The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1011542, covering the areas of Elementary Education and Social Science. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent taught sixth-grade social studies at Bob Graham Education Center (Bob Graham) in the Miami-Dade County School District (the School District). Respondent was employed by the School District for approximately eight years. This case involves events that happened while a substitute teacher was in charge of Respondent's class, and Respondent's reaction to those events upon her return to school. Respondent was absent from school on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, and left lesson plans for the substitute teacher handling her classes. The substitute teacher assigned to her classroom was a young male teacher. The substitute teacher gave the students an assignment to complete, and told them that once all of the students in the class completed their work, they could have free time. During the free time, students engaged in a variety of activities typical of sixth graders. Some played games on the computers in the room, some watched prank videos played by the substitute, some danced, some sat or stood on desks, some wrote on the smart board, and some played with the cheerleading pom poms stored in the room. At least one student used her phone to take pictures and gave her phone to another student to take a picture of girls standing on the desks. Apparently one of the girls, who did not testify, posted one or more of the pictures on social media. The social media posts were seen by Respondent. The students who testified recognized that their behavior that day was not in keeping with the strict behavioral standards maintained at Bob Graham. One student described the prank videos as not appropriate for school, and another acknowledged that use of cell phones during the day was prohibited. No one maintained that it would be appropriate to stand on a desk. As affirmed by one student, the substitute lost control of the classroom. When Respondent returned to school the following day, she became aware of what had happened in her classroom that Tuesday. The more credible evidence supports the conclusion that she saw the pictures posted on social media. While Respondent claimed that her room was in disarray when she returned, each of the students who testified denied that they left the room in that condition. Only three students testified, C.C., S.G., and N.C., and these students were all students in Respondent's second period class. It is possible that the room was in disarray based on the behavior of students in other class periods. Respondent was unhappy with the condition of her room and with the reported behavior of her students during her absence. N.C. testified that on Wednesday morning, before the second period class, word had circulated around school that Ms. Rosa knew what they had done in class the day before, so the students believed that they were going to get in trouble. When class began, Ms. Rosa told the students that she was upset with their behavior from the day before. Descriptions from the students varied, one describing her as acting like she was happy they were all going to get in trouble, and threatening them all with detentions or in-school suspensions, while another student described her as yelling at the class as a whole, but not yelling at individual students. Whether she actually raised her voice at them or whether the students were reacting to the message she was delivering is not clear. In any event, the more persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent called each child's name and asked what they had done the day before. After hearing from each student, she had some of the students line up and go to the principal's office. How many students actually went to the office is also unclear: the description ranged from all but three to only a few. At the office, the students met with Assistant Principal Jesus Mesa, who apparently issued in-school suspensions to some and detentions to others.1/ These were students who had never been in significant trouble before. Getting an in-school suspension meant that they would not be permitted to participate in clubs or remain in the National Junior Honor Society. It appeared that this consequence of the punishment they received is what upset the students the most. There were reports that Ms. Rosa used the words "stupid," and "ratched," as well as "shit" while she was talking to the students. N.C. testified that she told the class as a whole that they were stupid for thinking she would not find out what happened. There was no testimony that she described any one student as stupid. All three students testified that she used the term "ratched," although one of them acknowledged that his written statement to that effect was based upon what others told him, as opposed to hearing the term himself. None of the students knew what the term meant, other than it had a negative connotation, and none identified the context in which the word was used. The principal, Yecenia Martinez-Lopez, described the term as meaning someone was "low class" or trash. Urbandictionary.com, referred to by Ms. Rosa in Respondent's Exhibit 1, defines the word as being slang for "wretched." With respect to the use of the word "shit," C.C. did not testify that the word was used. S.G. stated that he had heard Respondent use the term, but did not testify that she used it on the day in question, and said it had never been directed toward him. He did not identify when or to whom the word was used. Similarly, N.C. testified that Respondent had used the term, but also did not give any context for its use and her written statements did not reference the term. N.C. claimed that she just remembered the use of the term while reading her statements