mr. DeWitt then said he thought it best to let Jennifer tell her mother the details. Mrs. Bonelli stated that Jennifer told her that she and some other girls had been on Mr. DeWitt's property, that one of the girls had taken an egg and smeared it or thrown it on the front door, and that one of the girls had stolen an animal skull from the yard. Mrs. Bonelli testified that nothing about a crush or any subject other than the trespassing incident came up at the meeting. Mr. DeWitt ended the discussion by stating that he was not sure how he was going to handle the whole matter. Mrs. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt's statement raised a red flag in her mind, because she was uncomfortable leaving the matter unresolved. She told Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster that she would like to have another meeting with them that afternoon, and that her husband would attend the second meeting. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she wanted a "male influence" in the room. The Bonellis came in for the second meeting, again with Jennifer, Mr. DeWitt, and SRO Foster. Mrs. Bonelli testified that this meeting covered the same subject matter as the earlier one, and that nothing about a crush or Twin Lakes Park was ever mentioned. Stanley Bonelli, Jennifer's father, confirmed that the trespassing incident was the only topic of discussion. The Bonellis assured Mr. DeWitt that Jennifer would never go onto his property again, and Mr. DeWitt stated that he would not press charges. Det. Price and SRO Foster recalled interviewing Ms. Simpkins, who admitted being on Mr. DeWitt's property. They also recalled meeting Ms. Simpkins' mother, Trudy Burkhardt, who was upset and crying, worried about the effect this would have on her daughter's ability to get a college scholarship. Det. Price specifically recalled making sure that Ms. Burkhardt knew about the crush, that it was the cause of her daughter's actions and that it was not reciprocated by Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster testified that both Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins appeared remorseful, and expressed their remorse to Mr. DeWitt. During the interviews, the two girls also admitted their crushes on Mr. DeWitt. SRO Foster stated that the subject came up because they were trying to develop a motive for the girls' trespass on Mr. DeWitt's property. SRO Foster stated that Mr. DeWitt did not seem shocked or surprised when the girls told of their crushes. Det. Price's recollection was slightly different. She remembered Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster telling her that they believed one or both of the girls was infatuated with Mr. DeWitt, and that was partly the reason they followed him to the park and trespassed on his property. Det. Price could not recall Mr. DeWitt giving her any corroboration about the park incidents. Mr. DeWitt told her that he felt the girls were infatuated with him. He also brought up something about conversations going back and forth on computers involving him, that someone had logged on pretending to be him and then carried on conversations with the girls. Det. Price concluded that the crush was the motive for the crime. She believed there was some jealously or rivalry between the girls. She asked both Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins if there was anything going on besides a strictly student/teacher relationship, and they both denied that there was. Both girls admitted they had told stories to other students implying that the crush was mutual, and said they had made up those stories. Det. Price stated that Mr. DeWitt repeatedly said there were never any reciprocal feelings on his part. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Bonelli directly admitted to the detectives that her motive was anger because Mr. DeWitt had not reciprocated her crush on him. Mr. DeWitt ultimately waived prosecution of all the students involved in the trespassing incidents. He told SRO Foster that he believed it was a matter that should be dealt with internally at Riverview, not through the criminal process. Mr. DeWitt testified that the parents were emotional and extremely apologetic, promising that nothing like this would happen again, and that he believed the students had learned their lesson. Mr. DeWitt signed a waiver of prosecution on May 5, 1998. The detectives had each student sign trespass warnings, to the effect that they would be arrested if they were found on Mr. DeWitt's property again. Det. Price and SRO Foster warned Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins not to spread rumors about Mr. DeWitt or about the trespassing incident. Both girls acknowledged that they would not discuss these matters with fellow students. Ms. Bonelli recalled Det. Price giving her a lecture, saying that it was okay to like her teacher, but that she couldn't follow him to places where he goes to run. Ms. Bonelli stated that this lecture "came out of nowhere," because the subject of her crush on Mr. DeWitt had not come up in the interviews. As to the crush, Ms. Bonelli's testimony is not credible, because SRO Foster, Det. Price, and Mr. DeWitt all testified that she admitted to the crush. Ms. Bonelli testified that she tried to explain that she had not followed Mr. DeWitt. As noted above, the evidence established that she had been following Mr. DeWitt around town for a period of months. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt, sitting outside Det. Price's field of vision, glared at her as if to say, "Don't you dare open your mouth." Ms. Bonelli testified that she said no more about her alleged liaisons with Mr. DeWitt. Both SRO Foster and Det. Price testified that Mr. DeWitt was present for most, if not all, of their student interviews. They saw nothing wrong with Mr. DeWitt's presence because, based on their knowledge of the facts, Mr. DeWitt was the victim of the crime. Further, Mr. Flynn testified that he had given Mr. DeWitt authority to deal with the situation. Neither Ms. Bonelli nor Ms. Simpkins gave the detectives any indication that Mr. DeWitt had done anything inappropriate, or that their crushes were somehow reciprocated by Mr. DeWitt. Both detectives stated that Mr. DeWitt did not participate actively in the interviews of the students and parents, and neither noticed any effort by Mr. DeWitt to intimidate any of the students. Det. Price testified that she could see Mr. DeWitt during the interviews, though she conceded her attention was mostly focused on the girls. On April 29, 1998, Ms. Simpkins wrote a note of apology to Mr. DeWitt. The note expresses her regret at the problems she caused to Mr. DeWitt and his family, especially to his young son by the theft of his animal skull. In her direct testimony, Ms. Simpkins stated that everything in the apology was true and sincere. In cross-examination, counsel for Mr. DeWitt asked her if she was being sincere when she wrote that Mr. DeWitt was a "really kind person." Ms. Simpkins replied that she was just "sucking up" to avoid prosecution. Ms. Bonelli also wrote a note of apology to Mr. DeWitt, expressing her regret for the harm she had caused to Mr. DeWitt and his family, especially his son. The note was attached to a model boat, a gift from Ms. Bonelli to Ryan DeWitt. Blair Johnson testified that at some point after the trespassing incident, he came forward to assistant principal Dan Cronin and told him about the vandalism on Mr. DeWitt's property, as well as the rumors Ms. Bonelli had been spreading about her alleged sexual encounters with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Cronin told Mr. Johnson that the incident was already under investigation through the school administration, and he couldn't discuss the matter with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Cronin did not testify at the hearing; thus, it cannot be determined what actions, if any, Mr. Cronin took after his meeting with Johnson. Neither Kevin Flynn, the principal of Riverview, or Allen Wilson, the district human resources director, mentioned any involvement by Mr. Cronin in the investigation. The Spielman Note Karen Spielman was an art teacher at Riverview. Christine Ross was a student in her class. On March 25, 1998, Ms. Ross approached Ms. Spielman and told her she had a friend who was having a relationship with an assistant principal. The friend needed to talk to someone because she was upset. Ms. Spielman told Ms. Ross she was available to talk to her friend. Ms. Ross testified that she went to Ms. Spielman because she considered her a strong figure, and because she believed the issue of Ms. Bonelli's relationship with Mr. DeWitt should be investigated. Ms. Ross brought Ms. Bonelli to Ms. Spielman's classroom after school on the same day. Ms. Spielman had a long conversation with both girls. Ms. Bonelli told her the entire story of her alleged dealings with Mr. DeWitt, both at school and at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Spielman testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she was involved with the assistant principal and she was upset because he had "kind of dropped her" and she didn't know what to do. Ms. Bonelli told her of the sexual conversations she'd had with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told her there had been no sexual intercourse, but there had been "touching." Ms. Spielman assumed the touching was in an "inappropriate place." Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Spielman that she was afraid to tell her parents about Mr. DeWitt, because they would blame her and be very angry if they found out. Despite Ms. Bonelli's statements, Ms. Spielman believed that Ms. Bonelli's mother knew about her daughter's accusations against Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that she knew this story must be reported. She called central administration the next day and arranged a meeting with Allen Wilson, the director of human resources. The meeting took place on March 27, 1998. She told Mr. Wilson the story without revealing Ms. Bonelli's name. Mr. Wilson told her that nothing could be done unless the girl came forward and was willing to be identified. Ms. Spielman later spoke with Ms. Bonelli, who was unwilling to come forward. Ms. Spielman took no further action until April 28, 1998. This was the date on which Mr. DeWitt first confronted Kendra Simpkins and Jennifer Bonelli about the trespassing incident. Ms. Spielman testified that after school, a girl came into her classroom and asked if she had seen Ms. Bonelli. Ms. Spielman said she hadn't. The girl said she had seen Ms. Bonelli crying in Mr. DeWitt's office and was concerned. Ms. Bonelli had earlier told Ms. Spielman that a girl named Kendra Simpkins was also involved with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman asked this girl if her name was Kendra, and the girl said it was. Ms. Spielman didn't ask Ms. Simpkins why she sought her out for information about Ms. Bonelli, but the inference can be drawn that either Ms. Bonelli or Ms. Ross had told Ms. Simpkins about their meeting with Ms. Spielman. Ms. Spielman stated that Ms. Bonelli later came to her classroom and said "something had happened" and "things had changed." Ms. Bonelli did not tell her exactly what had happened, only that she and some other girls had done something to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman drafted a one-page memorandum to Mr. Wilson outlining the charges made by Ms. Bonelli during their first meeting on March 25. The memorandum is dated April 28, 1998, though she did not take it to Mr. Wilson's office until May 6, 1998. Ms. Spielman's only explanation for the gap between writing and delivering the memo was that "it took me a while to type this up." The memorandum references Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Bonelli, Ms. Simpkins, and Ms. Ross without naming them. It briefly restates Ms. Bonelli's story, but only vaguely, referencing "sexual conversation" and "touching." It states that Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt never had sexual intercourse. It does not mention specifics regarding the alleged masturbation, though Ms. Bonelli testified that she told Ms. Spielman about this during their first conversation. The memorandum calls for immediate action to be taken, and expresses Ms. Spielman's belief in the credibility of the girls' story. Ms. Spielman did not tell Mr. DeWitt about the memorandum, out of concern for Ms. Bonelli's confidentiality. Ms. Spielman also did not provide a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Flynn, the Riverview principal, even after Mr. Wilson asked her to do so. Ms. Spielman testified that it was "common knowledge" that Mr. Flynn was grooming Mr. DeWitt for the principal's job, that the two men were close, and thus sending the memorandum to Mr. Flynn might jeopardize Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt testified that as the conference with Ms. Bonelli, her parents, and the detectives was ending on April 29, Ms. Bonelli mentioned to him that she had told Ms. Spielman about her alleged relationship with him. Mr. DeWitt stated that he was unaware at the time that Ms. Spielman had written a memorandum. Ms. Bonelli claimed not to know how Mr. DeWitt found out about her conversations with Ms. Spielman. She speculated that perhaps Christine Ross told Mr. DeWitt. She claimed that Mr. DeWitt suddenly pulled her from class shortly after the meeting with the detectives and confronted her about Ms. Spielman. Ms. Ross denied telling Mr. DeWitt, stating that she learned from Ms. Bonelli that Mr. DeWitt knew about Ms. Spielman. Mr. DeWitt's version of how he learned about Ms. Spielman's involvement is credited. Mr. DeWitt testified that he told Ms. Bonelli they needed to go to Ms. Spielman's classroom immediately and tell her the truth. Ms. Bonelli apologetically agreed. Mr. DeWitt told SRO Foster that he was going to see Ms. Spielman, that Ms. Bonelli said she had told a teacher about the alleged affair and he was taking her down to get her to tell the truth. Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli then walked to Ms. Spielman's classroom. Mr. DeWitt told Ms. Spielman that Ms. Bonelli had something to tell her. He offered to leave, but Ms. Bonelli asked him to stay. Ms. Bonelli then told Ms. Spielman that she had made up the whole story, that it was a lie and she felt badly for doing this. Mr. DeWitt then said that Ms. Spielman had heard what she needed to hear, that he wanted to make sure she heard what Ms. Bonelli had to say. Mr. DeWitt then went back to his office and Ms. Bonelli went to her next class. According to Ms. Bonelli, when Mr. DeWitt confronted her about Ms. Spielman and asked how much she knew, Ms. Bonelli told him that Ms. Spielman knew "everything." Mr. DeWitt replied, "We need to change that. You need to fix it." Mr. DeWitt walked her to Ms. Spielman's classroom, telling her that "everything will be okay" if she would tell Ms. Spielman her story was false. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Spielman that her story was false. Ms. Bonelli testified that after the meeting with Ms. Spielman, Mr. DeWitt told her, "Don't fuck up." Mr. DeWitt denied Ms. Bonelli's version of this episode. Ms. Spielman recalled meeting Mr. DeWitt alone first. Mr. DeWitt told her that Ms. Bonelli had disclosed to him her conversations with Ms. Spielman, and he wanted to clear up the matter. He told her about the girls coming to his house, the egging, and the theft of the cow skull. He mentioned videotaping the girls, though Ms. Spielman stated that she never saw any tape. He was concerned about what Ms. Spielman thought of him after hearing Ms. Bonelli's story. Mr. DeWitt did not recall meeting with Ms. Spielman prior to bringing Ms. Bonelli to her classroom. Ms. Spielman testified that less than an hour later, Mr. DeWitt returned to her classroom, this time with Ms. Bonelli. Mr. DeWitt said that Ms. Bonelli had something to say. Mr. DeWitt asked Ms. Bonelli if she wanted him to leave, but she declined the offer. Ms. Bonelli proceeded to tell Ms. Spielman that she had lied about everything. Ms. Spielman was upset. She asked Ms. Bonelli, "What about everybody else who knows about this?" Ms. Bonelli said there was no one else. Ms. Spielman knew this was not true, because she was aware that Ms. Ross knew and she suspected that Ms. Simpkins also knew. Nevertheless, Ms. Spielman said nothing to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that she saw Mr. DeWitt a third time during her lunch period. Mr. DeWitt again told her that Ms. Bonelli's story was not true, and that Ms. Bonelli was stalking him around town. Mr. DeWitt did recall a follow-up meeting with Ms. Spielman. He testified that he went back to Ms. Spielman later that day, or possibly the next day, and talked to her about the situation. He testified that Ms. Spielman was a colleague and he wanted to make sure she understood that this matter had been looked into by SRO Foster and Det. Price, that the girls had admitted to walking around his house at night and egging it, and that they had been stalking him. He asked Ms. Spielman if Ms. Bonelli had told her these things. Ms. Spielman said that she had not. Det. Price testified that no one gave her any information about Ms. Spielman's involvement. She stated that Ms. Spielman's information would have been relevant to her investigation. She also stated that a teacher who had been told by Ms. Bonelli about an affair would have been obligated to file a report with the state. Ms. Spielman did not make such a report, aside from her memorandum to Mr. Wilson. Det. Price never saw the memorandum. Ms. Spielman testified that she did not meet with Mr. Wilson when she delivered her memorandum on May 6, 1998. She recalled speaking with Mr. Wilson by telephone afterwards, and telling him that Ms. Bonelli had come to her and said her story was a lie. Mr. Wilson testified that after he received the memorandum, he called Mr. Flynn and asked him to begin an investigation. Mr. Flynn told him that an investigation was already underway concerning Mr. DeWitt and two female students, and that Mr. Flynn would make sure that Mr. Wilson received a copy of the police report. Mr. Wilson testified that it is not School Board policy to allow the individual under suspicion to participate in the investigation, and he did not anticipate that Mr. DeWitt would be involved. Mr. Wilson followed up on the matter with Ms. Spielman, who reported that nothing new had occurred. Mr. Wilson later received a report stating that the girls indicated they had made up the story about sexual misconduct by Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Wilson took no further action on the allegations recited in Ms. Spielman's letter, believing the matter was over. Mr. DeWitt recalled having a meeting with Mr. Flynn and Mr. Wilson a few days after the detectives concluded their investigation. Mr. DeWitt stated that Mr. Wilson assured him that "we know who you are and what you are about," and told Mr. DeWitt that an educator has to expect this sort of thing. Mr. DeWitt stated that Mr. Wilson never told him about the Spielman memorandum. Mr. Wilson recalled meeting with Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Flynn, but did not recall the details. He did not deny telling Mr. DeWitt that this was the kind of thing an educator should expect. He testified that under the circumstances of the accusations and apparent exoneration, it was something he might have said to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Spielman testified that a couple of weeks later, she saw Ms. Bonelli in the hallway at Riverview. At that time, Ms. Bonelli told her, "I lied about lying." In other words, Ms. Bonelli was now claiming that her original story was true. Ms. Spielman told Ms. Bonelli she had a feeling her story was true. Ms. Spielman testified that, "I just didn't feel like she could make up a story like that and I felt she was under pressure when she was telling me she lied when he was present." Reflecting on her meetings with Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Spielman testified that she began to believe that Mr. DeWitt may have pressured Ms. Bonelli into recanting her story. Despite her professed belief in Ms. Bonelli's recantation of her previous denial, Ms. Spielman took no further action on the matter. No further events relevant to this proceeding occurred at Riverview during the 1997-98 school year, or during the first half of the 1998-99 school year. Blair Johnson testified that during the summer of 1998, he bluntly confronted Ms. Bonelli about her actions. He told her he could not believe she had created these stories about Mr. DeWitt. He told her she was in over her head. Ms. Bonelli responded that he was right, and she did not know what she was going to do. Ms. Bonelli later sent Mr. Johnson an e-mail expressing regret at the "whole Dave mess" and saying that she had "gotten over my older guy phase." She also wrote: "I have never done anything more than kiss a guy and you know that. I wouldn't know the first thing to do." Spring 1999 Kendra Simpkins Ms. Simpkins testified that after Mr. DeWitt accepted her apology for the trespassing incident, everything seemed all right between them. She took summer classes in 1998, and had conversations with Mr. DeWitt, but stated that nothing out of the ordinary occurred. In Fall 1998, Ms. Simpkins was no longer an aide in the guidance office and so had little regular contact with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins testified that during Fall 1998, Mr. DeWitt began showing interest in her again. She stated that her crush on him had dissipated after the trespassing incident, but that Mr. DeWitt’s renewed attention made her happy and reignited her crush. She stated that Mr. DeWitt would say, “I think something’s going to happen,” or “We should start something.” She assumed he meant they should start some sort of relationship, though he was never specific about the “something” he had in mind. Ms. Simpkins testified that at about 10 a.m. on December 22, 1998, during the school’s Christmas break, she went to Riverview to give Mr. DeWitt a Christmas card. Mr. DeWitt was wearing black shorts and a black striped shirt. They talked. Mr. DeWitt read the Christmas card, on which Ms. Simpkins had written, “I hope you get everything you want for Christmas.” Mr. DeWitt asked what her note was implying. She responded that it meant exactly what it said. Ms. Simpkins testified that this conversation led Mr. DeWitt to suggest they meet somewhere. She told him that she had to go buy Christmas presents, and he told her to come back to school when she was done. She did so, returning to the school at about 2:30 p.m. When she arrived, Mr. DeWitt said, “Let’s go somewhere.” Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt drove off in a Honda Accord and she followed him, heading east on Proctor Road away from Riverview. Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt pulled off the road a couple of times as they drove. He first stopped at the intersection of Swift Road and Constitution Boulevard, and asked her where they should go. She said she didn’t know. He told her to follow him. They drove a bit farther, then stopped at the corner of Swift and Clark Roads. Mr. DeWitt said that he wanted to stay in the vicinity so that Ms. Simpkins could make it to her waitress job at 4 p.m. She told him it didn’t matter. Mr. DeWitt said, “Okay, Twin Lakes.” Ms. Simpkins testified that she followed Mr. DeWitt to the parking lot at Twin Lakes Park. She stated there were no other cars anywhere near them in the lot. She saw no other people. Ms. Simpkins testified that she pulled her car up next to Mr. DeWitt’s, on the left, and rolled down her passenger side window. They talked about mundane matters for a few minutes. Mr. DeWitt then asked her to “talk dirty.” She refused. Ms. Simpkins stated that Mr. DeWitt then said, “What are you going to do while I’m doing this?” She testified that he was masturbating. She could not actually see into his car, but could tell what he was doing by his arm movements. There was no doubt in her mind about what he was doing. She said that he did this for approximately three minutes. Ms. Simpkins testified that she was "disgusted" and told Mr. DeWitt that she had to go to work. She stated that she was wearing jeans and a tank top, and that she changed into her work uniform there in the car. She testified that Mr. DeWitt could tell what she was doing but could not see anything. She put the work shirt on over her tank top, then removed the tank top. She stated that Mr. DeWitt continued to masturbate while she changed clothes. He asked her to “show me something.” She refused. Ms. Simpkins testified that Mr. DeWitt became more excited as she changed her clothes and started masturbating faster. He never told her whether he reached orgasm. She testified that the encounter ended when she had to go to work. She had to report for work at 4 p.m. Before she left, they talked about meeting again in the park. Mr. DeWitt told her to come by his office the next day. Ms. Simpkins testified that she went to his office the next day. Mr. DeWitt told her that he needed to go Christmas shopping after work. He told her to meet him at Twin Lakes Park at 6 p.m. Ms. Simpkins stated that she didn't go because her mother made her take her younger brothers to a movie. January 4, 1999, was the first day of school after the Christmas break. Ms. Simpkins testified that her next conversation with Mr. DeWitt occurred after classes on that day. She had not seen Mr. DeWitt during the school day, but saw him leaving school in his car. They pulled their cars to the side of the road. Mr. DeWitt told her to meet him at Twin Lakes Park at 5:30 p.m. She went to the park, arriving first. She parked in the lot, away from the other cars. She testified that “nothing was going on” in the park. Mr. DeWitt arrived and parked next to her. They sat in their respective cars and talked for about an hour. Ms. Simpkins stated that, without prompting, she got out of her car and into Mr. DeWitt’s Honda Accord at about 6:30 p.m. She testified, “I wanted something to happen.” She stated that she “had no clue” how to put her desire into action. As she sat in the passenger seat, Mr. DeWitt told her to “make the first move.” She took off her shirt, but left on her bra. Mr. DeWitt kissed her and touched her breasts. He then kissed her breasts and touched her vagina through her clothing. Ms. Simpkins testified that it was dark outside when this episode occurred. The windows of Mr. DeWitt’s car were rolled up. She said the windows were tinted, making it difficult to see into the car even in daylight. Ms. Simpkins stated that it was dark inside the car, and that she couldn’t actually see Mr. DeWitt masturbating. She could tell that he had pulled down the top of the sweatpants he was wearing, and she could make out his arm movements. She was not sure if he reached orgasm, but said she heard some grunts that indicated he might have. Ms. Simpkins stated that after they had been in his car together for about ten minutes, Mr. DeWitt began getting “really paranoid.” Cars were driving by, and he was worried about being caught. He told Ms. Simpkins to put on her shirt. Mr. DeWitt categorically denied all of Ms. Simpkins’ allegations concerning the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999. After learning of the allegations, Mr. DeWitt and his wife made efforts to put together a chronology of what they actually did on those dates. Mr. DeWitt testified that as an administrator, he was required to work during Christmas break. On December 22, 1998, he arrived at Riverview for work at 7:30 a.m. He testified that during the break, he would not have worn coat and tie, but did wear slacks and a comfortable shirt to work. He never wore shorts to work. He stated that he did own a black-striped golf shirt, but would not have worn it to work because it was “not a real dressy shirt.” Karen DeWitt testified that her husband always dressed "professionally," even during the Christmas break. She never saw him go to school in shorts. Mr. DeWitt's secretary, Chris Landes, testified that she never saw him dressed in shorts at work, even during non-office hours. Mr. DeWitt testified that he worked with Ms. Landes and caught up on phone calls and paperwork that morning. He was supposed to work until after 3 p.m., but left school at about 11 a.m. to do some Christmas shopping with his wife. Karen DeWitt testified that David called her from his office to set up where and when they were going to meet. One key to the DeWitts' recreation of the events of that day was their son's recent hospitalization for an asthma attack, from December 17 through December 19. The DeWitts were instructed to monitor their son closely, and to get him out into the fresh air and let him walk about. Both David and Karen DeWitt testified that their main motive in going shopping on December 22 was to get their son out of the house and let him move about outdoors. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did not see Kendra Simpkins that morning or at any other time during the Christmas recess. He did receive a Christmas card from her that year, but could not recall when it came. He found it on his conference table with several other cards and gifts from students. He did not keep the card, but recalled that Ms. Simpkins did write on it something to the effect of “hope you get everything you want for Christmas.” He did not recall having a conversation with Ms. Simpkins about the card. Mr. DeWitt met his wife and children at University Shopping Center, an outlet mall, at about 11:30 a.m. They shopped there until about 1 p.m. Mr. DeWitt produced a credit card receipt indicating that a purchase was made at a store in the mall at 11:50 a.m. The receipt was signed by Karen DeWitt, but both DeWitts testified that their entire family was present. The DeWitts left the mall and went to Chick-Fil-A for lunch. They frequented this Chick-Fil-A because it has a playground. Mr. DeWitt testified that the restaurant was crowded. It took them some time to get their food, then they allowed their children to play. They stayed there for a little more than an hour. The DeWitts next drove to Southgate Mall, at about 2:30 p.m. They shopped there until about 4 p.m., though they could not produce receipts for any purchases. Karen DeWitt testified that they bought only ice cream cones at Southgate Mall, and paid cash for them. David DeWitt was sure of their time of departure, because he recalled wanting to get home before rush hour traffic. They drove home, arriving at about 4:45 p.m., and then went through their normal evening routine of dinner, baths, and putting the children to bed. The DeWitts also reconstructed the events of January 4, 1999. This was the first day of school after the Christmas break. Mr. DeWitt stated that he was at Riverview from 7 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. He did not talk to Kendra Simpkins that day. Karen DeWitt confirmed that David went to work at 7 a.m., because she was still at home when he left. She left with the children shortly thereafter. At 3:15 p.m., Mr. DeWitt drove to Ashton Elementary School, where his wife works and his son Ryan attends school. Karen DeWitt usually brings Ryan home with her, but on this day she was holding a computer training session for teachers after school. Thus, David DeWitt took Ryan home on January 4. This was the date of the national championship football game between Tennessee and Florida State. Mr. DeWitt and his son were going to buy a pizza and "make a big deal" out of watching the game together. Mr. DeWitt testified that it took about a half hour to drive from Riverview to Ashton Elementary, park, walk in and get Ryan, then touch base with Karen regarding their evening plans. They decided that Karen would pick up a pizza from Papa Johns on her way home. Mr. DeWitt produced a canceled check, to the order of Papa Johns and signed by his wife, dated January 4, 1999. After picking up Ryan, Mr. DeWitt drove to Concordia Lutheran School to pick up his daughter from her preschool. He signed her out at 4 p.m. He drove home with the children. Karen DeWitt testified that she did not know who would have had her children from 4 to 6 p.m. if they were not with David, because the DeWitts did not use babysitters. Karen came home with the pizza and they ate dinner at about 6 p.m. The children were prepared for bed prior to the 8 p.m. pregame show. Mr. DeWitt testified that he and Ryan watched the first half of the game, then he put Ryan to bed. Mr. DeWitt never left his house after coming home with the children. The Investigation Events began to reach a head in early February 1999. The witnesses were unclear as to the precise chronology of events leading to the investigation, because everything appeared to be happening at once. To allow for a rational narrative, these events will be treated in the order that Mr. DeWitt became aware of them. Mr. DeWitt's version of events began with hearing a rumor that someone in Ms. Wallace's English class had blurted out something to the effect of, "What's up with Jennifer Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt?" Mr. DeWitt recalled that he heard about this incident either from a student or from another assistant principal. Mr. DeWitt immediately alerted SRO Foster, who notified Det. Price to come in and assist with student interviews. SRO Foster testified that it was typical for SROs to get involved in squelching rumors, but that an intervention officer such as Det. Price also had to be called in when the rumor dealt with a faculty member. Det. Price's report indicates that SRO Foster contacted her on February 8, 1999, and that she came to the school the next day. SRO Foster testified that they interviewed a number of students, and determined that a student named Dominique McAnn made the statement in the English class. The detectives told the students that the incident at Mr. DeWitt's house had been investigated, the girls had been spoken to, and it was inappropriate to spread rumors. Dominique McAnn told them she had heard rumors about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, and the detectives told her it was something that had already been dealt with. Mr. DeWitt was present for these interviews. SRO Foster testified that he and Det. Price thought they were doing a "clean-up" from the earlier investigation. Ms. Bonelli testified that she confronted Dominique McAnn in the hallway after class and asked her why she spoke in the class. Ms. McAnn answered that she had heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she then proceeded to tell Ms. McAnn what "really happened" between Mr. DeWitt and her, the "dirty talk" and masturbation. Dominique McAnn testified that she did not know Jennifer Bonelli until the hallway confrontation. She knew Ms. Bonelli's face because Ms. Bonelli would come into the restaurant where she worked and call her by name, though she didn't know Ms. Bonelli's name and didn't know how Ms. Bonelli knew hers. Ms. McAnn did not put the name with the face until Ms. Bonelli confronted her about the statements in English class. Ms. McAnn testified that one of Ms. Bonelli's friends, Beverly Pitchford, was talking in the class about Ms. Bonelli and her accusations against Mr. DeWitt. This irritated Ms. McAnn, because the class was supposed to be reading quietly. Ms. McAnn could not recall the precise words of her response, but remembered it was "something mean" about Ms. Bonelli, to the effect that Ms. Bonelli was "weird" or "crazy" and should just leave Mr. DeWitt alone. Her statement was loud enough that other students could hear it. Ms. McAnn testified that she had previously heard rumors about a girl named Jennifer Bonelli who claimed that she and Mr. DeWitt had some sort of sexual relations. She stated that this rumor was widespread among her circle of 40 or so friends, but that they did not believe it. Ms. McAnn testified that Ms. Bonelli came up to her in the hallway during lunch, crying about what Ms. McAnn had said. Ms. McAnn at first didn't know who she was. Ms. Bonelli proceeded to tell her the story of her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that it started when she was a student assistant in the guidance office. Ms. Bonelli said something about going jogging with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she and Mr. DeWitt communicated via "IM," or Instant Messenger, an AOL feature allowing real-time conversations between users who know each others' screen names. Ms. Bonelli was not positive that the person she spoke to was Mr. DeWitt, but she believed it was him. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she had "provocative" conversations with this person, including "cybersex." Ms. McAnn testified that Ms. Bonelli appeared to believe that she was having cybersex with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. McAnn's testimony contrasts with Ms. Bonelli's own testimony, in which she claimed that Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of "cybersex" in a conversation, but did not claim that they actually engaged in "cybersex." It is found that no "cybersex" actually occurred between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, but that Ms. Bonelli told varying untrue stories on the subject. Ms. Bonelli suspected Ms. McAnn and her best friend of having sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt, because they often talked to him and appeared to be on good terms with him. Ms. McAnn testified that nothing sexual ever occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her or her friend. This is yet another instance of Ms. Bonelli's accusing or suspecting any girl who talked with Mr. DeWitt of having some sexual relationship with him. Ms. McAnn thought Ms. Bonelli was "weird" and "obsessive" about Mr. DeWitt, because "when I talked to her, what I got from her was she was very much in love with Mr. DeWitt.” Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn about the trespassing incident, and told her that Mr. DeWitt stopped having anything to do with her because he was paying attention to Kendra Simpkins. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. McAnn that she had tried to get close to Ms. Simpkins so that Ms. Simpkins would tell her what she was doing with Mr. DeWitt, but that Ms. Simpkins would not tell her. Other than the cybersex, Ms. Bonelli mentioned to Ms. McAnn only one other incident of a sexual nature involving Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli said that Mr. DeWitt wanted her to watch him masturbate. Mr. DeWitt had said something to the effect that he wanted her to perform sexual acts on him, and she didn't know how, so he was going to show her. Ms. Bonelli didn't specify the sexual acts Mr. DeWitt had in mind, but made gestures that left Ms. McAnn with the impression she was talking about masturbation or oral sex. Ms. McAnn wasn't sure whether Ms. Bonelli was claiming to have seen Mr. DeWitt masturbate, or whether Mr. DeWitt had only talked about masturbating. SRO Foster testified that among the students interviewed were Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins, both of whom denied any involvement in spreading rumors. SRO Foster indicated that he never believed they were involved in this incident, but called them in to tell them about the matter so they would not be caught off-guard by hearing the rumor in the hallways. During these discussions, Ms. Bonelli denied to the detectives that anything of a sexual nature had ever occurred between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt and SRO Foster were "really rude" to her during the questioning, not giving her an opportunity to explain. She stated that Mr. DeWitt told her he was mad at her for spreading these rumors, and asked her why she did it. Ms. Bonelli told him that Dominique McAnn had done it. Ms. Bonelli said she was as upset as Mr. DeWitt that the subject had come up again. Ms. Bonelli testified that she did not recall telling the detectives that the rumors were untrue. Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price also went to Ms. Wallace's English class. Mr. DeWitt intended to address the class about Ms. McAnn's statement, but Ms. Wallace talked them out of it. Ms. Wallace told them that only a small part of the class heard what was said, and that she herself learned about it only because a student told her later. Mr. DeWitt took her advice, deciding that addressing the class might blow the matter out of proportion. Mr. DeWitt recalled that they also interviewed a student named Jody Schinzel, whose mother was a clinic aide at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt stated that Jody Schinzel was very defensive, and did not want to come in unless her mother was also present. The Schinzels came in and offered no information. They were argumentative with Det. Foster. Mr. DeWitt testified that Mrs. Schinzel had a tendency to allow students who weren't sick to "hang out" in the clinic. Mr. DeWitt stated that if there were 30 kids in the clinic, 28 of them were not sick and were there watching TV or videos, hanging out, period after period, day after day. During the 1997-98 school year, Mr. DeWitt was the clinic aide supervisor, and was sent by Mr. Flynn to talk with Mrs. Schinzel about why these students were hanging around all the time. Mr. DeWitt testified that it "wasn't pleasant," and that a single conversation was not sufficient to settle the matter. Mrs. Schinzel was not receptive to any discussion about the kids hanging out. Mr. DeWitt threatened to place something in writing in her employment file, and she said she would complain to the union. Mr. DeWitt stated that it was an awkward situation and that their relationship was strained thereafter. At about the same time as the Dominique McAnn incident, Jennifer Bonelli and her friend, Mike Caffelle, spread a false rumor around the school, to the effect that Mr. DeWitt and Kendra Simpkins had been seen going into the faculty restroom together and did not emerge for several minutes. Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins told the same story about the alleged bathroom incident. As Mr. DeWitt walked down the hall toward his office after lunch, Ms. Simpkins approached him to complain about the fact that Ms. Bonelli had thrown pennies at her car and called her "whore" when they passed in the hallways. As they approached his office, they saw Ms. Bonelli standing there. Mr. DeWitt did not want a confrontation, so he told Ms. Simpkins to ignore Ms. Bonelli and continue telling him what happened. They walked past the office and up the stairs toward the media center and faculty bathroom. By the time they reached the top of the stairs, Ms. Simpkins had finished her story. Mr. DeWitt told her to avoid Ms. Bonelli and let SRO Foster know if the harassment continued. Ms. Simpkins walked out of the media center and Mr. DeWitt went into the bathroom. Mr. DeWitt emerged a few minutes later and noticed Mike Caffelle sitting at the computer lab. Mr. Caffelle looked at Mr. DeWitt, who nodded in acknowledgement. Mr. Caffelle had been sent up the back stairs by Ms. Bonelli to observe Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins after they passed Mr. DeWitt's office. After Mr. DeWitt emerged from the bathroom, Mr. Caffelle reported back to Ms. Bonelli that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins had gone into the bathroom together. They proceeded to spread this story around the school. Shortly thereafter, SRO Foster showed Mr. DeWitt some notes he'd gotten from a student concerning a rumor that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins had gone into the bathroom together. They determined that Mr. Caffelle was the main source of the rumor and called him in to talk about it. Mr. Caffelle admitted starting the rumor with Ms. Bonelli, and admitted that he had not seen Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Simpkins enter the bathroom together. Ms. Bonelli testified that a few days before the detectives began their investigation of the bathroom rumor, she was having discussions with Dominique McAnn, Jody Schinzel, and Mrs. Schinzel about Mr. DeWitt. The evidence establishes that these conversations occurred on or before February 3, 1999. The investigation of the rumors commenced on February 9, 1999. The record is unclear as to how many days elapsed between the episode in the English class and Mr. DeWitt's becoming aware of it and alerting the detectives. The evidence leads to the inference that it must have been several days, because Ms. Bonelli was certain that her confrontation with Ms. McAnn just after the English class episode preceded these discussions about Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Schinzel told Ms. Bonelli that she was not the only student with whom Mr. DeWitt had had sexual relationships, that Mr. DeWitt had done this "a lot." Mrs. Schinzel named Melissa McBride as a student who'd had a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli testified that she believed Mrs. Schinzel, who did not testify at the hearing. Melissa McBride testified at the hearing. She graduated from Riverview in 1997, and had worked in the attendance office near Mr. DeWitt's office during her senior year. She testified that Mr. DeWitt hugged her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable, but that she didn't feel that he was trying to provoke a sexual response. She testified that Mr. DeWitt denied having a wife and children, even when she told him that she knew better. She felt that his "body language" indicated he was interested in a relationship with her, but that Mr. DeWitt did nothing overt to pursue such a relationship. She did not have a sexual relationship with David DeWitt. The Schinzels urged Ms. Bonelli to make a written statement against Mr. DeWitt. They told her that other girls were writing statements, and it would "help out" if she also wrote one. They assured her that her name would "just be caught up in the jumble." They told her that someone else could write the statement for her. Jody Schinzel and Dominique McAnn urged Ms. Bonelli to go see teacher Mary Kenne. She went, along with Jody Schinzel. Ms. Kenne sat down with the girls and had Ms. Bonelli tell her story. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Kenne then asked her to write a statement, to go along with the statements that other people were writing. Ms. Kenne would not tell her who the other people were, and assured her that her own statement would be held in confidence. Ms. Bonelli dictated a statement, and Jody Schinzel wrote it down. Ms. Kenne testified that Jody Schinzel had come to see her on February 3, and asked to speak privately. Ms. Schinzel showed Ms. Kenne handwritten notes passed between her and Ms. Bonelli. The notes briefly recapitulated Ms. Bonelli's accusations: Mr. DeWitt's telling her about his "problem," their jogging together, and the sexual conversations. The note stated: "Basically we never did anything physical. He always wanted me to watch him jerk off and I did once. But I wanted to get physical . . . never happened. Then along came Kendra. " [Emphasis in original] Ms. Schinzel told Ms. Kenne that Ms. Bonelli had been involved with Mr. DeWitt and that another girl at Riverview was involved with him. Ms. Kenne testified that she read half the notes and then told Ms. Schinzel that if these things were true, she needed to hear them directly from Ms. Bonelli, that Ms. Bonelli must be willing to come forward and state that these things happened. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Schinzel that she was required by law to take action on these accusations. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Schinzel came back on February 4 and told her that Ms. Bonelli would come to see her the next day. Ms. Schinzel brought Ms. Bonelli with her to Ms. Kenne's classroom on February 5. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Kenne her allegations against Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Bonelli told of events that had happened the previous year, such as trespassing at Mr. DeWitt's house, and of their relationship at Twin Lakes Park and around school. Ms. Bonelli told Ms. Kenne that in 1998 she had gone to Karen Spielman and told her the allegations, but that she had later recanted them. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Bonelli that if she wanted to take the matter further, she would have to write down her allegations in a signed statement. Ms. Kenne denied forcing or intimidating Ms. Bonelli into writing the statement, and made no mention of having told Ms. Bonelli that other girls were also writing statements. Ms. Bonelli testified that Ms. Kenne "encouraged" her to write the statement, but did not "pressure" her to do so. When he interviewed Ms. Bonelli a few days later, Principal Flynn made a notation that Ms. Bonelli told him that she "felt pressure from the clinic lady and Ms. Kenne to write it down." Ms. Kenne left Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Schinzel alone to produce the statement. Ms. Bonelli didn't have time to finish it before her next class, so she took it with her. She finally gave it to Ms. Kenne during sixth period. Ms. Kenne testified that she glanced at it quickly, made a copy, and cut Ms. Bonelli's name out of the copy. Ms. Kenne testified that just after school on February 5, Ms. Bonelli returned to her room with Christine Ross, who told Ms. Kenne that she witnessed one of the incidents at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Kenne testified that Ms. Ross told her that she was in the back of Ms. Bonelli's car, covered in blankets, while Ms. Bonelli had a conversation with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Ross said she was aware of other things that had happened between Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Ross that if she wanted the matter taken further, she would have to make a written statement. Ms. Ross wrote a statement and gave it to Ms. Kenne. Ms. Ross' written statement consisted of allegations that she had witnessed Mr. DeWitt talking to Ms. Bonelli at football games and at Twin Lakes Park. She had also seen Mr. DeWitt having conversations with other students. She claimed to have confronted Mr. DeWitt about his alleged actions, and claimed that he would neither confirm nor deny those actions. Ms. Ross' written statement makes no mention of the sexual conversation she claimed in her testimony to have heard between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Bonelli, though Ms. Kenne recalled that Ms. Ross told her about it. Ms. Kenne testified that she took the statements to Velton Hodges at the Sarasota Classified Teachers Association, the local teachers' union. Mr. Hodges made copies and took them to Mr. Witt at the Superintendent's office. Ms. Kenne stated that on Monday morning, February 8, Mr. DeWitt came to her room at about 10:45 a.m. and asked to speak with her. Mr. DeWitt said he had heard she was conducting an investigation and taking statements from girls. Ms. Kenne told Mr. DeWitt that she was not conducting an investigation, that some girls had come to her, she had them write down what they had to say, and she turned it in. Ms. Kenne testified that Mr. DeWitt asked her for the statements. She did not have the statements, having given her copies to a friend for safe keeping. Mr. DeWitt asked her why she hadn't come to him about the situation. Ms. Kenne responded that she was not comfortable doing that, because Mr. DeWitt was involved in the allegations, and because she had a bad experience in the past with a similar, unrelated situation. Ms. Kenne told Mr. DeWitt what the girls had said about him, but she refused to identify the girls because they had come to her in confidence. Mr. DeWitt told her that he already knew it was Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt's recollection of this meeting was similar to Ms. Kenne's, except that he could not recall whether he mentioned Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins by name. Ms. Kenne stated that at about 12:30 p.m. on the same day, SRO Foster called and asked her to meet with him and Mr. DeWitt in Mr. Flynn's office. She went to Mr. Flynn's office, and they discussed the allegations. Ms. Kenne stated that much of the discussion involved why she had not come to Mr. DeWitt or SRO Foster before turning the girls' statements in to the administration. Ms. Bonelli testified that, during the course of her interview with Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price about the McAnn incident and bathroom rumors, Mr. DeWitt brought up the subject of her written statement to Ms. Kenne. Mr. DeWitt recalled that he learned of the statements from Dominique McAnn. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. DeWitt, SRO Foster and Det. Price that her written statement was not true. SRO Foster testified that Ms. Bonelli told them that Jody Schinzel had pressured her to make the statement, and that the events described therein never happened. Det. Price recalled that Ms. Bonelli did not tell them exactly what she had written, but led them to believe it was not very damaging to Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli told them that she thought Christine Ross had embellished or fabricated some of her statement, and implied that it was Ms. Ross' statement that was the source of Ms. Kenne's concerns. Ms. Bonelli told Det. Price that Ms. Ross and her mother hated Mr. DeWitt because he had refused to allow Ms. Ross out of class early to go to work. Mr. DeWitt recalled the incident with Ms. Ross and her mother, though he was obviously not privy to their reaction to his denial of early release for Ms. Ross. Ms. Bonelli stated that she was later alone with Mr. DeWitt, and he told her to get the statement back from Ms. Kenne. Ms. Bonelli testified that she tried to get the statement back, but that Ms. Kenne did not have it. Linda Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt called her at home on the evening of February 8, at about 5 p.m. Mr. DeWitt said there was a matter at school, and he wondered if she knew anything about it. Mrs. Bonelli stated that Mr. DeWitt did not specify the "matter," but that she understood his reference because Jennifer had told her about it. Mr. DeWitt asked her to tell him what she knew and when she learned about it. Mrs. Bonelli told Mr. DeWitt that Jennifer had come home from school one day last week and told her that a girl named Dominique had made a comment about Jennifer and Mr. DeWitt in Ms. Wallace's English class. Jennifer's friends had alerted her to the comment, and Jennifer took Dominique aside and told her to keep her nose out of her business. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she asked Jennifer if that took care of the matter, and Jennifer answered that she thought it did. Mrs. Bonelli testified that Jennifer did not tell her the subject matter of Dominique's comment, only that there was a comment and it displeased her. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she assumed the comment dealt with the trespassing incident, and that she had no clue about any romantic relationship between her daughter and Mr. DeWitt. Mrs. Bonelli's profession of ignorance is not credible. As will become clear in the findings below, the essence of her testimony was that she believed Jennifer was telling the truth, though she had no idea what Jennifer was telling the truth about and never made any inquiry as to the subject matter, even after the police became involved a second time and even though she believed that her daughter was afraid of and intimidated by Mr. DeWitt. Based upon the entirety of her testimony and that of her husband and daughter, it is far more reasonable to find that Mrs. Bonelli was aware of Jennifer's situation at least as early as the trespassing incident, and was attempting to keep Mr. Bonelli from learning the details. It would be speculative to determine whether Mrs. Bonelli failed to come forward because she did not think Jennifer would be believed, as she intimated in her testimony, or because she herself did not believe Jennifer, or merely because she feared her husband's reaction. Returning to her telephone conversation with Mr. DeWitt, Mrs. Bonelli testified that she went on to tell him that a couple of days after Jennifer told her about the English class incident, Jennifer came home and said Ms. Kenne had approached her. Ms. Kenne told Jennifer that she had heard things from Ms. Wallace about Jennifer and Mr. DeWitt, and wanted her to make a statement. Ms. Kenne told Jennifer that other girls had complaints about Mr. DeWitt, and that Jennifer should make a statement about what Mr. DeWitt was doing. Again, Mrs. Bonelli stated that Jennifer did not tell her the subject matter of the things she knew, and that she did not ask. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Jennifer not to make a statement unless she was absolutely sure of the facts, because someone's life could be ruined. Mrs. Bonelli testified that at this point in the telephone conversation, Mr. DeWitt wanted to speak to Jennifer and her together on the phone. Mrs. Bonelli replied that Jennifer was out running and, besides, the family had just moved, the phones weren't set up, and it would be tough to get everyone on one line. Mr. DeWitt told her that he would appreciate it if she would get the phones hooked up so that he could call back later and get the matter straightened out. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she told Mr. DeWitt she would like to get it straightened out, too, because she had not told her husband about any of this. Mr. Bonelli had suffered a heart attack in October 1997 and was supposed to avoid stress, and Mrs. Bonelli kept this matter from him "because I didn't think anything was going to go further with this." Mrs. Bonelli set up the phones, and Mr. DeWitt called back. Mrs. Bonelli and Jennifer got on the phone with Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli was in the room, and shouted to his wife that she was to tell Mr. DeWitt to have no further contact with Jennifer; if Mr. DeWitt wanted to speak to Jennifer, he was to call Mr. Bonelli and set up a meeting in his office. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she relayed this statement to Mr. DeWitt, who said, "Okay." Mrs. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt then said, "So, Jen, you can get back that statement tomorrow and all this will go away." Jennifer agreed, and that was the end of the conversation. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she did not ask Jennifer what this matter was all about. She stated that she was curious, but felt that Jennifer had been intimidated by and was scared of Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli testified that he did not question Jennifer about the matter because he figured it was just some girls getting together and making allegations, and he didn’t put too much credence in it. He thought it was just girls being girls, and didn't know that Mr. DeWitt was involved in it. He thought Mr. DeWitt was on the phone in his role as an administrator, not as a participant in the matter. He testified that his statements about Jennifer not speaking to anyone without his knowledge was a general comment, not directed at Mr. DeWitt in particular. Mr. Bonelli's testimony is credible. Mr. DeWitt testified that he called the Bonelli residence and asked Mrs. Bonelli to get her husband and Jennifer on the phone. Mrs. Bonelli made the excuse about the telephones still being in boxes. Mr. DeWitt told her that he wanted the phones hooked up and Mr. Bonelli on the phone when he called back. Mr. DeWitt called the second time, and Jennifer and her mother were on the phone. Mr. DeWitt again asked Mrs. Bonelli to put her husband on the phone. Mr. DeWitt testified that Mr. Bonelli seemed to be "a player" in the earlier trespassing situation and a decision-maker in the house, so he wanted to be sure that Mr. Bonelli heard what took place at school that day with his daughter. However, Mrs. Bonelli would not put her husband on the phone. Mr. DeWitt's version of this exchange is credited. Mr. DeWitt went over the matter of the rumor, and told Mrs. Bonelli that Jennifer did not start the rumor and had nothing to do with it. He could hear Mr. Bonelli speaking in the background, but could not understand what he was saying. Mr. DeWitt was certain that he heard Mr. Bonelli say to his wife that she should ask Mr. DeWitt to "make sure no one contacts my daughter." Ms. Kenne testified that on the next morning, February 9, Ms. Bonelli came in and asked her to return her statement. Ms. Bonelli told her she had changed her mind about testifying and wanted nothing more to do with the matter. Ms. Bonelli did not deny the truth of her written statement, but told Ms. Kenne that she did not want to hurt Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Kenne told Ms. Bonelli that she had already turned in the statement and given her own copy of the statement to a friend for safe-keeping, so she could not return it. At about 8:30 a.m., Det. Price, SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt came to Ms. Kenne's classroom and asked for the statements. Ms. Kenne told them that she had been unable to get them from her friend, and that she would bring them in the next morning. Ms. Kenne testified that Det. Price became belligerent, and told her that she could be arrested for interfering with a felony investigation and obstructing justice if she didn't produce the statements. Ms. Kenne testified that Mr. DeWitt was yelling at her, and that all three were threatening her. Det. Price testified that Ms. Kenne was very agitated. Ms. Kenne told them that she didn't have the statements, that she had sealed them in an envelope and given them to a friend to hold. Det. Price told her that she needed the statements as part of a criminal investigation and she was to turn them in to her the next day. Det. Price stated that Ms. Kenne started to argue and say she didn't know if she could do that. Ms. Kenne started crying and accusing them of yelling at her. Det. Price testified that she was prepared to arrest Ms. Kenne for obstruction if she did not turn in the statements. Ms. Kenne testified that she gave the statements to Det. Price on Wednesday morning, February 10, 1999. Det. Price brought a security officer with her to Ms. Kenne's classroom, telling Ms. Kenne that she did not want to be accused of intimidating her again. Ms. Kenne had no further conversations with Det. Price, SRO Foster, or Mr. DeWitt about the statements. SRO Foster testified that while he and Mr. DeWitt were interviewing Dominique McAnn on February 9, he received a phone call from Todd Hunger, an assistant state attorney. Mr. Hunger told SRO Foster that he had been approached at the YMCA by Jennifer Bonelli the previous weekend. Ms. Bonelli told Mr. Hunger that she was having a relationship with an unnamed Riverview administrator, and that SRO Foster was helping Mr. DeWitt to cover it up. Foster testified that this, on top of everything else he was investigating, was "unbelievable." While some of SRO Foster's actions during the investigation could be second guessed, particularly his allowing Mr. DeWitt to remain personally involved for as long as he did, there was no credible evidence that SRO Foster was engaged in a cover-up or that he performed his duties less than competently and conscientiously. Stanley Bonelli testified that his daughter approached the assistant state attorney for advice on how to get her statement back from Ms. Kenne. Jennifer was upset, and didn't understand why she couldn't get the statement back, so she approached this attorney and asked him about the matter. SRO Foster and Mr. DeWitt went to Principal Flynn's office and briefed him on the situation. Mr. Flynn told Mr. DeWitt to have no further contact with the students during this investigation. SRO Foster contacted his superiors, who decided to pull Det. Price and SRO Foster from the case and assign two more experienced detectives, Chris Iorio and Robert Bang, to the case. Det. Iorio and Det. Bang were generally assigned to investigate crimes against juveniles. Det. Iorio was the lead detective on the case. Det. Iorio's first recollection was getting a phone call from SRO Foster that there were rumors going around Riverview and an investigation was beginning. Shortly thereafter, SRO Foster and Det. Price met with Det. Iorio's supervisors, who determined that SRO Foster and Det. Price's relationship with the school was such that they should back away from the case. Det. Iorio was informed of Ms. Bonelli's accusations and assigned to investigate. Det. Price had already called the Bonelli home and spoken to Linda Bonelli. Det. Price arranged for the Bonellis to come down to the police station for an interview after school on February 10. Det. Bang and Det. Iorio interviewed Jennifer briefly, and concluded that nothing had happened between Mr. DeWitt and her because Jennifer recanted everything in the written statement she had given to Ms. Kenne. Det. Iorio talked to Jennifer and her parents. Det. Iorio testified that he told them that Jennifer should not be making up this kind of thing and that, as far as he was concerned, the matter was concluded. Mrs. Bonelli testified that she and her husband did not go into the room when Jennifer was interviewed, that Jennifer did not tell her husband and her what happened, and that she did not ask Jennifer about it. Mrs. Bonelli did concede that the detectives showed them Jennifer's statement. Mr. Bonelli testified that Jennifer went in alone with the detectives, and they came out saying that Jennifer had retracted her statement and they were filing no charges against Mr. DeWitt. Mr. Bonelli was upset, both from reading the statement and from his daughter's retraction of it. He testified that he could see that Jennifer was emotionally upset and he figured this was not the time to question her about the matter. He intended to speak to her about it the next day when she came home from school. The Bonellis left the station, and Det. Iorio relayed his information to SRO Foster. Jennifer Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt knew she was going down to meet with Det. Iorio and Det. Bang, and that Mr. DeWitt told her that the entire matter would "go away" if she just denied the truth of her written statement. She said she reported to Mr. DeWitt after the meeting, told him that she had recanted her statement and that he was in the clear. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt was happy, and told her, "good job." Ms. Bonelli testified that the next morning, February 11, a security guard pulled her out of class and sent her to Mr. Flynn's office. The guard would not tell her why she was there. She was then sent into a room where Mr. Flynn, Mr. Cronin, and her father were already having a discussion. Mr. Flynn was speaking to her father about recommending her for expulsion based on her false written statement. Ms. Bonelli testified that she spoke up and said the statement was not false, that she had recanted it to save Mr. DeWitt's job. Ms. Bonelli received a ten-day suspension pending the investigation, but was not expelled from Riverview. Stanley Bonelli testified that he called Mr. Flynn on February 11 to arrange a meeting. He was upset because his daughter had been "forced" by Ms. Kenne to give a statement, without informing her parents. Mr. Bonelli was also upset that Mr. DeWitt had called his home and spoken to his wife and Jennifer, and that he did not know what the conversation was about, other than someone named Dominique had made an allegation about his daughter and Mr. DeWitt. He was upset that Mr. DeWitt had talked to his daughter at school without his permission. In light of all these concerns, he wanted to speak to Mr. Flynn, and the meeting was arranged. Mr. Bonelli's version of the meeting generally agrees with his daughter's. Mr. Flynn told Mr. Bonelli that he was going to expel Jennifer for inappropriately degrading the reputation of an administrator. Mr. Flynn told him that Jennifer had lied in her written statement. Mr. Bonelli testified that when his daughter saw that she was going to be expelled, lose all her enrollment credits and scholarship, and perhaps not go to college for two years, she said, "I'm not going to protect anyone. I did not lie." Mr. Bonelli testified that Mr. Flynn then said that he was suspending Jennifer for ten days pending an investigation. Mr. Bonelli told Mr. Flynn that he was hiring an attorney. Mr. Flynn's version of the meeting also agrees in most essentials with that of Jennifer and Stanley Bonelli. The only telling difference is that Mr. Flynn did not recall Jennifer saying, "I'm not going to protect anyone." Mr. Flynn's recollection was that Jennifer said, "I'm not going to be expelled for this." Mr. Flynn testified that as soon as Jennifer said that her statement was true, he stopped the interview and called Det. Price into the room to confirm what Jennifer had just said. Det. Price talked to Ms. Bonelli and reminded her that this would lead to a police investigation because she was alleging crimes. Det. Price told her that if it was found she was lying, she could be prosecuted for filing a false police report. Ms. Bonelli wanted a police investigation. Det. Price testified that she read Ms. Bonelli her Miranda rights. Det. Price stated that though Ms. Bonelli was a victim at this point for investigative purposes, she had changed her story so many times that it was best to read Ms. Bonelli her rights for her own benefit and safety. Det. Price stated that this was the end of her involvement in the case. Mrs. Bonelli testified that on February 11, after coming home from the meeting with Mr. Flynn, Jennifer told her that the statement was true. Mrs. Bonelli testified that this was the first time she knew that Jennifer had some sort of relationship with Mr. DeWitt. She testified that she had no hint of such a thing before this. As noted above, Mrs. Bonelli is not credible on this point. Jennifer Bonelli returned to the police station on February 11, accompanied by an attorney hired by her father, and met with Det. Iorio and Det. Bang again. Det. Iorio testified that he advised her that he was investigating a possible crime, and that if she lied there could be penalties, even prosecution. He read Ms. Bonelli her rights, swore her in and she gave a taped statement as to what she said really occurred. Ms. Bonelli told Det. Iorio that she started working in Mr. DeWitt's office, that she openly had a crush on him, that it started out as them making small talk. Mr. DeWitt would ask about her relationships with boyfriends, what types of sexual encounters they had. It got to the point where there was some touching. At some point they met at Twin Lakes Park, where Mr. DeWitt jogged. They reached the point of Mr. DeWitt masturbating in his car while Ms. Bonelli talked dirty to him. Det. Iorio believed Ms. Bonelli was being truthful, and decided to pursue the investigation further. Det. Iorio testified that Ms. Bonelli mentioned the name of Kendra Simpkins and told him she was involved with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins was called down to the police station. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Simpkins was very embarrassed about the interview, but eventually told them us she was having a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt and would give a sworn taped statement of those events. Ms. Simpkins related her version of the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, discussed above. Ms. Simpkins also related the story of Mr. DeWitt's alleged reaching back in his chair and touching her crotch. Det. Iorio testified that his investigation revealed the names of other girls who might have been victims of Mr. DeWitt: Melissa McBride; Jennifer Rizi; Bethany Donato; Katy Seib; Dominique McAnn; and Lori Gully. He and Det. Bang interviewed as many of these witnesses as they could contact. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. McBride told him that she was a student of Mr. DeWitt's, and that although she never had a physical relationship with him, Mr. DeWitt made it very clear that if she was available, so was he. She was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt was having relationships with girls at Riverview, because it was a common occurrence for him to be "hitting on" the girls at school and to be lenient on girls in disciplinary matters. As noted above, Melissa McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt would hug her in a way that made her uncomfortable, and that his "body language" made her believe he was interested in a relationship. Ms. McBride also testified that she had permission to leave the campus after third period to attend the Sarasota County Technical Institute, and that she discussed meeting Mr. DeWitt for lunch at Subway. They never actually had lunch together. Mr. DeWitt never overtly proposed a sexual relationship with Ms. McBride. Ms. McBride also testified that Mr. DeWitt denied to her that he had a wife and children. Ms. McBride stated that she knew Mr. DeWitt was married, and told him that she knew, but that he continued to deny those facts. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never gave Ms. McBride an embrace as she described it, though he may have hugged her shoulder-to-shoulder as he did other students. He denied asking Ms. McBride to lunch. He also denied ever discussing his marital status with Ms. McBride, stating that it would not have been any of her business. Mr. DeWitt again stated that he has never denied having a wife and children to anyone. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Donato said she had heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt. She remembered Ms. Bonelli telling her she'd gone to Twin Lakes Park with Mr. DeWitt and given him a "hand job." Ms. Donato told Det. Iorio that Mr. DeWitt told her he wanted to take her for a spin in his car and look at the stars when she turned 18. Ms. Donato did not testify at the hearing. Mr. DeWitt denied ever telling Ms. Donato he would like to take her out in his car, or saying anything to her that could have been construed to mean he would like to take her out. The detectives' version of Ms. Donato's statement must be viewed in light of the fact that virtually every witness who testified at the hearing or via deposition disputed at least certain aspects of the detectives' report. Det. Iorio stated that Ms. Seib told him that she'd had no sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt, but that Mr. DeWitt made comments about her breasts and short skirts, and asked her what kinds of sexual relations she was having with her boyfriends. Katy Seib testified at the hearing. She testified that Mr. DeWitt never made comments about her breasts and that she did not remember telling Det. Bang or Det. Iorio that he had. She testified that Mr. DeWitt made comments about her skirts, but in the context of letting her know they were inappropriate school attire. Mr. DeWitt was her grade level administrator, and she talked to him about personal problems, including boyfriend problems. She testified that nothing inappropriate was ever discussed between Mr. DeWitt and her. She testified that she felt intimidated by the detectives, and felt they were trying to manipulate her into saying something they could use against Mr. DeWitt. Det. Iorio testified that Dominique McAnn had no knowledge of inappropriate behavior by Mr. DeWitt, but suggested they talk to Lori Gully, a teacher who had recently left Riverview. Ms. McAnn testified at the hearing, and confirmed that she may have given the detectives the name of Lori Gully. Ms. McAnn testified that the rumor went around the school that something may have occurred between Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Gully, a former teacher at Riverview. This rumor was based on the fact that Ms. Gully left the school shortly after working closely with Mr. DeWitt on the initiation of the IB program. Det. Iorio spoke with Ms. Gully by telephone. Det. Iorio reported that Ms. Gully said she never had any sexual contact with Mr. DeWitt, but that Mr. DeWitt would make innuendoes or make it known he was available for an affair. Det. Iorio also reported that Ms. Gully was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt would have sexual contact with students at Riverview. Lori Gully testified at the hearing. She worked at Riverview for one year, 1996-97. She worked closely with Mr. DeWitt on the IB program before taking a new job in Fort Myers. She characterized Mr. DeWitt as a hard worker, very active with students, and focused on student achievement. She testified that Mr. DeWitt never made any overt advances toward her, but that she perceived an undercurrent of something she didn't like. She was never uncomfortable being alone with him, or threatened by him. Ms. Gully testified that Mr. DeWitt would say things that could be taken two ways, insinuating some desire for a more than professional relationship. For example, prior to an out-of- town conference they would both attend, Mr. DeWitt said to her, "Maybe we'll get to spend some time together, do you know what I mean?" Ms. Gully had a vague impression that Mr. DeWitt was ready to have an affair if she was, but stated that he was always professional with her. She conceded that her impression was just a "weird feeling" that she couldn't explain but was undeniably there. She never saw Mr. DeWitt act inappropriately toward anyone at Riverview. Mr. DeWitt testified that his relationship with Ms. Gully was always professional, courteous, and cordial. They never had any conversations of a sexual nature, and he never said anything intended to give her the impression that he had romantic feelings toward her. Ms. Gully testified that she did not tell the detectives that Mr. DeWitt made it known he was ready for an affair; this was her intuitive feeling, not a statement made by Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Gully also denied telling the detectives that she was not surprised that Mr. DeWitt was involved with students. She actually told them she was not surprised they were calling her, because a friend had told her about the DeWitt investigation. She testified that her actual feeling was that it would be out of character for Mr. DeWitt to be involved with students. Det. Iorio testified that he and Det. Bang determined it would be very important to their investigation to capture Mr. DeWitt on tape discussing the allegations. Ms. Simpkins' mother agreed to allow Kendra to wear a listening device, commonly called a "body bug," and attempt to engage Mr. DeWitt in a conversation. They also had Kendra place two tape-recorded "control calls" from the police station. Audible tapes and transcripts of one "body bug" conversation and one control call conversation were entered into evidence, over Mr. DeWitt's strenuous objection. Det. Iorio listened to the tapes during the investigation, and testified that he heard nothing on the tapes that would cause him to end the investigation. In particular, Det. Iorio found that the "obscenities" used by Mr. DeWitt told him there was definitely "something there." On the tapes, Mr. DeWitt says nothing clearly exculpatory or incriminating. Ms. Simpkins, having been coached by the detectives not to directly raise questions about the alleged sexual episodes, tells Mr. DeWitt that she has to go talk to the police and asks Mr. DeWitt what she should say. Mr. DeWitt testified that he assumed Ms. Simpkins was going to be questioned about the bathroom rumor, because he believed that was the only thing the police were investigating that could possibly involve Kendra Simpkins. He tells Ms. Simpkins to tell the police that nothing happened. Ms. Simpkins continues to question Mr. DeWitt with variations on the same query. Mr. DeWitt keeps telling her that the police want to know about the bathroom rumor. Ms. Simpkins keeps saying that the police must "know something." Mr. DeWitt says there is "nothing to know." In frustration, Mr. DeWitt does at one point exclaim, "God damn," which is the "obscenity" referred to by Det. Iorio. Mr. DeWitt never plainly tells Simpkins to just go in and tell the truth, though he testified that at some point he did tell her to tell the truth and that statement must have been on one of the "inaudible" tapes referenced above. Mr. DeWitt repeatedly tells Ms. Simpkins that the police "don't know anything," and that she should tell them the same thing she told SRO Foster and Det. Price. However, Mr. DeWitt is saying these things in the context of trying to calm the apparently frantic Kendra Simpkins. He is also plainly exasperated with Ms. Simpkins' going over and over the same ground in repeated meetings and phone calls. Ms. Simpkins was directly asked about the instructions given by the detectives. She testified that they told her to ask questions that would draw out Mr. DeWitt, rather than "yes" or "no" questions. She testified that she didn't think to ask him about specific things such as Twin Lakes Park. She testified that even if she had asked him specific questions, his answers would have been the same. Several times on the tapes, Mr. DeWitt encourages Ms. Simpkins to get her mother involved in the matter, and wants to make sure that her mother knows everything that is happening. Mr. DeWitt in fact called Ms. Burkhardt that evening to make sure she knew about the bathroom rumor and that Kendra had talked to the detectives that day. Despite the controversy at the hearing over the admissibility of the recordings, they are not persuasive one way or the other as to Mr. DeWitt's culpability. On March 12, 1999, the detectives filed a probable cause affidavit recommending that Mr. DeWitt be charged with one count of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a 15-year-old child. This charge related to Mr. DeWitt's alleged grabbing of Kendra Simpkins' crotch in his office in 1998, when Ms. Simpkins had not yet turned 16. The detectives determined that no other charges could be filed because Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Bonelli were both at least 16 years old when the alleged acts occurred. On April 5, 1999, the State Attorney's office filed a memorandum declining to prosecute, because Kendra Simpkins did not wish to pursue the case and because there were no independent witnesses. Joy Perez After he was removed from the case, Det. Foster was approached by a Riverview teacher, who claimed to have heard that Mr. DeWitt had had an affair with a student when he was teaching in Miami. Det. Foster gave this information to Det. Bang and Det. Iorio, who went to Miami to investigate. A great deal of testimony was elicited as to this Miami investigation, which ultimately proved fruitless. The Sarasota County School Board ultimately found Joy Perez through a private investigator. The testimony about Det. Iorio and Det. Bang's Miami investigation had to do with their accusations that the faculty and staff of Miami Sunset High School were engaged in a cover-up of Mr. DeWitt's alleged affair with Joy Perez. The detectives' allegations are without merit. The evidence established that Det. Iorio and Det. Bang arrived at the school unannounced, armed with misinformation as to the name of the person they were seeking, attempted to bully faculty and staff members, decided that everyone they spoke to at Miami Sunset was lying when they denied knowledge of an affair between Mr. DeWitt and a former student, and then twisted the witnesses' statements to suit their theory of a "cover-up." It is not necessary to detail the detectives' accusations and the contrary testimony of the Miami Sunset witnesses because this controversy is not relevant to the allegations against Mr. DeWitt. The undersigned has thoroughly reviewed all the testimony, and finds that any conflicts in the testimony must be resolved in favor of the Miami Sunset witnesses. The credibility of Det. Iorio and Det. Bang's report was already rendered questionable during the Sarasota phase of the investigation, where Lori Gully and Katherine Seib denied making damaging statements attributed to them by the report. Joy Perez attended Miami Sunset Senior High from 1988 until her graduation in 1991. During her junior and senior years, she served as an athletic trainer. In the 1990-91 season, when Mr. DeWitt was the head basketball coach, Ms. Perez was assigned as a trainer to the basketball team. She was 18 years old when the relationship with Mr. DeWitt is alleged to have occurred. Ms. Perez testified that there were two to four female trainers at every basketball game. The trainers usually sat on the same side of the court as the team, and less frequently sat across from the team, with the fans. After the games, the trainers would collect the equipment and store it. The trainers also attended team practices. Ms. Perez testified that she was at most games and practices, but could not say she was at all of them. Mr. DeWitt's assistant coach was Andy Chiles, another teacher at Miami Sunset and a friend of Mr. DeWitt's since high school. Ms. Perez testified that she was on good terms with Mr. Chiles. Ms. Perez testified that she met Mr. DeWitt at the start of basketball season. They would talk. She recalled that Mr. DeWitt was very flattering, complimenting her looks. She testified that these talks progressed into a relationship. They began going out together. Ms. Perez testified that she had no romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt before he commenced his flattery. They would talk at school, and at some point Ms. Perez realized that Mr. DeWitt was interested in more than just flirting. She stated that he was the aggressor in the relationship. Ms. Perez testified that now, nine years after the fact, she had no clear recollection of how they progressed from talking to going out together after school. She recalled that Mr. DeWitt would come over to her house after school. Ms. Perez testified that most of their meetings occurred after school, not at night. They would go out to eat. Ms. Perez testified that she introduced Mr. DeWitt to her mother. She stated that she wanted to make sure her mother approved of the fact that she was dating a teacher. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt had discussions with her mother about the relationship, and that her mother never tried to stop it. She said her mother was "okay" with it, though she was unaware that it later progressed to a sexual relationship. Ms. Perez testified that the dating commenced in about January 1991. She stated that they held hands and kissed on these dates. Miami Sunset was an open campus, meaning that students were allowed to leave the grounds for lunch. Ms. Perez testified that she and Mr. DeWitt would go to lunch together at various restaurants. Ms. Perez recalled in particular going with Mr. DeWitt to a Pizza Hut three or four miles from the Miami Sunset campus. She was concerned that another student would see them, because the Pizza Hut was frequented by her friends and classmates. She stated that an acquaintance did see her getting into Mr. DeWitt's car and warned her to be careful. Ms. Perez could not recall how many times she went there with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Perez stated that she and Mr. DeWitt also went to the Sizzler once, just after lunchtime. She stated that this restaurant was not near the school and was not frequented by students. She stated that they went to dinner at Tony Roma's, also not in the neighborhood of Miami Sunset. Ms. Perez testified that she and Mr. DeWitt were concerned about teachers seeing them, so they did not make their relationship public. They did not hold hands or kiss at school. Ms. Perez testified that the relationship finally progressed to sexual intercourse. She stated that she had sexual intercourse with Mr. DeWitt in his car, at hotels, and at his mother's house, all while she was still a student at Miami Sunset. She estimated they had sexual intercourse fewer than ten times. Ms. Perez testified that they did not engage in oral sex, and that Mr. DeWitt never asked her to "talk dirty" to him or masturbated in her presence. Ms. Perez stated that they went to hotels, usually between noon and 5 p.m. Mr. DeWitt would wait for her at the corner, then they would go to the hotel in his car. They went to more than one hotel, but she could not remember their names. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt gave her gifts, "little things." She recalled receiving a charm, and a T-shirt that Mr. DeWitt brought back from the Final Four basketball tournament. She did not know where any of these items now were. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt told her he was separated from his wife. Ms. Perez testified that she did not know Mr. DeWitt's wife, nor did she have any idea what his wife looked like. Ms. Perez testified that she never met Mr. DeWitt's wife at basketball games, or ever saw Mr. DeWitt talk to anyone he later said was his wife. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt told her that he had a young son. Mr. DeWitt also told her that his wife and child lived in the Kenlands, an apartment/condominium complex not far from the school. Mr. DeWitt told her that he also lived in the Kenlands, with his wife and child. He told her that he lived with his wife for financial reasons, but that they had separate bedrooms. At the time, Ms. Perez accepted this explanation of the DeWitts' "separation," in part because her own parents had slept in separate bedrooms. Ms. Perez admitted that she didn't know if there was a written separation agreement, or whether the DeWitts were having sexual relations. Ms. Perez knew Mr. DeWitt's mother, Marilyn DeWitt, who was also a teacher in the Miami-Dade public school system. Ms. Perez took a night class in pottery from Marilyn DeWitt at Miami Sunset. Ms. Perez testified that she knew her teacher was DeWitt's mother. Ms. Perez stated that she never saw Marilyn DeWitt at a basketball game. Ms. Perez testified that the sexual relationship ended in about April 1991. She stated that she began feeling that Mr. DeWitt's story about being separated from his wife was not true. She testified that Andy Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt "might" still be married. Under cross-examination, Ms. Perez admitted that Mr. Chiles actually showed her a high school yearbook photo of Karen DeWitt and that he tried to warn her that Mr. DeWitt was married. Ms. Perez testified that after Mr. Chiles showed her the yearbook picture, she again asked Mr. DeWitt if he was really married. She stated that Mr. DeWitt repeated the story that he was separated. Ms. Perez testified that she did not ask the other trainers if Mr. DeWitt was married. Ms. Perez testified that she considered her relationship with Mr. DeWitt to be private, and did not discuss it with anyone at school. Ms. Perez testified that she ended the relationship. There was not a clean break. Mr. DeWitt continued to call her at home, but she was not interested in continuing the relationship because she did not believe he was really separated. Ms. Perez stated that she allowed the relationship to "dwindle off." Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt would bother her in the hallways. When class was dismissed, he would wait around in the halls for her. If she was speaking to a male, Mr. DeWitt would come up and interrupt the conversation. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. DeWitt would also drive by her house. She did not know whether Mr. DeWitt had friends in her neighborhood or any other legitimate reason to go past her house. Ms. Perez testified that after she graduated and went to college, she continued to receive calls from Mr. DeWitt, seeking to renew the relationship. She was not hostile towards him, but had no interest in resuming the relationship. Ms. Perez estimated that she would speak to Mr. DeWitt about twice a year. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt called to tell her he was moving to Sarasota to take an assistant principal position. He called her after he moved to Sarasota, to inquire as to how she was. Ms. Perez testified that she last saw Mr. DeWitt about four years before the hearing. He called and told her he was coming to Miami and wanted to see her. Mr. DeWitt told her that he was now divorced. Ms. Perez agreed to meet Mr. DeWitt, but told him to bring the divorce papers with him. Ms. Perez testified that they had dinner at St. Michel, a restaurant in Coral Gables. Mr. DeWitt brought photocopies of some forms that appeared to be divorce papers. Ms. Perez stated that the papers were unclear, and that the information contained therein did not coincide with things Mr. DeWitt had told her over the years. She knew that Mr. DeWitt had a child at the time their relationship commenced, but the papers indicated the child was born after she graduated. Ms. Perez stated that this caused her to conclude these were not real divorce papers. After the dinner at St. Michel, Ms. Perez had no desire to see Mr. DeWitt again. She told him as much at the dinner. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. DeWitt never called her again after the dinner, and she never saw him. Ms. Perez did not ask for or keep a copy of the divorce papers. She stated there was no reason to keep them. Once she concluded the papers were not legitimate, she had her proof. Ms. Perez was asked how she could be sure the child mentioned in the divorce papers was the same child she knew about from her days at Miami Sunset. She answered that someone had told her Mr. DeWitt had another child, but Mr. DeWitt denied it every time she asked him. Ms. Perez testified that she never reported her relationship with Mr. DeWitt to anyone in authority at the school. In retrospect, she believed that she should have done so. She stated that she knew it was wrong to have a sexual relationship with a married man, even when the relationship was active. Ms. Perez learned of this case when she was contacted by the Sarasota County school system's private investigator, who took her recorded statement. Ms. Perez testified that Marilyn DeWitt phoned her a few months prior to the hearing. Mrs. DeWitt wanted to know why Ms. Perez was testifying against her son. Ms. Perez told Mrs. DeWitt that the Sarasota authorities approached her and that she was just telling the truth, without any intent to hurt anyone. Mr. DeWitt recalled Joy Perez as an athletic trainer for the basketball team when he was head coach. He testified that she worked at all home and away games, as well as most practices. Mr. DeWitt estimated that he saw her two to four hours a day, six days a week, during the basketball season. Mr. DeWitt denied having any sort of sexual relationship with Joy Perez. He denied holding hands with or kissing her. Karen DeWitt came to every home basketball game, sitting in the fan seating across from the team bench. She brought their infant son, Ryan, who was born on October 27, 1990, just before the basketball season began. Marilyn DeWitt came to some of the home games, and sat with Karen and Ryan. Andy Chiles' fiancée, Julie, would also sit with Karen DeWitt. The DeWitts often socialized with Mr. Chiles and his fiancée after the games. Mr. DeWitt estimated that average attendance at the basketball games was about 100 people. Immediately after the game, Mr. DeWitt would go into the locker room, talk to the players, get the uniforms together, and clean up the locker room. This process took 15 to 30 minutes. Mr. DeWitt would then come out and find Karen and make plans for the rest of the evening. Sometimes they would go out to eat with Mr. Chiles and his fiancée; other times, Karen and Ryan would go home and wait for David. By the time Mr. DeWitt came out after the game to see Karen, there would be very few people left in the gym, mostly the custodian and the trainers. The fans were encouraged to clear out immediately after the game so that the bleachers could be rolled up and the gym cleaned. Mr. DeWitt did not recall seeing Joy Perez talking to his wife. He did recall that Ms. Perez once came into the locker room and told him that someone outside wanted to talk to him. When he went out of the locker room, Karen was waiting to see him. Karen DeWitt had a clear recollection of sending Joy Perez into the locker room to find her husband. She testified that the trainers were her "lifeline" into the locker room. If she needed to take Ryan home, she would ask a trainer to get Mr. DeWitt for her. She gave Joy Perez such a message. Karen DeWitt testified that any other conversations she ever had with Joy Perez were of the "hi, how are you?" variety. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez and the other trainers were made to feel part of the team. They were invited to all team functions, including banquets, dinners, and after- game socials. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez sought him out for counseling. Her father had died in a scuba diving accident in the Florida Keys, and Ms. Perez was very upset and emotional about it. Mr. DeWitt stated that Ms. Perez talked at length about how it happened and the void it caused in her life. Ms. Perez also talked to Mr. DeWitt about general high school issues, where she should go to college, and boyfriend issues along the lines of wondering who would ask her to the prom. Mr. DeWitt testified that after a time he concluded Ms. Perez was showing him too much attention. She was always around, and was showing a fondness for Mr. DeWitt that gave him a feeling she was romantically interested in him. He conceded that Ms. Perez' actions could have been simply an eager trainer trying to impress her coach. Mr. DeWitt raised the issue with Deborah Fries-Furton, a teacher who had been the head athletic trainer and was still deeply involved with the basketball team and the trainers. Mr. DeWitt testified that he knew Ms. Fries-Furton was close to Ms. Perez and her family, and asked her to let Ms. Perez know that he was happily married. Mr. DeWitt asked Ms. Fries-Furton to do so in a manner that was non-threatening. He believed that Ms. Fries-Furton had that conversation with Ms. Perez. Mr. DeWitt testified that he didn't report Ms. Perez because he didn't feel she had "crossed the line." Ms. Perez had done nothing inappropriate or threatening. She never came out and asked Mr. DeWitt to have sex with her. Mr. DeWitt stated that it was just a sense he had that she was becoming enamored of him. He never directly told her to cut back on the attention she was showing him. Mr. DeWitt testified that he visited the night pottery class taught by his mother, and that Joy Perez was sitting in the class doing a pottery assignment. His mother introduced him to the class. Karen DeWitt recalled David taking her to the pottery class for a visit. Karen was curious about the class, and David took her there the first time so that she would know where it was. Karen recalled that she was still pregnant with Ryan on her first visit. Marilyn DeWitt introduced them as her son and his wife. Karen recalled subsequent visits after Ryan was born, and Marilyn showing off Ryan to the class. Karen remembered seeing Joy Perez in the class, but did not remember talking to her there. Ms. Perez denied ever seeing Mr. DeWitt's wife or child come into the pottery class. Mr. DeWitt stated that he "absolutely never" told Ms. Perez that he was separated from his wife, and never said anything that would lead her to think that. He lived with Karen and Ryan in a condominium in the Kenlands, off Kendall Drive. His mother lived about two miles away, and they spent a lot of time at her house, but he never lived apart from his wife. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never told Ms. Perez that he was "separated from but living with" his wife, and that he never showed her where he lived. Karen DeWitt confirmed that Mr. DeWitt never lived anywhere else during this period, and testified that they had no marital problems that approached the level of a separation. Mr. DeWitt stated that every basketball player knew where he lived. All the players had his home phone number. He stated that his house was not far from the school, and that players would stop by before and after practice and on the weekends. Ms. Fries-Furton also knew where Mr. DeWitt lived. It would not have been difficult for Ms. Perez to learn where Mr. DeWitt lived from the players or from Ms. Fries-Furton. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never showed his mother's house to Joy Perez, and that she was never in that house with his or his mother's permission. He stated that there was a spring basketball league that took place at the junior college directly behind Marilyn DeWitt's house. A path through the woods led directly from his mother's house to the college. Mr. DeWitt coached in the spring league. He would walk from there to his mother's house with a player or two from Miami Sunset, before and after the games. They would get something to eat and play basketball in Mrs. DeWitt's back yard, where she had a lighted court. They would swim in her pool. Again, it would have been easy for Ms. Perez to learn from these players where Mr. DeWitt's mother lived. Mr. DeWitt denied ever being alone with Ms. Perez in any restaurant. He was familiar with the Pizza Hut discussed by Ms. Perez, and stated that she might have been there on some occasion when he took the entire team for pizza, but never alone with him. Mr. DeWitt was also familiar with the Sizzler restaurant, which was only 100 feet away from his condominium in the Kenlands. He stated that he and Karen would put Ryan in his stroller and walk there for meals, but that he was never there with Joy Perez. Mr. DeWitt knew of a Tony Roma's in Miami, and stated that he and his wife may have eaten there during the 1990-91 school year, but he denied ever taking Joy Perez there. Karen DeWitt remembered going to Tony Roma's with her husband on her birthday, because the restaurant gave free meals to people on their birthday. Mr. DeWitt denied taking Joy Perez to the St. Michel restaurant in Coral Gables. He stated that he has never been to that restaurant, which he said was "quite expensive." After the birth of Ryan in October 1990, Karen DeWitt took maternity leave until April 1991. Mr. DeWitt testified that during this period, he would come home for lunch with Karen and Ryan every day. They either ate at home or walked to the Sizzler. Both David and Karen DeWitt testified that they could not recall a day during her maternity leave that they did not have lunch together. Karen testified that David's coaching duties often kept him away from home in the evenings, so he took the opportunity at lunch to spend time with Ryan and her. He would spend at least an hour at home during lunch. Mr. DeWitt recalled giving Joy Perez a Final Four T- shirt, as he did to all the players and trainers. He testified that the school sent the basketball coaches to the Final Four. The year he was head coach, Mr. DeWitt went to Indianapolis with two assistant coaches. He testified that they walked around the various vendor exhibits, and companies such as Puma, Nike, Converse and Adidas gave away free merchandise, including T- shirts. They brought back shirts for everyone on the team and for the trainers. Mr. DeWitt testified that Joy Perez' mother told him that Joy was fond of and attracted to him. He made sure Joy's mother knew that it was not reciprocated. He never discussed with her mother a desire to date Joy. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never went to see Joy Perez at home. He stated that he would take students home after practice or games, especially after away games when they returned to the school at 11 p.m. It was not uncommon for players or trainers to need a ride home, and Mr. DeWitt would take them if no one else was coming for them. Mr. DeWitt believed he gave Joy Perez a ride home under such circumstances on at least one occasion. Mr. DeWitt recalled phoning Joy Perez' home after she graduated, but stated he was returning a call from Ms. Perez' mother regarding the schedule of Joy's younger sister Gigi, who was still a student at Miami Sunset. He did not recall if he had any assigned responsibilities for Gigi. Mr. DeWitt stated that because he had known her mother and sister for some time, Gigi felt comfortable approaching him for assistance and that their relationship was very cordial. He denied calling the Perez residence after Gigi graduated. Mr. DeWitt testified that he had no contacts with Joy Perez after he moved to Sarasota. He denied ever showing divorce papers to Joy Perez. He denied ever telling anyone that he and Karen were divorced or separated, or separated but still living together. He stated that he might have run into Joy Perez at a mall when he went back to visit Miami, but denied ever arranging a meeting with her. Mr. DeWitt speculated that Joy Perez' motive for lying about him may have been his declining to attend her graduation party. He recalled that she came by his office with a "fancy" invitation to a gathering with her family, something that "sounded like a big to-do." She wanted to introduce Mr. DeWitt to her friends and family. Mr. DeWitt testified that he never went to graduation parties with students, so he told her that he was not interested in going. He stated that she gave him a cold look and said, "It doesn't mean that much to you, does it?" Mr. DeWitt testified that he had meant to convey a general disinterest in attending such functions, but that Ms. Perez appeared to take his refusal personally. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Perez then said something like, "Some day you will know," or "You will realize." Mr. DeWitt stated that it was a "chilling" comment. She then turned and walked out of his office. Prior to obtaining her statement, the Sarasota investigators told Joy Perez that Mr. DeWitt was under investigation for sexual misconduct with students. Prior to her testimony at the hearing, Ms. Perez was provided with a copy of the police report of the Sarasota investigation. As noted above, Joy Perez claimed that one of her sexual liaisons with Mr. DeWitt occurred in his mother's house. Mr. DeWitt claimed that Ms. Perez had never been inside the house with his or his mother's permission. Petitioner offered in evidence a diagram that Joy Perez drew of the floor plan of Marilyn DeWitt's house in Miami. Marilyn DeWitt has since sold the house and moved to Sarasota, living in a house on her son's property. Marilyn DeWitt also drew a diagram of her Miami house, and offered extensive testimony as to its layout. Ms. Perez' diagram indicates that she came in the front door and went down the hallway directly to the first bedroom on the left. She testified that Mr. DeWitt told her this was his bedroom. Her diagram details only what she saw of the living area from the front door, and the bedroom she went into. The diagram does not correspond entirely to the actual layout set forth by Marilyn DeWitt. Keeping in mind that Ms. Perez saw the living area only once, eight years ago before drawing her diagram, it cannot be found that the disparities conclusively demonstrate that she was never in the house. However, it must also be noted that Ms. Perez' diagram could as easily be derived from peeking through the front window of the house, or from a description provided to her by someone who had been there. Ms. Perez' diagram indicates that there was a photo on the mantel of the living room of Mr. DeWitt wearing a tuxedo. Mr. DeWitt was alone in the photo. Marilyn DeWitt testified that the only photograph of David DeWitt wearing a tuxedo that she owned was his wedding photo, which also included Karen DeWitt. Further, Marilyn DeWitt testified that there was no mantel in her living room. Ms. Perez' description of the bedroom is problematic. Her diagram indicates a full or queen size bed and dark wood furniture in the room. Marilyn DeWitt testified that she had converted this room into a nursery a couple of months before Ryan's birth in October 1990, well before Ms. Perez alleges she was in the house with David DeWitt. Mrs. DeWitt testified that the room contained a full-size crib, a playpen, a chest painted off-white, toys, and a rocking chair. The next room down the hallway was a guest room with twin beds. The only room with a full-size bed was the master bedroom, which Ms. Perez' diagram labels a "possible bedroom," indicating she never went into the room. The testimony of Marilyn and Karen DeWitt further established that Marilyn DeWitt's house would not have been a convenient place for an assignation. Marilyn worked during the day, but Karen had a key to the house and went there with Ryan almost every day during her maternity leave. Marilyn's nephew lived there during that period. He was looking for work and spent a great deal of time around the house. Marilyn DeWitt also had a maid who came at least once a week and spent the entire day at the house. No witnesses were produced to corroborate Joy Perez' claim that she had an affair with Mr. DeWitt, or even to establish that she and Mr. DeWitt had anything more than a student-teacher relationship. Especially significant is the lack of testimony from Joy Perez' mother, who Joy claimed knew about her dating Mr. DeWitt and approved heartily of it. In contrast, several witnesses who knew Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez in Miami during the relevant period testified on behalf of Mr. DeWitt. These included Barbara Silver, who at the time was the principal of Miami Sunset; Dennis Davis, who at the time was an assistant principal at the school; and George Phaelen, who was the athletic director. These three witnesses consistently denied any knowledge of an affair or even rumors of an affair between Mr. DeWitt and any student. They also consistently stated that the report filed by Det. Iorio and Det. Bang distorted what they told the detectives. Also testifying on behalf of Mr. DeWitt were Andrew Chiles and Deborah Fries-Furton, both of whom were deeply involved with the basketball team during the 1990-91 school year. Their testimony merits detailed findings. Andrew Chiles was the head coach of the junior varsity team and the sole assistant coach of the varsity team during the season that Mr. DeWitt served as head coach. Mr. Chiles had known Mr. DeWitt since 1978, when they played basketball together for Miami Sunset. They were best friends then, and have remained close throughout the subsequent years. Mr. Chiles has also known Karen DeWitt (then Karen Burmeister) since 1978, becoming friends with her even before he learned that she was David DeWitt's girlfriend. Mr. Chiles began teaching at Miami Sunset in 1987, one year prior to Mr. DeWitt's joining the staff. They were both assistant coaches in the basketball program. When the head coach quit abruptly prior to the 1990-91 season, Mr. Phaelen, the athletic director, named Mr. DeWitt the interim head coach. Mr. Chiles testified that this decision was based on the fact that Mr. DeWitt had been working mostly with the varsity team, while Mr. Chiles was the head coach of the junior varsity. Mr. Phaelen believed that it would be best for the players if Mr. Chiles remained the junior varsity coach and assisted Mr. DeWitt with the varsity team. Mr. Chiles attended all varsity practices, and all varsity games, home and away. He knew Joy Perez as a trainer for the basketball team. Mr. Chiles stated that Ms. Perez was supervised at all times, by the main trainer, Mike McGowan; by Deborah Fries-Furton, who had given up her official position as head trainer but still performed many of those duties; and by the coaches. Mr. Chiles stated that he and Mr. DeWitt would take players home after late games, but that it was more common for them to have the player call a parent and to wait with the player until his ride arrived. Mr. Chiles did not remember either he or Mr. DeWitt giving a female trainer a ride home during the 1990-91 season. Mr. Chiles testified that he never saw Mr. DeWitt do anything improper with any student, including Joy Perez. He was aware of no student complaints against Mr. DeWitt. No member of the faculty or administration ever said anything to Mr. Chiles about Mr. DeWitt engaging in any improper conduct. Mr. Chiles heard no rumors, though he conceded that he would be the "last person" to hear such things because it was commonly known at the school that he was Mr. DeWitt's best friend. Mr. Chiles testified that Karen DeWitt was at all the home games, and sat with his fiancée, Julie. Marilyn DeWitt came to some of the games, and sat with Karen and Julie. They sat across from the bench. Mr. Chiles recalled Joy Perez asking him if Mr. DeWitt was married. He told her that Mr. DeWitt was married. This was toward the beginning of the basketball season, in October or early November, when she came aboard as a trainer and everyone got to know each other. Mr. Chiles stated that he had no idea why Joy Perez would now claim not to know Mr. DeWitt was married. Mr. Chiles met Joy Perez' mother, who attended "quite a few" basketball games. He saw her talking with Mr. DeWitt in the gym after basketball games. Mr. Chiles testified that Joy Perez never indicated to him that she had had sexual relations with Mr. DeWitt. Joy's mother never indicated such a thing to Mr. Chiles. Mr. Chiles testified that he saw no signs of Joy Perez having a crush on Mr. DeWitt. After games, the coaches were in charge of closing the concession stand, cleaning the court, and putting away the score clock, scorer's table, the team's chairs and the bleachers. After cleaning up, they would go into the locker room and talk to the team. Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Chiles would then adjourn to the office and talk about the game. Mr. Chiles stated that the trainers were responsible for all the athletic gear. The trainers ran a training room separate from the locker room. He stated that it was not unusual for the trainers to stay after the game and help with the clean- up. Mr. Chiles stated that he and Mr. DeWitt would emerge from the locker room after their post-game meeting to speak with Julie and Karen, perhaps making dinner plans. He testified that Joy Perez would be there on the court when Mr. DeWitt came out to speak with his wife. The only way Ms. Perez could have missed this regular occurrence would have been if she happened to go upstairs to the training room after the game, because the gym floor was not visible from the training room. Deborah Fries-Furton was the athletic trainer until June 1990. The head trainer's job was to take care of all injuries, the injury-reporting system, and serve as a liaison between the coach and athletes regarding injuries. Though she was not officially the head trainer when Mr. DeWitt became head coach, she performed most of the same functions. Mr. DeWitt testified that he was unaware that Ms. Fries-Furton was not the head trainer, because he went to her with any problems or questions he had in that area. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she usually rotated between four to six student trainers within any given sport. There were male and female trainers. They worked year-round, in different sports. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that she spent "countless" hours with Joy Perez, so much that Joy's mother jokingly called her Joy's "second mother." Ms. Fries-Furton observed Mr. DeWitt interact with the trainers, and never saw anything inappropriate. None of the female trainers ever complained about Mr. DeWitt. When Mr. DeWitt was head coach, Ms. Fries-Furton went to all home and some away games. She sometimes traveled on the team bus. The trainers would go to away games if there was an injured player on the team. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that the trainers and the cheerleaders would ride on the team bus. Joy Perez was one of her student trainers. Ms. Fries- Furton characterized Joy Perez as a good student and a hard worker. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she maintained Joy's acquaintance, and that of her family, until four years after Joy's younger sister Gigi graduated from Miami Sunset. She became friends with Joy's mother. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy Perez' mother was extremely happy with the role Mr. DeWitt had played in her daughter's life as a teacher and confidant for her problems, someone who gave her good solid advice. She recalled Joy's mother talking about Mr. DeWitt being "wonderful" in helping Joy to resolve the issues surrounding her father's death. Joy Perez herself told Ms. Fries-Furton that she confided in Mr. DeWitt and that it was very helpful to discuss her father's death with a man. Ms. Fries-Furton saw Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez together, but never witnessed any inappropriate behavior by either of them toward the other. Joy Perez never expressed to Ms. Fries-Furton any feelings for Mr. DeWitt beyond a normal teacher-student relationship. Ms. Perez was dating a boy she was "very involved with," and expressed no romantic interest in Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy had concerns about the type of relationship her boyfriend wanted. She counseled Joy to maintain her attitude, which was abstaining from any sexual relationship while in school. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that Joy Perez was always "very clear" about the fact that she had abstained from having sex with her boyfriend or anyone else. Ms. Fries-Furton said that, during the basketball season, she heard a rumor about Mr. DeWitt and Joy Perez, but that it was stated jokingly by other students, who said that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez had "a thing" for each other. There was no mention of any sexual impropriety. She recalled discussing with the trainers the rumor about Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez. She stated that they all laughed about it because they thought it was very funny. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that there are always rumors about coaches and any females around them. Ms. Fries-Furton heard rumors that she herself was involved with Mr. DeWitt and with Mr. Chiles. Her student trainers told her the rumor about herself and Mr. DeWitt, because they thought it was funny. She took all these rumors as part of working with teenagers in the school system. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that had she taken these rumors seriously, she would have reported them immediately to Mr. Phaelen, and stated that she had done so in the past. She did not positively recall talking to Mr. DeWitt about the rumor, but she did remember Joy Perez telling her that there was no relationship between Mr. DeWitt and her. Ms. Perez told her that she simply valued Mr. DeWitt's willingness to listen to her. Ms. Fries-Furton did not talk to Ms. Perez' mother about the rumor, because Joy had told her there was nothing to it and she had no reason not to believe her. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she never saw Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez together outside of school functions. She stated that she always stayed after basketball games until the trainers were picked up, and that she would take Joy home if her mother asked. Ms. Fries-Furton never saw Mr. DeWitt or Mr. Chiles taking Joy Perez home. Ms. Fries-Furton was the scorekeeper at all home games during the 1990-91 season, sitting at a table next to the team bench. She saw Karen DeWitt at the games, and would talk to her before the games and at halftime. She saw Marilyn DeWitt at some of the games. Ms. Fries-Furton stated that Joy Perez would have been in a position to see Karen and Marilyn DeWitt together at the games, and that most of the trainers knew them and would speak to them. She could not specifically recall Joy Perez having a conversation with Karen DeWitt, but knew that Karen spoke to most of the trainers at the games. Ms. Fries-Furton never had an understanding that Karen and David DeWitt were separated, nor did she hear any rumors of marital problems between them. Joy Perez never asked Ms. Fries- Furton if Mr. DeWitt was separated or having problems, or if he was married. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she simply understood that Joy knew David DeWitt was married to Karen DeWitt. Joy Perez never gave her any indication that she doubted Mr. DeWitt's marital status. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she continued to see Joy Perez even after her younger sister Gigi graduated, because they had been very close and Joy was a young woman she admired and respected. Ms. Fries-Furton would attend craft shows with Joy's mother, and stated that she had been to the mother's home more times than she could count. She never heard any member of the Perez family complain about the conduct of David DeWitt, or ever so much as insinuate that Joy Perez had an affair with David DeWitt. Joy Perez testified that she "knew of" Ms. Fries- Furton, but that she never confided in her or talked to her about personal problems. She became friendly with Ms. Fries-Furton only after she graduated. Ms. Perez stated that she could not recall whether she discussed her father's death with Ms. Fries- Furton. She flatly denied seeking counsel with Mr. DeWitt about her father's death. She conceded that Ms. Fries-Furton became friends with her mother, but claimed not to know when this friendship began or to know much else about it. Ms. Perez' denial of her friendship with Ms. Fries- Furton cannot be credited. Ms. Perez' denial that she sought the counsel of Mr. DeWitt regarding her father's death cannot be credited. Post-Suspension Stalking Mr. DeWitt was suspended with pay on February 17, 1999, after the Sarasota police completed their investigation of events at Riverview. Their report indicated that they had been unable to locate the former student in Miami with whom Mr. DeWitt was alleged to have had a sexual relationship. The Sarasota County School Board hired a private investigator to look into the Miami allegations. The investigator found Joy Perez and obtained a statement from her confirming that she had had a sexual relationship with Mr. DeWitt while she was a student at Miami Sunset. The investigator filed a report on April 15, 1999. On April 16, 1999, Mr. DeWitt's employment was terminated. Mr. DeWitt offered extensive testimony on events that transpired after his suspension and termination. While these events have no bearing on the charges that were lodged against Mr. DeWitt, they are relevant in that they call into question the veracity and credibility of Kendra Simpkins, one of Mr. DeWitt's primary accusers. Mr. DeWitt testified that after the trespassing incident, Jennifer Bonelli ceased her practice of following him around town. However, Kendra Simpkins began engaging in what Mr. DeWitt termed "stalking" behavior at about the time she began to drive a car. Her stalking intensified at the time Mr. DeWitt was suspended on February 17, 1999. On February 18, 1999, the day after Mr. DeWitt's suspension, an incident occurred at Ashton Elementary School, where Karen DeWitt worked as the instructional technology facilitator. Mari Usher was a technology support person at the school and worked closely with Karen DeWitt. Ms. Usher testified that late that morning, a girl came into the hallway between her office and that of Karen DeWitt. The girl stated that she was looking for Mrs. DeWitt. Ms. Usher told the girl that Mrs. DeWitt was off campus, and asked what reason she had to see her and whether she could be of assistance. The girl became nervous and said there was nothing Ms. Usher could do for her. The girl then asked Ms. Usher to give a message to Mrs. DeWitt. She asked Ms. Usher to tell Mrs. DeWitt that she would be picking up her brother at the end of the day. Ms. Usher testified that this made her suspicious, because as technology facilitator Karen DeWitt did not have a regular class of students and would not ordinarily be in charge of dismissing students at the end of the day. Ms. Usher asked the girl the name of her brother. The girl responded that his name was Clayton and he was in the second grade. Ms. Usher told her she would give the message to Mrs. DeWitt. The girl then turned and walked out of the school. Ms. Usher followed her, because she was suspicious. After the girl was gone, Ms. Usher spoke to the receptionist. The girl had not signed in or been given a hall pass. Ms. Usher then went to the school registrar and asked whether there was a student named Clayton in the second grade. There was no such student. Ms. Usher testified that the school's principal had told her that morning to be careful of high school students or reporters asking for Karen DeWitt, because of the press coverage of David DeWitt's suspension. Ms. Usher went to an assistant principal and reported the incident. The assistant principal sent her to the school's SRO, who wrote up a report. Ms. Usher also reported the incident to Karen DeWitt, who appeared concerned. Ms. Usher testified that her children attend Riverview, and that when she went home she looked for the girl's picture in the Riverview yearbook. She testified that she found the girl's picture, and that the girl was Kendra Simpkins. Kendra Simpkins has a brother named Clayton, though he did not attend Ashton Elementary School. On February 27, 1999, David DeWitt and his son Ryan were driving to Sports Authority to buy Ryan a new baseball glove. As they turned from Clark Road onto Proctor, Mr. DeWitt saw Kendra Simpkins driving on Clark Road. She saw him, made a U-turn in the middle of Clark Road, then followed Mr. DeWitt's car to Sports Authority. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan went into the store, soon followed by Ms. Simpkins and another girl. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan looked at the baseball gloves. Ms. Simpkins also looked at baseball gloves while talking with her friend. They stood near Mr. DeWitt and his son. Mr. DeWitt made no eye contact and did his best to ignore Ms. Simpkins. Mr. DeWitt and Ryan chose a glove, paid for it, and walked out of the store. Ms. Simpkins and her friend were standing outside next to Simpkins' car. They looked at Mr. DeWitt and his son, and laughed. Mr. DeWitt drove out of the lot, followed by Ms. Simpkins. Soon thereafter, Ms. Simpkins ceased following them. Later the same day, Karen DeWitt saw Ms. Simpkins at Twin Lakes Park during Ryan's little league game. Ms. Simpkins walked past Ryan's field several times. This was not an uncommon occurrence. David DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins often came to Ryan's games, which DeWitt coached. She would stand at the fence and stare at Mr. DeWitt. She would park her car near that of the DeWitts, and would sit in her car and stare at them as they left the park. The DeWitts' story was confirmed by Teresa Flannelly, whose son played little league baseball and soccer with Ryan DeWitt. She testified that on the first day of the 1999 season, her son's team was playing against Ryan's. Ms. Flannelly was sitting in the bleachers, and Mr. DeWitt was coaching first base. Mr. DeWitt motioned her over to the fence. When she came to the fence, Mr. DeWitt pointed out a girl standing at the fence opposite them, and told Ms. Flannelly that this was Kendra, the girl who had been following him and accusing him. Ms. Flannelly watched Ms. Simpkins for the rest of the game. Ms. Simpkins was alone, and stood by the fence and stared at Mr. DeWitt for the greater part of the game. Ms. Flannelly testified that she later looked at the Riverview yearbook and confirmed that the girl she saw at the field was Kendra Simpkins. She also reviewed the roster of her son's team and confirmed that Ms. Simpkins' brother, Clayton, was not on the team. The DeWitts testified that at about the time of David's suspension, Kendra Simpkins also began to appear at their church, Sarasota Baptist. David DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins' appearances at the church were sporadic. He stated that there were times when she appeared in the parking lot but did not go into the church. When she did go into the church, she always sat in a place that allowed her to observe the DeWitts. Karen DeWitt testified that she spoke to Ms. Simpkins at church in early March 1999, after they became aware that Ms. Simpkins seemed to be following them in and out of the church. Karen DeWitt testified that she stopped Ms. Simpkins by placing her hand lightly on Ms. Simpkins' arm, to let her know she wasn't there as a threat. Karen told Ms. Simpkins that she was David DeWitt's wife. Karen DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins' reaction was "kind of strange." Ms. Simpkins said, "Oh, my God, oh, my God, oh, my God. I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry." That was the extent of their conversation. Ms. Simpkins actions would vary from week to week, but followed the same general pattern. She would find a parking space next to the DeWitts' car. She would seat herself in the church so that she could watch the DeWitts. Both David DeWitt and his mother testified that the family changed its regular pew to try to avoid Ms. Simpkins, but she would move to their vicinity. Sometimes Ms. Simpkins would circle the parking lot in her car, waiting for the DeWitts to leave, then follow them home. Vicki McClenathen was a neighbor of the DeWitts. Her son played baseball with Ryan DeWitt, which led to a friendship between the boys. Ms. McClenathen's son attended a youth group at Sarasota Baptist Church with Ryan DeWitt. Ms. McClenathen visited the church one Sunday, and witnessed Kendra Simpkins following Mr. DeWitt and staring at him during the social period after the church service. She also witnessed Ms. Simpkins driving her car up and down the rows of the parking lot, apparently so that she could drive past the DeWitts as they walked to their car. She saw Ms. Simpkins drive out of the lot, then make a U-turn over a curb and come back just in time to follow the DeWitts' car as it pulled out of the lot. Mr. DeWitt and his son were fans of the University of Miami's football team, and Mr. DeWitt had a Miami Hurricanes license plate border on his car. On Sunday, November 7, 1999, Ryan noticed that the border was gone. Mr. DeWitt told Ryan that someone must have needed it and taken it. Ryan was not satisfied with this answer. He wanted to know why someone would come up to their car and take the license plate border, and wondered who would do such a thing. Mr. DeWitt testified that he tried to "make a positive" out of the situation, telling Ryan that at least there was now one more person driving around with a Miami Hurricanes border. He told Ryan they would go buy a new one. When they arrived at church that morning, Ms. Simpkins pulled in right behind them. When they got out of their car, Ryan looked over at Ms. Simpkins' car and said, "Dad, there's your Miami Hurricanes plate. How can your plate be on that car? Do you think that's the person who stole your plate?" Mr. DeWitt testified that he knew the border on Ms. Simpkins' car was his, because it was faded at the bottom. Mr. DeWitt tried to minimize the matter for Ryan's benefit, but discussed with his wife the fact that matters had now reached the point where Ms. Simpkins was stealing the license plate border from his car. There were various other instances of Ms. Simpkins following the DeWitts around town during 1999. Mr. DeWitt recalled a second incident at Sports Authority. He was there buying a baseball bat for Ryan, and Ms. Simpkins appeared. She asked him if he minded her going to his church. Mr. DeWitt answered that it wasn't "his" church, but that she needed to speak to his attorney before she had any conversation with him. Ms. Simpkins said that she hoped Mr. DeWitt could return to Riverview, because she needed a letter of recommendation for college. Mr. DeWitt thought her statement odd under the circumstances, but gave her his attorney's card and told her she would have to speak to the lawyer before having any conversations with him. Ms. Simpkins asked if she would have to tell the lawyer that she lied about Mr. DeWitt. Mr. DeWitt told her "that would be a start," but that he wasn't comfortable having this conversation with her at the moment. Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Simpkins read the attorney's card, which included the word "counselor." Ms. Simpkins said, "Counselor? Why do you think I need a counselor? People think I need counseling. Everybody's telling me." Mr. DeWitt testified that he could not follow exactly what Ms. Simpkins was saying, and he walked out of the store. On one occasion, Ms. Simpkins followed Mr. DeWitt and his mother as they drove to pick up his daughter Megan from preschool at Concordia Lutheran Church. The DeWitts were driving down Clark Road to Proctor when Ms. Simpkins spotted them and made a U-turn. Mr. DeWitt testified that he was concerned because he didn't want Ms. Simpkins to know where his daughter went to school. He drove up and down various roads, leading Ms. Simpkins on a wild goose chase while trying to lose her. He pulled into a parking lot and waited for her to pass. She quickly picked him up again when he pulled out of the lot. Eventually, Mr. DeWitt managed to lose her long enough to pick up Megan, though Ms. Simpkins again found them as they headed home. She followed them all the way home. On August 3, 1999, Ms. Simpkins followed David and Karen DeWitt home as they left a school board meeting. On August 28, 1999, Karen DeWitt drove to Publix in her husband's car. David DeWitt was out of town that day, and encouraged Karen to use his car because it is newer and he feels it is safer. Karen was in the deli section of Publix, and saw Kendra Simpkins come rushing around the corner. As Ms. Simpkins rounded the corner, she stopped and looked at Karen DeWitt, who called it a "bone chilling" kind of stare. Ms. Simpkins then turned on her heel and ran out of the store. As noted above, Vicki McClenathen's son played baseball with Ryan DeWitt. In Spring 1999, Ms. McClenathen would sit with Karen DeWitt at the baseball games. The boys were becoming best friends, spending time at each other's houses, and Karen DeWitt felt she needed to make Ms. McClenathen aware of the situation involving Kendra Simpkins. Karen gave Ms. McClenathen a physical description of Ms. Simpkins, gave her the license plate number of Ms. Simpkins' white Honda, and told her the car had a "Mercedes" plate on the front. The DeWitts asked Ms. McClenathen to feed Marilyn DeWitt's dogs twice a day for a week while the family went to their house in North Carolina. Marilyn DeWitt had retired from her teaching job in Miami and now lived in a house on David DeWitt's property in Sarasota. The DeWitts gave Ms. McClenathen a list of phone numbers where they could be reached, including their North Carolina number. Ms. McClenathen placed the list of numbers on a table in Marilyn DeWitt's garage, and put a can of insect repellant on top of it to keep it in place. One day, Ms. McClenathen came to feed the dogs and noticed that the can of insect repellant was on the ground and the list of phone numbers was gone. She told the DeWitts about it when they returned. The DeWitts told her that on the day she found the phone numbers missing, they began receiving hang-up phone calls in North Carolina. On September 16, 1999, Ms. McClenathen saw a car fitting the description given to her by Karen DeWitt as she drove out of the Saddle Creek subdivision. The white Honda was parked off the side of the road just past the DeWitts' house. Ms. McClenathen checked the license plate on the car. The number matched that given to her by Karen DeWitt. She drove past the car, and could see in her rear-view mirror that there was a Mercedes tag on the front of the car. Ms. McClenathen called the DeWitt house on her cell phone and spoke to David DeWitt, who told her that Ryan was playing outside and he needed to go check on him. David asked her to come back, so she drove back to the DeWitts' house and pulled into the driveway. The DeWitts walked out to meet her. The white Honda was parked just past the southeast corner of the DeWitts' property. No one was in the car. Ms. McClenathen stayed at the DeWitts' house for about 30 minutes. At length, she saw a young girl, teenaged, with medium length brown hair, in the bushes in the corner of the property near the Honda. The girl's head came up from the bushes, and she looked around. Ms. McClenathen pointed her out to the others. David DeWitt testified that they watched her for about ten minutes, but she waited them out. They all went into the house, and the girl drove away. Ms. McClenathen later consulted the Riverview yearbook and confirmed that the girl she saw was Kendra Simpkins. David DeWitt testified that on September 20, 1999, he was playing catch with Ryan in the front yard and saw Kendra Simpkins' car parked at the front gate of his property. She looked at them, then sped away. David DeWitt testified that on September 22, 1999, he was leaving his house at about noon. He stated that he and Karen were now in the habit of looking around the yard for Kendra Simpkins when they went outside. He did not see her in any of her "usual places." Then as he drove out of his driveway, he saw Ms. Simpkins' car backed into a culvert across the street from his house, apparently stuck in the mud. He circled back around to make sure it was her. He confirmed that it was Ms. Simpkins' car, but did not see her near the car. He turned around and drove back into his driveway, and saw Ms. Simpkins hiding in the bushes on the front of his property. Mr. DeWitt called Ms. McClenathen and asked her to drive by and take a photo of the car stuck in the ditch. She did so. When she drove by, she saw Kendra Simpkins sitting in the driver's seat of the car. On October 23, 1999, Ryan DeWitt was playing in the yard with a friend. Ryan and the friend came running into the house, upset, and told David DeWitt that somebody was watching them in the yard. Karen and David DeWitt both ran outside, in different directions. Karen could see Kendra Simpkins hiding behind the trees just off their property. Later, Karen tried to calm Ryan by telling him that it was probably just someone riding down the horse trail. Ryan said, no, she was hiding behind the tree watching them. The above findings are illustrative, not an exhaustive listing of the stalking activities of Kendra Simpkins during 1999. There were numerous instances of hang-up phone calls, of her following David and Ryan DeWitt to Twin Lakes Park and back home again, of her following the DeWitts to church and Bible studies, of her following Marilyn DeWitt when she drove David's car, of a general pattern of what can only be termed an obsessive stalking of David DeWitt and his family. The DeWitts warned their circle of friends, their co- workers, their church, and their children's caretakers about Kendra Simpkins. They made inquiries of the authorities, but did not seek a protective order, injunction, or other legal protection to end Kendra Simpkins' stalking. However, it must be noted that Ms. Simpkins had already signed a trespass warning on April 29, 1998, at the conclusion of the investigation into the egging incident. Ms. Simpkins admitted that she had "stalked" Mr. DeWitt along with Ms. Bonelli during the period leading up to the trespassing incident in 1998, but denied the allegations that she continued to trail Mr. DeWitt and his family around Sarasota up to and including the time of this hearing. Ms. Simpkins denied ever going to Ashton Elementary School. Ms. Simpkins testified that she has attended Sarasota Baptist Church since March or April 1999, but said she began going there because her grandparents attend the church. She testified that she didn't know Mr. DeWitt attended the church when she began going there. She stated that she was surprised to see him there, and tried to avoid him. She denied choosing her seat based on the DeWitts' location, denied waiting for them in the parking lot, and denied following them in her car after church. Ms. Simpkins denied going to Mr. DeWitt's house or trespassing on his property after she signed the trespass warning. She testified that she has a friend in the Saddle Creek subdivision whose house she goes to "all the time." This friend lives a "couple of houses down" from Mr. DeWitt, on the other side of the street. Ms. Simpkins admitted driving a white Honda. She stated that she got the car in Summer 1998, on her 16th birthday. Ms. Simpkins denied ever parking her car on Mr. DeWitt's property or in front of his property. She admitted having her car in a ditch near Mr. DeWitt's property, but stated that this was the result of attempting to teach a friend to drive with a stick shift. The friend ran the car into the ditch. Ms. Simpkins testified that her younger brother plays baseball at Twin Lakes Park, and she goes there often to watch him play. She stated that Mr. DeWitt saw her at the games, but never asked her to leave or even talked to her. Ms. Simpkins admitted seeing Mr. DeWitt twice at the Sports Authority. She stated that the first time, she was there with her friend and their younger brothers. They were buying a hat for her friend's brother. Ms. Simpkins stated that she saw Mr. DeWitt there with a "little kid" she assumed was his son. She stated that she did not try to talk to Mr. DeWitt or otherwise bother him. She denied having followed Mr. DeWitt to the store. Ms. Simpkins stated that the second meeting at Sports Authority occurred in June 1999. She was alone, buying workout clothes. She did not approach him, but when he walked by and said hello, she started talking to him. They talked about church, and she asked him if he minded that she was going there. Mr. DeWitt said that he didn't. Ms. Simpkins asked him about his situation with the School Board, and Mr. DeWitt told her that he was not upset with her. They talked about his termination. Mr. DeWitt never became angry, never asked her to leave him alone, never accused her of stalking him. Mr. DeWitt asked her why she "told them everything," and told her that she could have lied. Ms. Simpkins answered that she could not have lied. The DeWitts' version of the stalking incidents, supported by independent witnesses, is credited. Ultimate Facts Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Jennifer Bonelli. Counsel for both parties correctly observed that the essence of this case is "he said/she said." The primary consideration is the credibility of Mr. DeWitt and of his accusers. An important secondary consideration is the corroborating evidence, which includes the credibility of the testimony offered by other witnesses. Mr. DeWitt took some actions that were questionable. He confronted Ms. Spielman without involving SRO Foster or Det. Price. He remained involved in the investigation well after he should have recused himself. However, these actions are as consistent with outraged innocence as with a scheme to conceal the facts. Aside from his freelance effort with Ms. Spielman, Mr. DeWitt consistently involved SRO Foster and/or Det. Price in his investigative activities. Each time a new rumor circulated or other event occurred, Mr. DeWitt's first act was to call SRO Foster and involve him. At the appropriate times, SRO Foster would call in Det. Price. These actions are inconsistent with an effort by either Mr. DeWitt or SRO Foster to cover up Mr. DeWitt's activities. Mr. DeWitt's actions were in the main consistent with his professions of innocence. If he had engaged in sexual improprieties with Jennifer Bonelli and wished to keep them concealed, it seems the last thing he would do is involve the police in the relatively minor matters of his being followed around town or the egging of his house, and thus provide Ms. Bonelli with an official platform to air her accusations. Petitioner suggests that Mr. DeWitt called in the police to provide himself with leverage against Ms. Bonelli by way of the threat of prosecution, thus ensuring that she would remain quiet. No evidence supported this suggestion. At the time the investigation of the egging commenced, Ms. Bonelli had given no indication to Mr. DeWitt that she had any intention of coming forward. Even if he were guilty, Mr. DeWitt had no motive to precipitate a crisis that might cause Ms. Bonelli to break her silence. Even prior to the egging, Mr. DeWitt had discussed the suspected trespassing and stalking with both SRO Foster and Mr. Flynn. He named names to both men. It makes no sense that Mr. DeWitt would go out of his way to link himself with these students in the minds of his boss and a police deputy if he were engaged in illicit activities with them. Not only the three main accusers, but Melissa McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt was at least coy about his marriage, if he did not outright deny being married. On the other hand, Katy Seib testified that Mr. DeWitt told her he was married. Jennifer Rizi knew he was married. Mr. DeWitt testified that he maintained a strict separation between his business and private life, and would not discuss family matters with students. Even if he said such things to these girls, Mr. DeWitt plainly could not have intended actually to convince anyone that he was unmarried. The actual facts could be ascertained by asking any adult and many students at the school. Mr. DeWitt was seen all over town with his family. They shopped together. He coached his son's baseball and soccer teams with his wife in attendance. The family attended church together. No one who was genuinely curious could possibly remain ignorant of Mr. DeWitt's marital status, even if he denied it. Mr. DeWitt's testimony that he never told anyone that he was not married must be credited. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it cannot be found that Mr. DeWitt engaged in the sexual activities alleged by Ms. Bonelli, including the "dirty talk." This failure of proof rests largely on the fact that Ms. Bonelli was not a credible witness. Ms. Bonelli freely admitted lying to the detectives, teachers, and school officials on the several occasions when she denied a relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Petitioner contended that these lies were motivated by fear of reprisal from Mr. DeWitt. Even crediting this rationale for Ms. Bonelli's lies to the authorities, the fact remains that Ms. Bonelli was also less than truthful in her testimony at the hearing. She testified that she developed a crush on Mr. DeWitt while she worked with him in the guidance office. Two other witnesses testified that she actually became romantically interested in Mr. DeWitt the previous year, before she had ever met him. Blair Johnson testified that during the summer before she began work in the guidance office, Ms. Bonelli was already jealously referring to Mr. DeWitt's wife as a "bitch" and a "slut." Ms. Bonelli testified that when she was working in the guidance office, she was unsure of Mr. DeWitt's marital status. In fact, she not only knew he was married, she knew the names of his wife and children, the ages of the children and where they went to school. As early as the summer before she started working in the guidance office, she was sending e-mails to Blair Johnson stating that "we need to get rid of Karen." Ms. Bonelli denied going to Sarasota Middle School to "stalk" Mr. DeWitt. Kendra Simpkins testified that she accompanied Ms. Bonelli there for that purpose on at least one occasion. Ms. Bonelli denied following Mr. DeWitt in her car. Kendra Simpkins, Christine Ross, and Blair Johnson all testified that they were with her when she did so. Ms. Bonelli denied sending e-mails to Blair Johnson or Linda Brooks purporting to be from Mr. DeWitt, though the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that she was the culprit. It is also noted that sending an e-mail to Ms. Brooks required Ms. Bonelli to sneak into Mr. DeWitt's office and copy the e-mail address from his daily planner. Ms. Bonelli's description of Twin Lakes Park as dark and semi-deserted was contradicted by the testimony of several witnesses, who described a well-lighted and very busy park. Though she testified that she did nothing more than "talk dirty" to Mr. DeWitt while he masturbated, Ms. Bonelli at various times told people that she had given him a "hand job," that she had performed oral sex on him, and that she had engaged in full sexual intercourse with him. She told Jennifer Rizi that she had done nothing at all with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Bonelli denied spreading rumors of her sexual activities with Mr. DeWitt. Blair Johnson testified that she would brag about her alleged exploits to virtually anyone who would listen. Dominique McAnn testified that the 40 or so people in her circle of friends at Riverview were well aware of Ms. Bonelli's alleged exploits. Ms. Bonelli testified that Mr. DeWitt raised the issue of "cybersex" with her in an office discussion. Dominique McAnn credibly testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she believed she had actually engaged in "cybersex" with Mr. DeWitt, using AOL. Ms. Bonelli testified that she was merely the driver for the egging incident, and that she did not even know what Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Ross were doing after she dropped them off at Mr. DeWitt's house. This was patently untrue. While there was conflict as to which girl had the idea to egg Mr. DeWitt's house, there was no question that Ms. Bonelli was present when the eggs were purchased and well knew why they were going to Mr. DeWitt's house that evening. Ms. Bonelli testified that she had no idea how Mr. DeWitt learned of her conversations with Ms. Spielman. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Bonelli herself told Mr. DeWitt. Some of Ms. Bonelli's untruths regarded inconsequential matters; others went to the heart of her alleged relationship with Mr. DeWitt; all demonstrated that Ms. Bonelli's accusations against Mr. DeWitt cannot be accepted, without corroboration, in light of Mr. DeWitt's steadfast denial of each and every particular. Several witnesses testified that they heard rumors about Ms. Bonelli and Mr. DeWitt, or that Ms. Bonelli herself told them some version of the story she related at the hearing. However, the only witness who attempted to corroborate Ms. Bonelli's story with eyewitness testimony was her friend Christine Ross. As noted above, Ms. Ross was not a credible witness. Her testimony changed significantly between her deposition and the hearing, and changed in ways that conveniently eliminated discrepancies between her story and that of Ms. Bonelli. Details that were wrong in Ms. Bonelli's testimony, such as the type of car driven by Mr. DeWitt, were wrong in the same way in Ms. Ross' testimony. Another factor undercutting Ms. Bonelli's credibility is that she was unwilling to stand behind her story until she was cornered by Principal Flynn and threatened with expulsion. Petitioner argues that up to that point, Ms. Bonelli's chief concern was to avoid being responsible for Mr. DeWitt's termination, and that she was willing to lie to protect him. Under the facts of the case, it is more plausible to state that Ms. Bonelli found herself in a situation in which she had no choice but to assert the truth of her story, regardless of whether or not it actually happened. Finally, the key witness against Ms. Bonelli was Blair Johnson, one of her best friends at Riverview. Mr. Johnson was entirely credible, and testified that Ms. Bonelli admitted to him more than once that her story about a relationship with Mr. DeWitt was an invention. In summary, Mr. DeWitt was a much more credible witness than was Ms. Bonelli, and the corroborating evidence also tended to support Mr. DeWitt's denial of the sexual relationship with Ms. Bonelli, including the alleged "dirty talk." Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Mr. DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Ms. Bonelli, except insofar as his manner may have served to encourage Ms. Bonelli in her pursuit of him. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Kendra Simpkins. When Ms. Simpkins began working in the guidance area, she drew the attention of Ms. Bonelli, who initially spread offensive rumors about Ms. Simpkins, then drew Ms. Simpkins into her own obsessive orbit. Once Ms. Simpkins admitted that she, too, had a crush on Mr. DeWitt, Ms. Bonelli regaled her with stories of her adventures with Mr. DeWitt, including kissing and masturbating him. Ms. Simpkins apparently felt the need to match Ms. Bonelli's stories, because she told Ms. Bonelli that she, too, had "talked dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. At the hearing, Ms. Simpkins denied "talking dirty" to Mr. DeWitt. Blair Johnson's testimony provided the most accurate assessment of the Bonelli/Simpkins relationship: they were engaged in a contest, attempting to one-up each other with their stories of intimate encounters with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Simpkins credibly testified that she believed Ms. Bonelli's stories. The first allegation by Ms. Simpkins was that Mr. DeWitt grabbed her crotch in his office. Even Ms. Simpkins admitted this may have been an accident. The tenor of her testimony left the impression that she hoped it was not an accident. Mr. DeWitt denied that the incident occurred at all. Mr. DeWitt's testimony is credited. It must be noted that Ms. Simpkins' story of the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, is similar in its particulars to Ms. Bonelli's story, involving "dirty talk" and Mr. DeWitt's masturbating in a car at Twin Lakes Park. Ms. Simpkins story includes the additional elements of some kissing and fondling during the second episode. It is noted that Ms. Simpkins testified that Ms. Bonelli told her that she had kissed and masturbated Mr. DeWitt, indicating that the similarities were virtually complete in Ms. Simpkins' mind. Petitioner argues that this similarity demonstrates a pattern in Mr. DeWitt's predatory behavior. It would be at least as plausible to find that the similarity demonstrates Ms. Simpkins' susceptibility to Ms. Bonelli's stories and her desire to match or exceed Ms. Bonelli's alleged experiences with Mr. DeWitt. Based on the evidence presented, and the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, it is no less plausible that Ms. Simpkins invented her story than that it actually happened. Ms. Simpkins' story regarding her sexual encounters with Mr. DeWitt at Twin Lakes Park ultimately founders on the dates she chose. The DeWitts convincingly recreated the events of December 22, 1998 and January 4, 1999, and showed that Mr. DeWitt's whereabouts during the critical times were accounted for and did not include Twin Lakes Park. Petitioner argues that Karen DeWitt's alibi testimony should be discarded on the basis of bias and a lack of independent corroboration. Potential bias is an element to consider for nearly every fact witness in this proceeding, and Karen DeWitt's relationship with David DeWitt must obviously be taken into account. Nonetheless, Karen DeWitt was a credible witness. Petitioner offered no particular instances of untruthful or even inconsistent testimony by Karen DeWitt. The undersigned declines Petitioner's invitation to presume she is lying because she is married to Mr. DeWitt. As to the lack of "independent corroboration," it is assumed that Petitioner refers to the fact that the DeWitts were able to produce only a single receipt from their December 22, 1998 shopping trip, and the sign-in sheet from Concordia Lutheran and the canceled check from Papa Johns to support their version of events on January 4, 1999. To the contrary, it is found that these items were sufficient to support the generally consistent and credible testimony of the DeWitts. Innocent people going about their daily business do not take great care to document their every move. Innocent people are generally unable to recall every minute of a randomly selected day nearly a year ago. The DeWitts remembered what they could and produced what they could find, several months after the fact, and what they found was consistent with their recollection of those dates. Kendra Simpkins, on the other hand, was plainly untruthful when she denied stalking the DeWitt family in 1999. David DeWitt, Karen DeWitt, Marilyn DeWitt, and Vicki McClenathen all offered credible and consistent testimony regarding Ms. Simpkins' activities. Petitioner argues that even if Ms. Simpkins is disbelieved on this point, her stalking activities have no bearing on her allegations against Mr. DeWitt. As noted above, the undersigned agrees that her stalking activities are not relevant to the allegations. However, her lying about her stalking activities is relevant to her overall credibility and veracity. Ms. Simpkins also lied to Mr. DeWitt twice about her participation in the egging of his house. After she admitted her involvement, she lied about the extent of that involvement. The evidence, including Ms. Simpkins' own testimony and demeanor, established that she was extremely susceptible to the manipulations of Ms. Bonelli. She joined Ms. Bonelli in the rifling of Mr. DeWitt's desk for photos of other students. She participated in the egging of Mr. DeWitt's house at a time when she had no grievance against Mr. DeWitt, simply because Ms. Bonelli suggested it. Her stories about events between her and Mr. DeWitt closely track those of Ms. Bonelli. She, too, claimed that she had a "cybersex" conversation with Mr. DeWitt. Her story that Mr. DeWitt hinted that "something’s going to happen" was similar to Ms. Bonelli’s story about Mr. DeWitt’s hinting about a "problem." Ms. Simpkins, too, claimed she went to Twin Lakes Park, and in that busy, bustling public place committed sex acts with Mr. DeWitt in a car. Petitioner’s theory that these stories confirm Mr. DeWitt’s guilt because they indicate a pattern in his predatory behavior would be more persuasive if Petitioner’s chief witnesses were at all credible. The only witnesses to the alleged sexual episodes were Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins. It is too much to ask that Mr. DeWitt be found guilty based on the word of two witnesses who were untruthful about so many other facts, important facts as well as trivial, in their testimony and in their dealings outside the courtroom. There is no choice but to find it equally as likely that these stories are fantasies invented by two girls with competing obsessions for the same man, as that they actually happened. The burden of persuasion rests on Petitioner, and it could not carry that burden with these highly dubious witnesses. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior with Joy Perez. Ms. Perez’ allegations present the most plausible case against Mr. DeWitt, because they are straightforward. Ms. Perez’ story does not include the obsessive elements that rendered Ms. Bonelli’s and Ms. Simpkins’ stories questionable even aside from their many outright falsehoods. Ms. Perez’ story is simple: she met Mr. DeWitt; they liked each other; they began to date; dating progressed to sex; and she ended the relationship because he lied to her about his marriage. Further, unlike Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins, Ms. Perez had no obvious motive to lie about her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. She was not wildly jealous of another girl, or threatened with expulsion from school. Ms. Perez kept her silence for more than eight years, and had to be sought out to tell her story. Even on the witness stand, Ms. Perez appeared somewhat reluctant to go into the details of her alleged relationship with Mr. DeWitt. Ms. Perez was vague on the origin of her relationship with Mr. DeWitt. He flattered her, she liked it, and they began going out after school. She recalled going to a Pizza Hut more than once, and a lunch at the Sizzler, and a dinner at Tony Roma's. Mr. DeWitt denied taking Ms. Perez out for meals. His testimony and that of his wife cast doubt on whether Mr. DeWitt would have taken Ms. Perez to eat at Pizza Hut or the Sizzler, because the former was frequented by students from Miami Sunset, and the latter was virtually next door to the DeWitts' home. The DeWitts also agreed that David had lunch with Karen virtually every day during the period in question. However, the DeWitts did not definitively rule out the possibility that he could have sneaked away for late lunches with Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez recalled that she had sex with Mr. DeWitt during the school day at various hotels, but she could not recall their names. This could be a genuine failure of memory, but the vagueness of her recollection also had the convenient benefit of depriving Mr. DeWitt of any opportunity to prove he was never at a particular hotel during the relevant period. Ms. Perez testified that she had sex with Mr. DeWitt at his mother's house, but was unable to draw a convincing diagram of the interior of the house. Her view of the general layout of the rooms was credible as the recollection of someone who was in a house once several years ago. However, the particular details she recalled, such as the photo of Mr. DeWitt, the mantel, and the furniture in the bedroom, were all wrong. There were disturbing discrepancies in Ms. Perez' testimony. She attempted to leave the impression that she hardly knew Deborah Fries-Furton, who credibly testified that they were so close that Ms. Perez' mother called her Joy's "second mother." Ms. Perez denied having discussions with Mr. DeWitt about her father's death. Mr. DeWitt testified that he did counsel her in dealing with the tragedy. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Ms. Perez' mother expressed her gratitude for Mr. DeWitt's counseling and helping her daughter through her problems. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that Joy Perez herself stated that she found it helpful to discuss matters with a man. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt "might" be married. Then, under cross-examination, she admitted that Mr. Chiles told her that Mr. DeWitt definitely was married. Mr. Chiles recalled telling Ms. Perez that Mr. DeWitt was married, and was puzzled that she would say anything else. Ms. Perez testified that she never saw Karen or Marilyn DeWitt at a basketball game, or even knew that Karen DeWitt was David DeWitt's wife. The weight of the evidence established that Ms. Perez would almost certainly have seen these women at the games, and would have known that Karen DeWitt was David DeWitt's wife. Ms. Perez denied ever seeing Karen or Ryan DeWitt at the pottery class taught by Marilyn DeWitt. It is possible, but very unlikely, that Ms. Perez happened to miss Karen DeWitt's every visit to the class. The key discrepancy involves Ms. Perez' mother. Ms. Perez testified that her mother knew she was dating Mr. DeWitt and approved of it. She testified that Mr. DeWitt had discussions with her mother about the relationship. In contrast, Mr. DeWitt testified that Ms. Perez' mother told him that Joy was fond of and attracted to him, and that he made sure her mother knew those feelings were not reciprocated. Ms. Fries-Furton was a close friend of Ms. Perez' mother, and testified that she praised Mr. DeWitt's helping her daughter and never gave any hint that there was a romantic relationship. Ms. Perez' mother could have resolved these discrepancies by testifying. She did not testify. No reason was provided for Petitioner's failure to elicit direct testimony from this important corroborating witness. The weight of the evidence, including Ms. Perez' testimony and the odd reticence in her demeanor, failed to establish that the alleged affair occurred. Mr. DeWitt was unable to prove the physical impossibility of Ms. Perez' allegations in the manner he was able to do with Ms. Simpkins' Twin Lakes Park allegations, because Ms. Perez' allegations were too vaporous to admit of precise refutation. No testifying witness had a clue that an affair was going on. Ms. Fries-Furton testified that she heard some joking rumors among students that Mr. DeWitt and Ms. Perez had a "thing" for each other. Ms. Fries-Furton took this joking no more seriously than she did the rumors about herself and Mr. DeWitt, or herself and Mr. Chiles. This was part and parcel of the atmosphere in a high school locker room. The allegations of Ms. Bonelli and Ms. Simpkins had some support from other witnesses. Ms. Perez stood alone, and thus Petitioner's case rested entirely on the credibility of the accuser, as against the accused and a panoply of supportive witnesses. Ms. Perez' testimony, in essence, was that a sexual relationship occurred, some time, some place. At every point that she offered specifics, those specifics were credibly if not conclusively rebutted. Petitioner failed to carry its burden of proof as to the allegations of Joy Perez. Based upon the above findings, and all the testimony and documentary evidence, it is found that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that David DeWitt engaged in inappropriate behavior and comments with other students or a teacher at Riverview High School. Petitioner presented the testimony of Katy Seib, Melissa McBride, and Lori Gully in an effort to demonstrate a pattern in Mr. DeWitt's behavior toward females at Riverview. Petitioner did so apparently because of the lurid statements attributed to these women in the investigative report of Det. Iorio and Det. Bang. As found above, this report was wholly unreliable. Ms. Seib testified that Mr. DeWitt never behaved unprofessionally toward her. Ms. Gully testified as to vague feelings she had about Mr. DeWitt, but conceded that his behavior with her was always professional. Ms. McBride testified that Mr. DeWitt hugged her in a way that made her uncomfortable, but that there was nothing sexual about it. She, too, had a "feeling" about Mr. DeWitt's intentions, but no concrete allegations. All of Mr. DeWitt's statements and actions could have been nothing more than friendliness and concern. Aside from the three accusers, and a statement attributed to Bethany Donato by the less than credible Det. Iorio, no witness testified that Mr. DeWitt actually propositioned her. Katy Seib and Jennifer Rizi described Mr. DeWitt as a person they could confide in and to whom they went with a variety of personal problems. The weight of the evidence showed that Mr. DeWitt was a good counselor to Ms. Perez during a time of distress. A consistent thread in the testimony, from witnesses testifying for and against Mr. DeWitt, was that he was an atypical administrator, approachable and concerned, willing to sit down with students and counsel them on their problems whether or not he was formally assigned to do so. Even Ms. Gully noted his extraordinary activity with students and his focus on their achievements. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his actions masked any ulterior motive.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and reinstating Respondent as an assistant principal with the Sarasota County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Bowman, George, Scheb, Toale & Robinson 22 South Tuttle Avenue, Suite 3 Sarasota, Florida 34237 James E. Aker, Esquire Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A. 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 4195 Sarasota, Florida 34237 David Bennett, Superintendent School Board of Sarasota County 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On June 12, 1983, Respondent moved to Miami from Jamaica where he was in the ninth grade. He enrolled in a summer school session at North Miami Beach Senior High School in the summer of 1983, where he attended classes regularly and was successful in that program. In September 1983, Respondent enrolled at John F. Kennedy Junior High School, where he was placed in the ninth grade. Although Respondent speaks English, he was placed in a remedial English class, the lowest level English class, comprised of only approximately 20 students. On September 23, 1983, Respondent was involved in a fight with a female student in the hallway at John F. Kennedy Junior High School. After observers terminated the fight, Jimmy Dukes, an assistant principal at John F. Kennedy Junior High School, interviewed the two students involved in the fight and the witnesses to the fight. Based upon that information, Dukes suspended both students for five days. After the suspension, Dukes conferred with Respondent's father regarding the incident. On October 31, 1983, Respondent skipped his science class and left the school grounds without permission. Dukes later had a conference with Respondent about this behavior and assigned him to a three-day indoor suspension. On November 3, 1983, while Respondent was serving his three-day indoor suspension, he was reported to Dukes as having become disruptive in the suspension hall. On November 5, 1983, Dukes held a conference with Respondent and a conference with Respondent's father about Respondent's behavior at that school. A warning was given to Respondent regarding any continued disruptive behavior. On December 7, 1983, Respondent was again referred to Dukes' attention for disruptive behavior; i.e., for refusing to follow a teacher's instructions and then refusing to report to the principal's office. Respondent was again counseled by Dukes and was warned regarding his behavior. Additionally, Dukes held a conference with Respondent's father that same day. On December 13, 1983, Respondent again skipped class. A conference was held by Dukes with Respondent on December 14, and Dukes telephoned Respondent's father and conferred with him. As a result, Respondent was again assigned to the indoor suspension hall. On January 22, 1984, Respondent was truant. On January 23, 1984, Dukes held another conference with Respondent, at which time Respondent presented Dukes a note, allegedly from Respondent's father, excusing Respondent from school. Due to the spelling errors contained within that note, Dukes telephoned Respondent's father, who verified that he had not written the note. Respondent then left the school grounds and could not be found. He was later assigned again to the indoor suspension hall, and another conference with his father was held. On February 8, 1984, Respondent again skipped school. Dukes had previously advised him that skipping school again would be considered insubordination and would result in an outdoor suspension. Accordingly, Respondent was given an outdoor suspension of ten days. On February 15, 1984, Petitioner notified Respondent's father that Respondent was being reassigned to the Miami Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North alternative education program effective immediately. On May 10, 1984, the day before the formal hearing in this cause and during a time when Respondent was assigned to the alternative program at MacArthur, Respondent was found trespassing on the school grounds of John F. Kennedy Junior High School. During the time that Respondent was assigned to John F. Kennedy Junior High School, he failed all of his classes. When Respondent first came to the attention of Dukes, Dukes conferred with Respondent's teachers and was advised that Respondent had no learning disability and was capable of performing academically. Dukes had subsequent conferences with Respondent's teachers as Respondent's behavior pattern continued and received the same information. Additionally, throughout the conferences held by Dukes with Respondent's father, Dukes asked if Respondent had any special problems or needs which required attention. Respondent's father answered in the negative. Since Respondent's attendance record and academic record had not improved at MacArthur by the time of the formal hearing in this cause, his attorney had arranged for testing by a school psychologist. However, none of that testing had been done by the time of the formal hearing in this cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the assignment of Respondent to the opportunity school program at Miami Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 9184. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Daniella Levine, Esquire Legal Services 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 North West 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Mr. Rexford Foster 1371 North East 157th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 North East Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools 1410 North East Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David Ben Gurion Culture Club, Inc. (Culture Club), is located at 3601 Northeast 17th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160. Respondent, Department of Revenue (Department), is the state agency which is authorized by the Florida Legislature to implement the collection and enforcement of Florida tax laws. The Culture Club obtained a certificate of incorporation from the Office of the Secretary of State on October 8, 1975, Charter Number 734016. In May, 1981, the Culture Club received a federal income tax exemption under I.R.C. 501(c)(3). The Culture Club's Articles of Incorporation state that the Culture Club's general objectives are to sponsor lecture series and trips, discuss festivals, and to promote the culture and education of all the Culture Club's members. On January 15, 1987, the Culture Club amended its Articles of Incorporation and changed its official title to "David Ben Gurion Culture Club Survivors of the Holocaust, Inc." The Culture Club's Constitution and Bylaws filed with the Secretary of State on January 15, 1987, state that the purposes of the Culture Club are as follows: To memorialize and perpetuate the events of the Holocaust. To sponsor lectures, public discussion groups, forums, panels, and similar programs on the subject of the Holocaust. To promote culture and education among all of its members. To do all such things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objectives. On December 23, 1992, the Culture Club submitted an initial application to the Department, seeking a consumer's certificate of exemption from payment of sales tax on the basis that it was a "charitable organization." Accompanying the application for certificate of exemption was an Internal Revenue Service Form 990, a Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, for the 1991 tax year. This Form 990 for tax year 1991 reflected that the revenues for the Culture Club totaled $106,298 and the expenses amounted to $111,923. The purposes of the Culture Club were outlined in part III of the 1991 Form 990, as follows: The organization is composed of survivors of the Holocaust. The organization holds events and functions to observe Jewish Holidays and to raise funds, to strengthen Jewish ties and to work for the benefit of Israel and Jews throughout the world. The Culture Club's Total Expenses of $111,923.00 for 1991 were spent as follows: 49.58 percent or $55,497.00, was spent on parties, travel, entertainment and gifts: Meeting and Holiday Parties $36,958.00 Travel 8,016.00 Entertainment 7,650.00 Gifts/Honorariums 2,873.00 Total $55,497.00 4.7 percent or $5,275.00 was spent on "occupancy." Mr. Carl Rosenkopf testified that this "occupancy expense" was the equivalent of rent paid to the Temple for the use of its premises. 5.7 percent or $6,451.00 was spent on the following administrative expenses: Florida Registration $ 61.00 Accounting Fees 600.00 Legal Fees 100.00 Supplies 330.00 Postage/Shipping 2,065.00 Insurance 591.00 Printing 1,789.00 Security 915.00 Total $6,451.00 Approximately 40 percent or $44,700.00 was donated to other organizations as follows: Friends of the Israeli Defense Fund $25,000.00 Operation Exodus 5,000.00 Holocaust Documentary 3,100.00 Cordinier Community 100.00 Jewish Federation TV 500.00 OR Chadash Girls Town 5,000.00 Jewish Federation of South Broward 5,000.00 United Jewish Appeal 1,000.00 Total $44,700.00 By letter dated April 5, 1993, the Department denied the first application for a sales tax exemption certificate. On December 1, 1993, the Department received a second application for a consumer's certificate of exemption from the Culture Club, requesting an exemption as a "charitable organization" and a "fraternal organization." In a letter to the Department dated November 19, 1993, the Culture Club's president, Ms. Rose Rotmench, stated that the purpose of the organization was "to provide social and cultural programs of activities" and that their goal was "to aid our Brothers and Sisters in Israel and the United States, in every way possible." She stated that "every dollar that remains after expense, is distributed to charity." In support of its application, the Culture Club submitted financial information for its fiscal year October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993. The total expenditures were $101, 253, and were itemized as follows: Donations $ 40,246.00 Meetings and Parties 41,032.00 Entertainment 8,095.00 Gifts 850.00 Administration Expenses 11,030.00 Total Expenditures $101,253.00 The Culture Club listed the following donations for fiscal year October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993: Forward Jewish Newspaper $ 110.00 Girls Town OR Chadash 16,000.00 Young Israel-Sunny Isles 36.00 Jewish Family TV 500.00 Holocaust Documentation 2,600.00 Jewish Federation Broward 9,000.00 Holocaust Museum 2,000.00 Friends of Israel Defense Fund 10,000.00 Total Donations $40,046.00 The parties stipulated that the Jewish Federation of South Broward and the United Jewish Appeal are charitable organizations as defined in Section 212.08(7)(o)2.b., Florida Statutes. The Holocaust Museum, the Holocaust documentation, the Jewish Family T.V., the Cordinier Community, Operation Exodus, and Forward Jewish Newspaper are not charitable institutions which provide one of the seven services listed in Section 212.08(7)(o)2.b., Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented to determine whether Young Israel-Sunny Isles would qualify as a charitable organization. The Friends of Israel Defense Fund provides summer camps for widows and orphans whose spouses or parents died while serving in the Israeli Defense Forces. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the organization's expenditures were used in the provision of these services. Girls Town OR Cadash is essentially an orphanage for indigent girls in Israel. Girls Town provides food, clothing, shelter, and education for the girls. No evidence was presented to determine whether more than 50 percent of the expenditures of Girls Town is used to provide these services. In a letter dated January 20, 1994, the Department denied, for a second time, the Culture Club's application for a sales tax exemption certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying David Ben Gurion Culture Club, Inc.'s application for a consumer's certificate of exemption from sales and use tax be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, 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 26th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1741 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Petitioner's proposed recommended order did not list proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-16: Accepted. Paragraph 17: Rejected as repetitious. Paragraphs 18-21: Accepted. Paragraphs 22-24: Rejected as constituting conclusions of law. Paragraph 25: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan B. Cohn, Esquire 2021 Tyler Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Tracy L. Allen Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 559726. During the first semester of the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent Hernandez was employed as a band director at Estero High School by the School Board of Lee County. The Respondent did not have continuing contract status within the school district as he had been employed by the local school board for only one full school year prior to the schools year in question. On Friday, November 11, 1988, Respondent and the Estero High School Band traveled by bus to a football game at Okeechobee High School. The bus trip took place after regularly scheduled classroom hours. As part of his transport procedures, the Respondent had some parents of the band members aboard the bus. The parents were seated at various locations throughout the bus to assist in the chaperoning of the students. During the trip, Respondent was seated by himself in the front right seat directly behind the stairwell. There were adult chaperones in the seats directly to his left, behind the bus driver. At least one adult was seated directly behind the Respondent on the right side of the bus. The purpose of the trip to Okeechobee was for the band to acquire another live performance prior to the band competitions which were scheduled during the upcoming week. The Respondent, who was then only twenty-seven years old, was proud of his band's exceptional accomplishments during his term as band director at Estero High. The parents and boosters of the band were also pleased with the students' accomplishments, and generally considered the Respondent to be a gifted and dedicated band director. His ability to relate to the students on a personal as well as professional level was lauded and encouraged by the parents. Respondent's own ideals of what his role ought to be in the lives of his students expanded during his employment at Estero High to include a role as chief confidant and provider of guidance to all students in need of assistance. The students readily accepted the additional attention and support from the Respondent. As part of his expanded role in his relationship with the students, Respondent allowed the seventeen-year-old female flag twirler, S.S., to discuss a very personal matter with him on the trip to Okeechobee. The student approached the Respondent and discussed her personal concerns and feelings about her sister's decision to date a previous boyfriend of hers. The student sought personal advice as to why she should not pursue a relationship with this former boyfriend. The Respondent listened sympathetically, and advised that it would be improper for her to indulge in a relationship with the ex-boyfriend, an adult. The taboos against minor-adult relationships were alluded to in a generalized, impersonal way. At the end of the counseling session, the student returned to her chosen seat in the back of the bus, and the trip to Okeechobee proceeded without incident. The student's discussions with the Respondent and his advice was considered by both of the participants as part of their student-teacher relationship. The Respondent and student were each of the opinion that a strictly professional relationship had been maintained over their prior school year and current school year association with each other. During the first two hours of the return trip home, many of the students were asleep. The band's performance took place after the game, and the students were tired. S.S. discovered that she was wide awake and generally bored during the return trip. She observed that the Respondent, who was seated up front, was also awake. After awhile, the bus stopped at a McDonald's restaurant to allow the passengers to eat. When the students returned to the bus, S.S. asked to borrow the Respondent's jacket. The student was cold because she was wearing shorts and had not contemplated the cooler temperature. Upon receiving the jacket, S.S. returned to her designated seat in the back of the bus. At one point, S.S. decided to visit with the Respondent. She went to the front of the bus and sat beside him. The student continued to use his jacket to cover her knees and lower legs. Between her knees and her shorts, her thighs were exposed. During their conversation, the student covered her arms and legs with the jacket, leaned forward in the seat, and began to playfully poke at Respondent's knee. The Respondent did nothing about these antics, which went on for only a short period of time. The student then slid her hand to the Respondent's mid- thigh. The Respondent perceived that the touching had become improper. He immediately reached over and stopped her hand from sliding further up his thigh. He firmly held her hand to communicate his disapproval of her behavior. He did not verbally admonish the student because he did not want to embarrass her or himself on the bus. He also believed that his non-verbal communication would be effective. Unfortunately, the student misinterpreted the squeezing of her hand and his release of it as an affectionate, "go ahead" signal. Upon the release of her hand by Respondent, she moved her hand to his genital area. The Respondent was not immediately aware that the student had misinterpreted his signal of disinterest. To his embarrassment and in reinforcement of the student's perception of his communication, her hand quickly located an aroused area of his body. Realizing he had completely lost control of the situation due to his involuntary biological response, the Respondent turned his entire body away from the student as another, stronger signal of disinterest. To his dismay, this movement allowed the student a surer grip on the area where her hand was located. The Respondent then shifted his body and crossed his legs in a fashion that required the student to remove her hand. The touching took place over a very short period of time that neither party could reliably estimate with any accuracy. Further conversation did not take place, and the student remained in the seat during the rest of the trip, which lasted about one-half hour. After thinking about the incident over the weekend, the Respondent spoke to the student the following Tuesday about disclosing the occurrence to a school official or her mother. The Respondent told the student that he would have to go to the school officials about the incident. Prior to his meeting with the student, the Respondent had arranged for a female music teacher to be available for the student. He had told the teacher of the incident and his concern that the student was attempting to pursue a non- professional relationship with him. He was also concerned for the student's emotional well-being when he reported the incident. Once the student realized that he was going to report the incident, she agreed to speak with the female music teacher while the Respondent made his report to an assistant principal on Tuesday afternoon. After reporting the incident, the Respondent continued to cooperate with the school administration and the Lee County School District in their investigations of the incident. During the incident which took place on the bus, the Respondent considered himself the victim of a seduction. In spite of this, he remained professionally concerned about the student and considered her welfare from the beginning of the incident until the close of the investigations. The character witnesses presented by the Respondent testified that he is an excellent band instructor and is of good character with excellent morals. His ethics regarding his relationship with students consistently met the high standards required in his teaching position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in Case No. 89-3661 be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 29th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3661 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #3. 4. Rejected. See HO #10 and HO #11. 5. Accepted. See HO #12. 6. Rejected. See HO #12. 7. Rejected. See HO #12. 8. Rejected. See HO #13. 9. Rejected. See HO #15 and HO #16. 10. Rejected. See HO #16. Rejected. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. The bus stairwell was lit in front of the Respondent. Accepted. See HO #18. Rejected. See HO #19. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted the first sentence. See HO #19. The rest of the sentence is rejected as contrary to fact. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #12 - HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. The basis of the opinion was found to be factually incorrect by the Hearing Officer. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. See HO #12 - HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Rejected. Irrelevant. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. See HO #7. 6. Accepted. See HO #7. 7. Accepted. See HO #8. 8. Rejected. Irrelevant. 9. Rejected. Irrelevant. 10. Accepted. See HO #4. 11. Rejected. Irrelevant. 12. Accepted. See HO #10 and HO #11. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. See HO #12. 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. 16. Accepted. See HO #12. 17. Accepted. See HO #12 and HO #13. 18. Accepted. See HO #15. 19. Accepted. See HO #15. 20. Accepted. See HO #17. 21. Rejected. Irrelevant. 22. Accepted. See HO #20. 24. Rejected. Improper conclusion. 25. Accepted. See HO #20. 26. Rejected. Irrelevant. 27. Rejected. Irrelevant and contrary to fact. 28. Rejected. Irrelevant and contrary to fact. 29. Accepted. 30. Accepted. 31. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Rex D. Ware, Esquire HUEY GUILDAY KUERSTEINER & TUCKER, P.A. Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire COLEMAN AND COLEMAN Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Commission Florida Education Center, Suite 352 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Leslie Weaver Procedural Safeguards Florida Education Center, Suite 614 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Pinellas County should dismiss the Respondent on charges of alleged misconduct in office and sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frederick Lemiesz, was employed by the Pinellas County School District as a chef instructor at Pinellas Technical Education Center in St. Petersburg (PTEC-St. Pete) from 1978 until his suspension without pay on June 12, 1996. In that time, he has been disciplined only once—on April 28, 1995, he received a letter of reprimand for threatening, pushing and using profane and abusive language toward another staff member. During the 1995-1996 school year, the Respondent taught a Gibbs High School student named Amanda Beasely, who was in the culinary arts program at PTEC-St. Pete. Amanda had been identified as having a special learning disability (SLD) was receiving SLD services both at Gibbs High, where she was taking her academic classes, and at PTEC-St. Pete, where she was taking vocational classes. Most of the 1995-1996 school year passed without incident of any kind. During a culinary arts class in May, 1996, the Respondent engaged Amanda in conversation regarding her intentions after her graduation from high school in June, 1996. When she told him that she had no plans, the Respondent asked her if she ever had thought of a career in modeling. She replied that she had not. He encouraged her to consider it. She agreed, and the Respondent explained to her that it would be necessary to have a portfolio of photographs to get started. He offered to make arrangements for a portfolio. Again, she agreed. The Respondent told Amanda to follow him, and he led her to the photography room of Terry Allison, a Commercial Photography Instructor at PTEC-St. Pete. The Respondent introduced Amanda to Allison and told Allison that Amanda needed a portfolio to get start her career as a model. Allison explained to them that initially she would need a “composite sheet,” not a “portfolio.” (A “composite sheet” consisted of a number of black and white photographs from the neck up.) He told them that the cost of a composite sheet would be $25. The Respondent agreed to the price, and Allison made an appointment for 7:15 the next morning. The Respondent told Amanda not to be concerned about her culinary arts class scheduled for the same time because the Respondent would mark her as being present. At some point, the Respondent offered to act as Amanda’s manager and explained to her that a manager usually received ten percent of the money a model made. Amanda told her that ten percent seemed reasonable to her. The Respondent believed that he had a verbal contract with Amanda to be her manager and that the contract would serve to compensate him for his expenses. That evening, Amanda reported to her parents what the Respondent had told her and what he had arranged for her the next morning. Her parents did not object to the idea but had some concerns. Apparently, Amanda’s parents inquired about it at Gibbs High, and somehow Dorothy Zeason, a Varying Exceptionalities Specialist at Gibbs High learned about it. Zeason and notified Sharon Lane, Amanda’s Varying Exceptionalities Specialist at PTEC-St. Pete. Zeason requested that Lane look into the situation. When Lane saw Amanda at PTEC-St. Pete the next morning all dressed up and carrying a change of clothes, it reminded her of her conversation with Zeason, and she asked Amanda about it. When Amanda told her that she was on the way to the photo shoot, Lane asked to accompany Amanda to her culinary arts class, where they met the Respondent. The question of payment was raised, and the Respondent assured them that he was going to pay for the composite sheet. Still not sure of the situation, Lane accompanied Amanda to meet Allison at the photography room. There, Allison told Lane what was planned. When Lane told Allison that Amanda’s mother had some concerns, Allison asked if Amanda was a high school student. When told that she was, Allison expressed surprise and said that, in that case, written parental permission was required. At that point, Amanda returned to her culinary arts class, and no photographs ever were taken. The Respondent telephoned Amanda at her home on two occasions in May, 1996. The first of these may have been the evening before the aborted photo shoot. During this first conversation, the Respondent spoke to Amanda about Amanda’s modeling career and about their agreement that the Respondent would act as her manager. The Respondent could give no good school-related reason for placing this call. (He said he called to verify personal information provided by Amanda for school purposes, but evidently saw no reason to do so earlier in the school year.) The Respondent also spoke to Amanda privately in his office at the culinary arts school at PTEC-St. Pete. On one occasion, the Respondent showed Amanda several pictures of a former girl friend who had died twenty years ago. The Respondent told Amanda that she reminded him of the deceased girl friend and that, if he was showing her any “extra liking,” it was because of this. In either the same or another conversation in his office in May, 1996, the Respondent asked Amanda if she believed in reincarnation and then told her that he believed the spirit of his former girl friend was inside Amanda. This kind of talk made Amanda uncomfortable. During either the same or another conversation in his office in May, 1996, the Respondent offered Amanda a spoon ring he had purchased in the PTEC-St. Pete jewelry workshop for about $5 and said he wanted Amanda to take it as a gift from him. Amanda tried several times to decline, saying that she did not feel right about accepting it, but the Respondent was insistent. He suggested that Amanda have it sized, if necessary, or exchange it for something she liked better. To placate the Respondent, Amanda accepted the spoon ring. She brought it to the jewelry workshop for sizing but never returned to pick it up. On another occasion during culinary arts class in May, 1996, the Respondent called Amanda into his office and told her that he wanted to give her money as a gift for her upcoming graduation and birthday. Once again, Amanda tried several times to decline, saying that she did not feel right about accepting it, and the Respondent again was insistent. However, this time the Respondent finally resigned himself to Amanda’s repeated refusals, telling her that he guessed he would just have to give the money to someone else. On another occasion during culinary arts class in May, 1996, Amanda and a friend thought they saw the Respondent winking at Amanda in a manner of flirting. During one of the Respondent’s conversations with Amanda in May, 1996, he asked for directions to her home and asked her to describe the house. The Respondent could give no good school-related reason for why he needed this information. The Respondent was intoxicated when he telephoned Amanda at her home the second time in May, 1996. (He claims not to remember anything about this telephone call due to his intoxication from a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.) The Respondent first addressed Amanda by the wrong name. Then he introduced himself first as “Bo.” When she did not recognize the name (or voice), he told her he was her “teacher, Mr. Lemiesz.” During this conversation, the Respondent told Amanda that he thought she was beautiful, that he loved looking into her beautiful brown eyes, and that he loved her dimples and smile. He also told her that he believed the two of them were spiritually connected and were going to be friends for life. It was a Saturday, and the Respondent asked Amanda what she was doing the next day, Sunday. He told her that he was going out on his sailboat. She took it as an invitation to go with him, and she told him she was going to church in the morning and would be busy all the rest of the day. This second telephone conversation made Amanda uncomfortable. When her parents returned home, Amanda told them about it. Amanda’s parents became concerned for her safety and reported the series of incidents to her school. Amanda declined to return to school at PTEC-St. Pete for the few days remaining before the end of the school year. Action taken by the School Board culminated in the June 12, 1996, letter suspending the Respondent without pay and recommending his dismissal. The letter and its grounds were reported in the St. Petersburg Times. As a result of the Respondent’s conduct in May, 1996, his effectiveness in the school system has been impaired to some degree. Amanda’s parents would not want the Respondent teaching their daughter or any other female student, and school administrators are apprehensive about putting the Respondent back in the classroom. But their reactions are based in part on assumptions that the Respondent would have continued, or worsened, his behavior towards Amanda had he not been stopped and that the Respondent has not learned his lesson. It was not proven either that the Respondent would have continued, or worsened, his behavior towards Amanda had he not been stopped or that the Respondent has not learned his lesson. Meanwhile, although the Respondent’s effectiveness has been impaired to some degree, it was not proven that he could not still be an effective chef instructor for the school system at PTEC-St. Pete, especially in view of his long service without incident prior to May, 1996.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order upholding the Respondent’s suspension without pay but reinstating him at this time, without back pay. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of February, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1997.
The Issue Petitioner University of Florida seeks to terminate Respondent, pursuant to Rules 6C1-1.007, 6C1-1.008, 6C1-7.018, and 6C1-7.048, Florida Administrative Code, for conduct alleged as follows: Abusing the faculty member-student relationship; Fostering, by example, an environment in which substance abuse is promoted to students whom Respondent supervises; Creating a hostile learning environment; and Retaliation in the course of a sexual harassment investigation.