during the hearing. Given that the incident occurred more than four years before her testimony, this claim is not plausible or persuasive. No student testified that they were embarrassed or humiliated by Respondent's behavior that day. One student described Respondent's behavior as "rude and unacceptable," and another indicated that she was scared about explaining to her parents the possibility that she would not be able to participate in clubs. The more persuasive testimony was that students felt the punishment they received (ironically, from Mr. Mesa as opposed to Respondent) was out of proportion for what happened, and were concerned with the effect an in-school suspension would have on their ability to participate in extracurricular activities. Several students went home and complained to their parents about what happened that day. Whether they were complaining about Ms. Rosa's treatment of them, about the punishment they received, or about being reported to the front office is not clear. Likewise, the reaction of the various parents is also somewhat unclear. N.C. testified that she knew the parents were talking amongst themselves, and that the parents thought that there should be consequences for the students' behavior, but that an in-school suspension was a whole other step. From N.C.'s view, the parents' concern went from concern about the level of punishment to a complaint about Ms. Rosa. What any of the parents actually thought or said remains a mystery, because no parent testified at hearing. However, on Monday, December 2, 2013, following the Thanksgiving weekend, approximately 20 parents of students in Respondent's class went to the school and met with the principal, Ms. Martinez-Lopez, demanding that their students be removed from Ms. Rosa's class. As a result of their complaints, which are identified only by hearsay in this proceeding, the punishment for some, if not all, of the students affected was downgraded to a detention. Ms. Martinez-Lopez contacted the School District's north region office to report the incident. Ms. Martinez-Lopez was directed that the matter should be handled as an administrative review, meaning she should investigate it as opposed to having it investigated by the School District, and forward her findings to the School District. Ms. Martinez-Lopez collected statements from the students in Respondent's class and prepared a report of her findings. As a result of her investigation, Respondent was issued a reprimand, and moved from teaching sixth grade to teaching second grade. No other discipline was imposed. There are two sets of statements related to this incident: one set collected by Ms. Martinez-Lopez from December 4, 2013, through December 11, 2013, and a second set collected by the Department of Education on October 10, 2014. There was no evidence presented regarding the method Ms. Martinez-Lopez used to collect the first set of statements. With respect to the second set of statements, S.G. testified that multiple students were in the same room filling out the statement at the same time. N.C. testified that she, C.C., and S.G. were called out of their English class and went to the office together, but were not in the room together when they made the statements, and did not talk to each other about what was happening. S.G.'s description of the events was the more credible of the two. Respondent is no longer teaching in the School District. She took a leave of absence after the 2013-2014 school year, and then left the School District to take a position with United Teachers of Dade. She denies that she used profanity toward the students in her class, and contends that the events as described by the students did not happen. She does acknowledge asking each student what they had done the day before and having many of the students go to the principal's office.2/ Respondent was clearly upset by the events that took place in her classroom and expressed her displeasure to her students. There is persuasive evidence that she told them in no uncertain terms that there would be punishment imposed for their behavior. There is not clear convincing evidence that Respondent embarrassed, mocked, and disparaged students, or directed profanity toward them. Likewise, it was not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's conduct reduced her effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lawrence J. Ferrara, was an instructional employee of petitioner, School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (School Board or petitioner). When the relevant events herein occurred, Ferrara was a classroom teacher under a continuing contract assigned to John I. Leonard High School (JIL) in Lake Worth, Florida. He has been employed as a classroom teacher with petitioner since August 16, 1965 and received his continuing contract of employment in June, 1969. He holds teaching certificate number 150262 issued by the State Department of Education and is certified in the areas of American Government and social studies for grade levels 7 through 12. Respondent received a bachelor of education degree from the University of Miami. His first assignment with petitioner was in school year 1965-66 at Lantana Junior High School. He remained there through school year 1967-68. At the end of that year, Ferrara was placed on a fourth year annual probationary contract because he had insufficient control of his classes. He transferred to John F. Kennedy High School for school year 1968-69, and received a continuing contract of employment at the end of that school year. Respondent then transferred to Boynton Beach Junior High School for the 1969-70 school year. Ferrara desired to teach at the high school level because he preferred to teach students having greater maturity and interest in learning. He secured an assignment to JIL in September, 1970, where he remained until his suspension in 1986. Ferrara was initially assigned to the social studies department teaching American History to the eleventh grade. He remained in that position until the fall of 1981. During this period of time, Ferrara's evaluations showed steady improvement in his performance, and Ferrara characterized the 1980-81 school year as the happiest and most enjoyable year in his teaching career. In fact, he referred only two students to the dean for disciplinary reasons during the entire year, and both were referred during the final week of school. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Ferrara had a reputation as a good teacher, and his relationship with other faculty members was favorable. JIL sits on a forty acre campus in Lake Worth, Florida. During the relevant years the school had a student enrollment ranging in size from 2,200 to 2,850 students. Most recently its faculty numbered approximately 145. The principal is the chief administrator at JIL. In dealing with employees, the principal follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA), School Board policy, administrator's directives and the JIL Teacher and Student Handbooks. There are several assistant principals, including deans, who have been given authority to counsel with and reprimand employees. Among other things they are responsible for discipline of students. There are also guidance counselors who may counsel with other staff members and students as the need arises. The principal designates department chairmen who have authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers, and to recommend course assignments within the department. In the case at bar, Ferrara was assigned to the social studies department, which had approximately sixteen teachers. Its chairman was responsible for reviewing lesson plans of all teachers to insure that curriculum objectives were being met. This action is mandated by the School Board. At JIL lesson plans were required to be prepared one week in advance. In addition, faculty were required to prepare emergency lesson plans to be used by substitute teachers if the regular teacher was absent. Finally, the department head issued textbooks to each teacher who was obligated to turn in the books (or monies from the student) at the end of the semester or school year. According to the CTA-School Board contract introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9, and which is applicable to Ferrara's employment, Subsection A1. of Article II provides that "teachers are expected to serve on school committees, self-evaluation and accreditation committees, attend meetings and workshops . . . such service (to be) on a voluntary basis . . " Subsection A2. provides that "employees shall assume reasonable responsibility for the safe return of all school property." Subsection F4. of the same Article requires employees to "assume the responsibility for taking a positive approach to discipline and to maintain constructive classroom control." Subsection B1. of Article III prescribes a duty day for faculty at JIL of seven and one-half consecutive hours per day. Subsection B2. requires that an employee obtain approval from the principal to leave the school premises for personal reasons during the defined duty hours. Subsection E4. of the same Article provides that "the teacher shall be responsible for the preparation of daily lesson plans to be made available to the substitute in the absence of the teacher. Such plans shall be made in advance at all times." The School Board has also promulgated various "local" rules which pertain to suspension and dismissal of employees, as well as the rehabilitation process to be following once a teacher is cited for deficiencies. They apply to Ferrara's employment. School Year 1981-82 In the spring of 1981, Ferrara heard rumors that he was being reassigned the following school year from exclusively teaching eleventh graders to teaching ninth grade American Government classes as well. At the same time he learned that the teacher of an advanced history class was leaving JIL at the end of the school term. Ferrara approached the social studies de- partment head, Catherine Thornton, concerning the vacancy but was told the vacant slot had been promised to a new teacher named Martin. Ferrara then met with the JIL principal, Dr. Munroe, in June, 1981 and asked that his teaching assignment not be changed. During that meeting he criticized Munroe's selection of athletic coaches to teach in the social studies department. Ferrara considered the department as a dumping ground for coaches and other unqualified teachers. Ferrara's request was turned down and he was reassigned to teach three periods of ninth grade American Government classes and two periods of eleventh grade American History the following year. Moreover, JIL was on double sessions at that time, and Ferrara was switched from the early session (6:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.) to what he considered to be the less desirable second session that ran from 9:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. He was also required to teach during the last three periods of the second session. Ferrara was extremely displeased, and felt that he was being treated as the new teacher who was typically given the lower grade assignment and the afternoon shift. In an effort to get the new assignment changed, Ferrara met with the department head and later with Dr. Munroe. After having no success, he met with the area superintendent and finally the school superintendent. Their advice was to take the assignment, be evaluated and then see what happens. Ferrara thereafter approached five of the seven members of the school board seeking their assistance in overriding the reassignment decision. This too was unsuccessful. At one of the meetings in Dr. Munroe's office on September 4, one administrator said that if Ferrara was unhappy with the new assignment then maybe he should quit. By this time Ferrara had engaged the services of an attorney, and after he and his attorney were unsuccessful in persuading the administration to change the assignment, he instructed the attorney to file a civil rights action in federal court. This was done on July 29, 1982. The lawsuit sought, among other things, the reassignment of Ferrara to his former teaching assignment in the eleventh grade. That suit has remained pending since then, and at time of final hearing, was on rehearing of an order of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's earlier dis- missal of the action. Charles L. Thornton (no relation to the department chairman) replaced Dr. Munce as principal at JIL in October, 1981. He had previously served as dean of boys at JIL in 1970-71 and recalled that he frequently visited Ferrara's eleventh grade class that year because Ferrara was having a "hard time" with his students. Before he left JIL in September, 1971, Thornton told the then principal of JIL that they had "problems" with Ferrara because of his inability to control his students. This was borne out by Ferrara's 1970-71 evaluation which cited Ferrara for deficiencies in no less than five areas, most of which were attributable to the fact that Ferrara was then an inexperienced high school teacher. When Thornton returned to JIL in October, 1981, he learned that Ferrara had hired an attorney to challenge the school's decision to reassign Ferrara to the ninth grade classroom. Even so, when Ferrara approached Thornton about changing his assignment, Thornton told Ferrara that no teacher assignments would be made mid-stream in the semester, but he would "revisit" the matter at the end of the semester. His denial was confirmed in a written memorandum to Ferrara. He also told Ferrara the change was not to be considered a demotion and that he would keep the same title, salary and number of work hours. At the end of the first semester, Thornton did not change respondent's course assignment because it would have disrupted the master schedule and he had some concern about respondent's performance. Unquestionably, ninth grade students are less mature and more difficult to control from a disciplinary standpoint than other students, but the subject matter of their coursework is easier than the subjects taught to higher grade levels. Although Ferrara considered his new assignment as being the most undesirable of all assignments in the social studies department, other teachers stated that it made no difference to them as to which group of students they were assigned to teach. During the batter part of the first semester, Ferrara was absent due to illness on several occasions. In the second semester he took a leave of absence for the entire semester due to illness apparently brought on by job stress. According to Ferrara, teachers assigned to the first session, which he preferred, were allowed to leave the school around 2:15 p.m. each day. Ferrara's classroom faced the parking lot and he could see them through his windows departing the school while he was required to remain there teaching until 5:15 p.m. He also acknowledged having "problems" with students during the last three periods of each day, and when coupled with the aggravation of seeing his colleagues leaving early, it induced a physical ailment which led to his taking the lengthy sick leave. During his second semester absence, Ferrara prepared no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute, although he was responsible for doing so for the entire year. His substitute contacted him for assistance, but Ferrara declined to offer any, saying it was the substitute's responsibility to do the work. It is noteworthy that Ferrara's substitute had some disciplinary problems when she took over his class, but after receiving assistance from the deans, she had only "minor" problems the remainder of the semester. Thornton prepared an annual evaluation of Ferrara in June, 1982, and gave him an overall rating of satisfactory. However, he found Ferrara deficient in the following areas: discipline of students, attending required extracurricular activities, teaching in a manner in which all students in the class could comprehend and relating in a more positive manner with his peers. Other than Ferrara's use of "various methods and materials," Thornton made no comments concerning Ferrara's areas of strength. The first deficiency was based upon Ferrara's inability to control the classroom environment. More specifically, Ferrara referred more students to the dean than any other classroom teacher at JIL, and for what appeared to be minor infractions. These included talking out of turn, squeaking a chair, going to the pencil sharpener without permission and leaving one's desk without permission. On some occasions Ferrara would refer entire groups of students. In all, Ferrara's referrals constituted around 25 percent of all referrals made by the 145 JIL faculty members. The dean of students was asked by Ferrara on at least three occasions to visit his classroom because his class was out of control. The dean observed that Ferrara had very little control over his students, managed the class "poorly," and concluded that very little learning was taking place. The dean discussed with Ferrara how to handle minor classroom infractions and advised Ferrara to review the JIL Handbook provisions regarding discipline. However, Ferrara was not responsive to these suggestions. Ferrara was also criticized because his students had difficulty in understanding "his approach to teaching." This was apparent from the fact that Ferrara had an extremely high rate of failure for his students. Ferrara himself conceded that