Findings Of Fact In order to resolve the legal issues herein, it is not necessary to relate all the evidence taken, to relate the stipulated facts verbatim, or to record the entire sequence of events and all the opinions various witnesses expressed of one another. Accordingly, and in accord with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, only material findings of fact have been made.3 In doing so, effort has been made to reconcile the witnesses' respective testimony so that all witnesses may be found to speak the truth, but where conflicts existed, the credibility issue has been resolved on the characteristics listed in Standard Jury Instruction, (Civil) 2.2b.4 Respondent was initially hired at UF on July 17, 1992, in a non-permanent position as a Research Scientist, at its main campus in Gainesville, Florida. Beginning April 1, 1997, and at all times material, Respondent was employed on the main campus as a non-permanent Assistant Professor in the Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences (IFAS), Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, at UF. As such, Respondent was assigned teaching, research, and extension duties that include teaching undergraduate and graduate courses and mentoring students. Respondent did not hold tenure, but was in a tenure-earning status for nine years. Respondent is an ichthyologist and was employed in the specialized academic field of wildlife conservation genetics, within a limited professional community comprised of only approximately 100 professionals in the United States. Students, graduate students, and colleagues of Respondent understand that this is a tight-knit professional community and that Dr. Robert Chapman of the University of Charleston, South Carolina, is part of that "elite 100." As with any profession, networking is important to students' career paths. Anna Bass was never a UF student or a student of Respondent. However, she was directly employed by UF from March 1995 to the summer of 2000, as Respondent's lab manager. She worked for Respondent elsewhere prior to that period and has known him since approximately 1992 or 1993. As Assistant Professor, Respondent served as the Major Professor and Thesis Committee Advisor for UF graduate students Joel Carlin, Alicia Pearce, and Luiz Rocha. Currently, and at all times material, Joel Carlin was enrolled as an IFAS graduate student at UF. Alicia Pearce graduated from the UF-IFAS program in May 2001. Katherine Moore was never Respondent's student and never attended UF. However, Respondent had been on Ms. Moore's graduate thesis committee when she was a student at the University of Charleston. She graduated from that university approximately 1998-1999. Ms. Moore has been employed as a biologist at the National Ocean Service in Charleston, South Carolina, since 1990. The student-professor relationship is based on mutual trust and respect, with the student's best interest at heart, for either undergraduate or graduate students. As major professor and chair of thesis committees, Respondent has substantial power over the career paths of graduate students he has advised. Major professors are expected to serve as mentors to their students, providing guidance and acting as professional role models to assist and mold judgment. They are relied upon by students and former students for future educational, job, and research grant references. The graduate student-major professor relationship persists beyond graduation and often endures for a life-time. Graduates often continue original research in cooperation with their mentors and co-author professional research articles with them. Graduates frequently seek the counsel of their mentors for important professional post-graduate decisions. Among his students and colleagues, Respondent has a reputation for partying. His liquor of choice is tequila. He has held what are called "late night lab sessions" with his graduate students in off-campus Gainesville music clubs and bars. Student attendance at these "late night lab sessions" are not required, but it is understood they can be helpful for building both rapport and a career. Respondent also entertains, as do other professors, by serving food and alcohol in his home, so that students may meet and network with visiting speakers/ colleagues in their chosen field(s). During a party hosted by Respondent at his home in May of 1997, he served and consumed beer and tequila in the presence of adult IFAS students. He became inebriated at that party. Respondent, Mr. Carlin, and a visiting scientist, met at a music club in Gainesville and drank alcohol together on one occasion. In early June 2001, Respondent attended an informal going-away party for the same colleague at a Gainesville restaurant with Mr. Carlin and Mr. Carlin's undergraduate girlfriend. Alcohol was consumed and at the end of the evening, the three felt too inebriated to drive legally or safely. However, Respondent drove home and did nothing to prevent the others from driving home. Respondent's explanation for this last occasion was that he was under great emotional stress due to his wife's recent miscarriage. Respondent has consumed alcoholic beverages at off- campus locations at least 3-4 times per year with adult IFAS students whom he academically supervised. In 1998, when Mr. Carlin, an adult, was interviewing on the UF Campus at a morning appointment with Respondent for admission to the UF graduate program, Respondent invited him to meet that night, at approximately 11:00 p.m., with Respondent and his graduate students in a Gainesville establishment where they consumed alcohol. Attendance at the bar was not a quid pro quo for admission, and Mr. Carlin never thought it was. Mr. Carlin remained for the meeting and drinking and was ultimately admitted into the program. Respondent considered his invitation to be a friendly opportunity for Mr. Carlin to talk informally with other graduate degree candidates so that all concerned could determine if the fit was right for Mr. Carlin in the program he wanted to pursue at UF. Mr. Carlin did not object to the drinking, but he felt the late night hour was inconvenient, since he had expected to leave town after his morning interview, and unprofessional, since he never got to discuss dissertation ideas at that time with Respondent. Once, when Respondent had been in Charleston, South Carolina, helping Ms. Moore "finish up [her] Masters," they were at a post-reception party in Respondent's motel room. Other guests were drinking alcohol and smoking pot (marijuana). Dr. Robert Chapman was also present. Respondent and Dr. Chapman settled which of their names should appear first on a jointly- authored professional publication with a "tequila bottle toss." Each professor-author tossed an empty tequila bottle into the motel swimming pool from the motel room balcony. The man whose bottle hit closest to the pool's center, won. The date of this event is not clear, but apparently it occurred while Respondent was employed by UF. There is no reason to suppose UF students were present. Respondent has possessed liquor at off-campus professional conferences in the presence of adult UF students for whom he had some academic responsibility. Several years ago, at a professional reception held for Respondent, he autographed the closure strap at the back of the bra worn by a non-UF undergraduate female, approximately nineteen years old, who was flirting with him in the presence of Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore described the young woman as someone attending her first professional conference who was in awe of Respondent as a "star" in their field. Respondent admitted to making sexually suggestive witticisms to the undergraduate female at the time. No one took him seriously or was offended. Respondent has repeatedly possessed or smoked marijuana, a controlled substance under Florida law, in the presence of others with whom he was professionally associated.5 Use or possession of marijuana on campus offends UF's "drug-free policy." Use or possession of marijuana by a UF faculty member or student anywhere is considered "disruptive behavior" subject to UF discipline. See Rules 6C1-1.008(1)(m) and 6C1-7.048(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, and the following Conclusions of Law. In June 2001, Respondent used marijuana at Mr. Carlin's house with Mr. Carlin and Mr. Carlin's live-in undergraduate girlfriend present. Respondent's explanation for this was that he was under great emotional stress due to his wife's recent miscarriage. Ms. Moore has observed Respondent smoke marijuana in the presence of students at most of the off-campus professional meetings they have attended over the years from 1992 to the present, but the students she referred-to probably attended universities other than UF. Ms. Pearce has observed Respondent smoke marijuana in the presence of UF students approximately 15 times. She did not specify the locations as on- or off-campus. While she was his student and in his UF office, on the UF campus, Respondent showed Ms. Pearce a "highlighter" pen that he carried in his pocket, which pen had a false bottom for hiding a stash of marijuana. Ms. Bass has smoked marijuana with Petitioner multiple times. She did not specify the location(s) as on- or off- the UF campus. In July 2001, Alicia Pearce was 29 years old. During her UF graduate studies, Respondent had been her major professor and thesis committee advisor. She had received her Master's Degree diploma from UF on May 5, 2001, and UF could not require her to complete any further requirements. (See Finding of Fact 8.) However, according to Dr. Richard Jones, UF Dean of Research, it was expected that after award of their degrees, former graduate students would place their theses in reviewed (preferably peer-reviewed) publications. Respondent had agreed that Ms. Pearce could present her thesis after graduation, due to her relocation to North Carolina. In order to present her paper after graduation, Ms. Pearce submitted her research paper abstract and her registration papers and fees for the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) Conference in February, 2001, before her graduation from UF. The conference was scheduled to be held on July 5-10, 2001, at State College, Pennsylvania (Penn State). Respondent also attended the July 5-10, 2001, ASIH Conference in the capacity of a UF-IFAS faculty member to, among other purposes, mentor his graduate students, Pearce, Carlin, and Rocha, all of whom were presenting papers at the conference. Respondent was not required to request leave, and did not request leave, from UF to attend the conference. He was on salary from UF while at the conference. Respondent was entitled to request a travel reimbursement from UF, as did Mr. Carlin, but elected not to do so. Respondent has attended the ASIH Conference approximately four times while employed by UF-IFAS. At the 2001 ASIH Conference, Ms. Pearce roomed in a dorm with Luiz Rocha. On July 6, 2001, Respondent used his credit card to purchase dinner and alcoholic drinks at a restaurant/bar in the Penn State Conference Center Hotel for a group of adult colleagues and adult students, including Carlin, Pearce, and Rocha. The ASIH Conference was being held in the hotel. The hotel was considered part of the Penn State campus. During dinner, Respondent made a sexually suggestive comment to Ms. Pearce, who was the only female present, and remarked that it could not be sexual harassment because she was no longer his student. Neither Ms. Pearce nor anyone else took him seriously or was offended. After dinner, Petitioner invited Ms. Pearce to his hotel room, along with another senior colleague, to discuss a tip Respondent had received several weeks earlier that a UF student had fabricated research. Respondent wanted the senior colleague's advice. He wanted Ms. Pearce's perspective because she had been in the lab during a relevant period of time. Their conversation in Respondent's hotel room lasted about an hour. During this period of time, marijuana was present in Respondent's hotel room. Respondent did not admit to bringing the drug with him to the conference, but the fact that marijuana was present in Respondent's hotel room means the contraband drug was in his constructive possession. Respondent admitted holding, sniffing, and/or smoking6 a "token toke" in the hotel during the dates of the 2001 ASIH Conference, and apparently in the presence of Ms. Pearce and the adult colleague. Marijuana use or possession is contrary to Penn State University's drug-free policy and rules. Respondent, his colleague, and Ms. Pearce next attended the official conference reception downstairs in the hotel. Alcohol was served and consumed. Later the same evening, Respondent and Ms. Pearce returned to his hotel room. Both had already drunk a great deal of alcohol and proceeded to drink more. They were observed alone together in the hotel room by Mr. Carlin, whom they sent away. Ms. Pearce became further inebriated during a long conversation with Respondent, which included discussion of her fear of doing the professional presentation coming up at the conference, past lab work, and intimate details of their respective married lives. She then passed out in the bathroom. Respondent knew Ms. Pearce was already partially inebriated and vulnerable before he took her to his hotel room, because she had begun to cause a scene at the conference's reception. Respondent also knew she had a history of irresponsible behavior with regard to alcohol because in May 2000, she and Mr. Carlin, high on alcohol, had telephoned Respondent's home repeatedly at approximately 2:00 a.m., in the morning. They then drove, in that condition, to Anna Bass's house, where they "crashed" for the night. Thereafter, Respondent had told them he was distancing himself from them; told them they should never call him again at that hour; and gave them extra lab work. On July 6, 2001, Respondent assisted Ms. Pearce from the hotel bathroom into one of his hotel room beds. It is undisputed that the couple then kissed and groped each other. Respondent's and Ms. Pearce's versions of what happened next, or how long it took, are fairly similar. Where they differ, the undersigned has balanced Ms. Pearce's candor and demeanor or lack thereof while testifying, her past experiences with marijuana and excessive use of alcohol, her expressed intent to go to the ASIH Conference with the purpose of indulging in heavy drinking, and her inability to recall the evening's events in sequence or in detail, against Respondent's testimony, which is discredited in part by his prior inconsistent statements and admissions. Having assessed their respective versions, it is found that: Respondent removed or dislodged Ms. Pearce's shirt and bra. Their groping progressed to Respondent's massaging Ms. Pearce's breasts and the two of them mutually massaging each other's genitals. At that point, Respondent broke it off and removed himself from the bed. Ms. Pearce then turned over and passed out or went to sleep. Respondent then went to sleep in another bed. About 4:00 a.m., Ms. Pearce awoke, dressed, and left the room, but since the shuttle bus had left, she was unable to return to her dorm. Respondent followed her to the lobby. She wanted to know if they had had intercourse. Respondent felt he was very clear in stating that no intercourse had occurred. However, Respondent's answer seemed non-specific to Ms. Pearce and did not satisfy her that intercourse had not occurred. She was very concerned, because she and her husband had been trying to conceive a child. However, she allowed Respondent to persuade her to return to his room to talk until 7:00 a.m., when the shuttle began to run again, and she then left the hotel. Respondent explained the July 6, 2001, sexual incident with Ms. Pearce as his being emotionally unstable due to his wife's recent miscarriage. Ms. Pearce did not say anything more to Respondent about their sexual incident until later on July 7, 2001, when she asked him not to tell anybody. He agreed that there was "no use in other people getting hurt." They behaved normally to each other in public throughout the next several days and were not alone together. Respondent helped Ms. Pearce prepare to present her paper later that weekend, and she did well for her first presentation on July 10, 2001. She presented Respondent with an autographed copy of her completed thesis after her presentation. The dedication warmly expressed her thanks to him for his mentorship of her. On Tuesday, July 10, 2001, the last day of the conference, after her presentation, Ms. Pearce also filed a criminal complaint with the Penn State University Police Department, alleging Respondent had sexually assaulted her. Respondent was confronted by two police officers and questioned extensively. He cooperated and provided a statement and blood for a blood test. He was not arrested or charged. Back in Gainesville, Respondent spoke to Mr. Carlin by telephone on July 13, 2001. Upon Respondent's inquiry, Mr. Carlin stated that he had learned of the Penn State investigation from Ms. Pearce when he drove her to the airport on July 10, 2001. Both Respondent and Mr. Carlin agreed Mr. Carlin had no first-hand knowledge of the situation. Respondent advised Mr. Carlin to stay way clear of the situation. On Monday, July 16, 2001, Respondent again spoke with Mr. Carlin by telephone. On that date, Respondent told Mr. Carlin that Mr. Carlin's and Luiz Rocha's names had also been of interest to the Penn State Police. Because Respondent said, "How would you like to be accused of rape?" Mr. Carlin could have interpreted this conversation as a threat. He did not. On July 22, 2001, Dr. William Lindberg, Respondent's Department Chairman, submitted his evaluation of Respondent's academic performance for the 2000-2001 academic year, which rated Respondent as overall "exemplary." This was a precursor to Respondent's getting tenure. Dr. Lindberg did not know about the events of the 2001 ASIH Conference when he submitted the evaluation. It is undisputed that Respondent is a "star" in "the elite 100," has published widely, is a popular professor, and has obtained valuable research grants for UF. On July 23, 2001, Ms. Pearce filed a complaint regarding Respondent with UF-IFAS. It was categorized as "sexual harassment." The investigation was cloaked in confidentiality. At the time of his July 13 and 16, 2001, telephone conversations with Mr. Carlin, Respondent could not have known that UF would be investigating him. On August 6, 2001, Ms. Pearce was interviewed by the UF investigator. On or about August 6-8, 2001, Mr. Carlin was interviewed by, and/or provided chronological notes to, the UF investigator and Dr. Lindberg. On August 8, 2001, Ms. Moore was interviewed by the UF investigator and related the "signing of the bra strap" event. On August 16, 2001, Respondent met with Dean Cheek, Dean Jones, Chairman Lindberg, and the investigator. Respondent saw notes on, or was made aware of, all or some of the statements made by those interviewed. He was informed that he probably would be terminated. He also was instructed to be circumspect and respectful in dealing with the situation and potential witnesses. Respondent and Dr. Lindberg shared a car back to their department after this meeting. On the ride, Respondent asked Lindberg what he should do about the paper he was co- authoring with Pearce. Lindberg told him that if he did not have much invested in it, the high ground was to step away. Lindberg did not recall Respondent's also asking what he should do about papers he co-authored with Carlin and Moore. Mr. Carlin was interviewed by Dr. Lindberg and the investigator again after Respondent met with the Deans. At hearing, Ms. Pearce presented speculations, but no credible evidence, that Respondent had done, or planned to do, anything to her in retribution for her sexual harassment charge. As of the disputed-fact hearing, Respondent had not removed his name from their joint paper. On August 17, 2001, Respondent telephoned Ms. Moore and told her to remove his name from the publication they had recently co-authored and were preparing for publication. He asked her never to contact him again because it was painful for him to talk to someone who told stories about him and he was tired of her complaints about her employer, who was a friend of his. Ms. Moore considered Respondent's telephone call to constitute her "professional excommunication." Respondent's withdrawal of his authorship created an awkward situation for Ms. Moore that necessitated her sending a letter of explanation to the publisher to clarify that Respondent's withdrawal was not due to a disagreement regarding her research results. The paper will be published anyway. Ms. Moore contacted Chairman Lindberg on August 23, 2001, and complained about Respondent's action and expressed her fear of further professional reprisals from Respondent. Dr. Lindberg agreed that if the withdrawal of Respondent's name became an issue with the publisher, he would write to the publisher for Ms. Moore and explain the situation in general terms. On August 14, 2001, Anna Bass was interviewed by the UF investigator. On August 19, 2001, Ms. Bass sent an e-mail message to Mr. Carlin which amounted to a diatribe against him and Ms. Pearce for speaking to the UF investigator. On August 28, 2001, a Notice of Proposed Dismissal was issued against Respondent by UF. On September 14, 2001, after learning that Respondent's dismissal had been proposed, Ms. Bass contacted Chairman Lindberg and charged Mr. Carlin with sexual harassment against her which allegedly occurred more than a year previous, when he and Ms. Pearce "crashed" at her home. (See Finding of Fact 34.) Ms. Bass denied that Respondent put her up to filing these belated charges. Respondent denied asking anyone to retaliate against, or speak to, Mr. Carlin for the purpose of preventing or altering the information Mr. Carlin gave in interviews with the UF investigator or UF authorities or to discredit his information. Respondent further testified that he did not ask Dr. Robert Chapman to author any correspondence related to the investigation. However, he admitted discussing his situation under the sexual harassment charges with Dr. Chapman. Respondent had problems with Mr. Carlin previous to the current investigation. On one occasion, he had to request that Mr. Carlin not annoy his female lab assistant. Respondent had previously disciplined Mr. Carlin for making annoying late night telephone calls to Respondent's home. (See Finding of Fact 34.) At the 2001 ASIH Conference, Respondent had approached Mr. Carlin about whether Mr. Carlin wanted to remain in competition for the Stoye Award, because of some concerns over the eligibility of his research. Mr. Carlin and Respondent have different understandings of what was involved in this discussion, but Mr. Carlin did not remove his name and Respondent did not interfere with that choice. Mr. Carlin went on to win the prestigious award. Some other members of "the elite 100" had also had a problem with Mr. Carlin concerning access to a limited supply of endangered species samples he and another graduate student needed. Mr. Carlin and the other researcher were in a race to publish their respective dissertations first. Dr. Robert Chapman was aware of the controversy. On Friday, September 14, 2001, after hearing about Respondent's proposed dismissal from employment, Dr. Chapman and Respondent had a telephone conversation during which they discussed Mr. Carlin. Respondent expressed his frustration at the complaint filed by Ms. Pearce and accused her of "filing false claims" against him. Respondent stated that Ms. Moore had made an unflattering anecdote and "contributed a story that portrayed [Respondent] in a negative light." Respondent also stated that Mr. Carlin had alleged that Respondent had harassed him. Dr. Chapman was then critical of the "ethics" of Mr. Carlin and described him as "shiftless." On Friday, September 14, 2001, Dr. Chapman sent an e-mail message to Mr. Carlin expressing anger and shame and stating in part that, "I fear that your career is in severe jeopardy. No one I have talked to will hire you after this." These comments of Dr. Chapman were directed to the rare species sample controversy but mixed in with a diatribe about Respondent's situation, as if they were part of the same complaint. On Saturday, September 15, 2001, Dr. Chapman sent an e-mail message to Jimmy Cheek, UF-IFAS Dean of Academic Programs, accusing Mr. Carlin of aiding and abetting a shameful assault upon Respondent and questioning Mr. Carlin's "honor and integrity," referring to Mr. Carlin as "a slimy worm." In this same e-mail, Dr. Chapman stated that "Ms. Moore is a thief," and a radical feminist who was out to get Respondent. Apparently, Dr. Chapman sent a similar missive to Dean Jones. Respondent had provided the deans' names to Dr. Chapman and did not dissuade him from writing them. On Sunday, September 16, 2001, Dr. Chapman sent an e-mail message to Mr. Carlin, apologizing for writing him in anger but not for what he had written to him on September 14, 2001. He told Mr. Carlin that his "first allegiance is to the professor" and advised him that "[I]nterviews with administrators are not an obligation. You have the right to decline and only the courts can force it." Dr. Chapman also stated that Mr. Carlin should talk with Respondent "about whether he should continue to serve as your professor" and further advised him to "take a low profile." While stating he would not circulate rare species sample rumors beyond those persons who knew of the rare species sample controversy before, and that he would be professional if asked about Mr. Carlin's competence, Dr. Chapman also stated he would volunteer nothing for Mr. Carlin. Dr. Chapman is a former employment supervisor of Mr. Carlin who strongly recommended him for admission to UF's graduate school on December 16, 1997. Mr. Carlin now feels he is unable to list Dr. Chapman as a reference because he questions Mr. Carlin's intellect and moral character and will accordingly give Mr. Carlin bad references rather than good ones. Mr. Carlin has great concern that Respondent has ostracized and vilified him for his role in the UF complaint review process. Mr. Carlin informed Chairman Lindberg that he fears his career is over and he has lost his place in his chosen academic field. Mr. Carlin also speculates that Respondent will now attempt to have his Stoye Award revoked, but there is no evidence Respondent has made any move in that direction to date. After Mr. Carlin was interviewed in the complaint review process, Respondent substituted his name for Mr. Carlin's name as the "corresponding author" on one of their current joint research publications which had been pending since June. He did not remove Mr. Carlin's name as first author. Changing the name of the corresponding author is not an unusual occurrence with regard to academic publications. In this case, it may benefit Mr. Carlin in getting published, because Respondent is friends with the publisher. However, the effect of the name-switch is that Mr. Carlin has lost control over the correspondence, putting Respondent in a position to delay or take the publication out of sequence for printing, if he chooses to retaliate against Mr. Carlin. On September 18, 2001, a Predetermination Meeting was held at Respondent's request. On October 8, 2001, UF issued its decision to dismiss Respondent effective October 10, 2001. Even after termination, sometime in December, 2001, Respondent was cooperating with input for a second publication he and Mr. Carlin co-authored. He has, however, begun to investigate the data behind Ms. Pearce's and Mr. Carlin's papers presented at the 2001 ASIH Conference. According to Chairman Lindberg, who testified by deposition, Respondent breached his professional ethics and student mentoring responsibilities by his behavior at the ASIH conference with Ms. Pearce. According to Dean Jones, Respondent's conduct at the ASIH Conference was contrary to UF-IFAS expectations of a responsible faculty member's interactions with students and abused the faculty member-student relationship.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the University of Florida enter a final order ratifying its termination of Respondent effective October 10, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 May, 2002.