his teaching performance began deteriorating in the 1981-82 school year and never again reached the level of performance achieved by him prior to that year. The evaluation noted that Ferrara did "not have an effective relationship with associates." This was confirmed through testimony that after his reassignment became effective, Ferrara would not speak to most of the members of the department, and no longer socialized with staff at the department's workroom. Even Ferrara acknowledged that after September, 1981 he became "reserved," did not talk to colleagues arid appeared unhappy and upset. Thornton required mandatory attendance by faculty at only two school functions each year: open house when parents, students and faculty met at the school, and graduation. Ferrara attended neither saying graduation was "too sentimental" and that he was always ill whenever open houses were held. Ferrara was given a copy of the above evaluation by Thornton, reviewed it and signed it on June 8, 1982. However, he told Thornton he disagreed with the contents of the evaluation. At their meeting, Thornton acknowledged to Ferrara that he had sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, and found Ferrara to be well-versed in his subjects. School Year 1982-83 Because of problems with Ferrara in 1981-82, the department chairman recommended that Ferrara be assigned to teach five ninth grade American Government classes in school year 1982-82. This recommendation was approved by the assistant principal for curriculum who draws up the semester schedule, and later by Thornton. While teaching a class in November 1982, respondent caught a student, K. B., mimicking him in class, grabbed the student by his arm and escorted him to his seat. He did so with such force that it left bruise marks on the student's arm. Ferrara was counseled by Thornton following this incident. In January, 1982, respondent gave a student an F in her coursework for disciplinary reasons. This is contrary to school board policy and resulted in the issuance of a memorandum by Thornton to Ferrara on January 21, 1983. Various former students of Ferrara during the 1982-83 school year testified concerning their impression of his teaching style and manner. Their comments included statements that he "wasn't normal" and was "different" from other teachers. It was established that he would not answer questions from many students, either ignoring them or telling them the answer was in the textbook. He called them "stupid," "immature" and "jackasses" on a number of occasions, that he `hated" teaching them, and told them he should be teaching a higher grade level but was being punished by the administration. It was further established that Ferrara frequently yelled in class, and that his efforts to discipline students were unsuccessful. After awhile, some students would make deliberate efforts to provoke Ferrara by beginning coughing, spells or squeaking their chairs, knowing that his efforts at discipline were merely a "show" and that they need not obey him. Ferrara would also frequently discuss in class his lawsuit against the school board without relating it to the subject matter. His most common teaching technique was to give students a reading assignment from the textbook and have the students answer the review questions at the end of the chapter. Only occasionally did he give a lecture. Most students indicated they did not learn a great deal in his class, and found the instruction boring. It was established that cheating frequently occurred when tests were given, and answer sheets were passed around while Ferrara was in the room. Many believed he was punishing them by keeping the windows shut and the air-conditioner turned off on hot days. Indeed, on one day in late April, Thornton went to Ferrara's class and found it extremely "hot" with the air-conditioner off and the windows closed. Ferrara was teaching the class wearing a sweater. Thornton ordered that the windows be opened to avoid having a student pass out from the heat. Ferrara justified his actions by contending the air-conditioner was frequently inoperative and that the windows often times stuck. This was disputed by the building maintenance chief. He also stated that he kept the windows closed because of traffic noises emanating from a nearby street. However, he conceded that he kept the students in a hot room on at least one occasion as punishment. Because of complaints made by parents and students to Thornton during the first semester, a conference was called by Thornton with respondent on January 28, 1983. At that time he gave Ferrara written notice that his behavior was "inappropriate," and that he must regain control of his classroom. On April 20, 1983, Thornton had a conference with Ferrara concerning an allegation that he had called a student an "ass." After Ferrara admitted this was true, Thornton told him not to call students such names again, that it would not be tolerated and that he should refer to the teacher's Code of Ethics which proscribed such conduct. On May 23, 1983, Thornton found two of Ferrara's students wandering in the hallway without a hall pass. They had been told to leave Ferrara's class, and that he did not care where they went. During the school year, Ferrara continued to disregard the requirement to complete lesson plans. On occasions when Ferrara was absent, the substitutes found no regular or emergency lesson plans available. Instead, the substitutes had to write their own plans and give assignments, without having any idea when Ferrara would return. The assignments completed by the students for the substitute teacher were thrown in the waste basket when Ferrara returned because he found them ungraded. However, substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. During the school year the dean of students continued to receive numerous discipline referrals from respondent. The reasons for referral were generally minor, which indicated Ferrara did not have proper control of his classes. In contrast, his substitute teachers did not experience this type of problem when they substituted for Ferrara. Some of the referred students were those who had no other disciplinary problems with other teachers. On some occasions, entire groups were once again referred to the dean. In short, there was no improvement in respondent's classroom management from the prior year. At the same time, the guidance counselors continued to receive numerous requests from students to transfer out of his classes. At the end of school year 1982-83, the department chairman wrote Thornton a memorandum which listed by teacher the number of textbooks missing or not returned to the teacher. Ferrara had sixty-three textbooks missing, which was far in excess of other department staff. In addition, although he returned twenty-three of forty-eight new textbooks assigned to him at the beginning of the semester for one course, seventeen were so defaced with obscenities that they were unusable. Ferrara did not deny that he lost the textbooks, but stated that some books were smaller than normal classroom size, and could be easily carried out of class in a concealed fashion by a student. He feared that if he began searching students, he would suffer possible repercussions from doing so. Despite these losses, Ferrara refused assistance from the area director of secondary education in creating a system of inventory and control for textbooks. In his annual evaluation prepared on May 26, 1983, Ferrara was cited for deficiencies in the following areas: teaching techniques, classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. In addition, Thornton attached to the evaluation a typed sheet containing specific recommendations for improvement in each of the four areas. The sheet noted that Thornton was "willing to provide (Ferrara) whatever assistance necessary in each of the . . . cited areas." Thornton also noted that Ferrara has strength in the areas of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, appearance, educational qualifications and in adherence to the defined duty day. Thornton and Ferrara held several meetings concerning the annual evaluation. Each deficiency was discussed, and Thornton made suggestions on how to improve in those areas. However, Ferrara was not receptive to these suggestions, and complained of unfair treatment in his course assignments. He also repeatedly discussed his lawsuit. He continued to maintain he was better suited to teach the eleventh grade even though he was certified to teach both the ninth and eleventh grades. Thornton advised Ferrara he was responsible to his students no matter what other problems he believed he had, and that he should work to improve his performance. School Year 1983-84 In school year 1983-84, Ferrara's teaching assignment did not change. In fact, unlike the prior two years, Ferrara did not request a change in his teaching assignment. He also did not request a transfer to another school although these were procedures for doing so. 1/ Ferrara's failure to control his classroom continued into the new school year. During the year the assistant principal (dean) in charge of discipline visited Ferrara's classroom at least ten to fifteen times after Ferrara requested his assistance in regaining control of the classroom. On his visits the dean found a "hostile" atmosphere, and verbal exchanges taking place between Ferrara and his students. He concluded that no learning could take place in this atmosphere. The dean noted that no other regular teacher or substitute had such classroom management problems. Ferrara's referrals to the dean represented a larger number than all other faculty members combined. The dean also observed Ferrara telling his students that he did not like teaching immature ninth graders. Similar observations were made by another JIL dean. Ferrara was counseled by the dean who told him that students felt Ferrara did not like them, and that his discipline techniques were unfair. Testimony by Ferrara's students confirmed that his teaching style did not change. He continued to call them names such as "stupid" and "immature" and told them he did not enjoy teaching ninth graders. His lawsuit was also a frequent subject of class discussion. The students also complained that Ferrara refused to open the windows on hot days when the air-conditioning was inoperative because of outside noise. The latter complaint was noteworthy since Thornton had previously given written instructions to Ferrara on September 16 and 26, 1983 concerning complaints about Ferrara keeping the room too hot. During the year, a parent requested that she and her daughter meet with Ferrara and a school counselor concerning a problem the daughter was having in Ferrara's class. At the conference, Ferrara dwelled primarily on his lawsuit against the school board and did not seem concerned with the real purpose of the conference. This prompted a complaint by the parent against Ferrara. Students continued to request transfers out of Ferrara's classroom at an increasing rate. Although two guidance counselors advised Ferrara of these complaints, they observed no change in his behavior. Based upon student and parent complaints about a high failure rate, Ferrara was instructed by Thornton in October, 1983 to furnish each student with a mid-marking report (progress reports) advising them they were not performing to expectations. This report would alert students and parents that a student was in danger of failing. Although such reports are required by school board policy, Ferrara frequently did not prepare these reports. In fact, he advised Thornton he felt they were unnecessary and would not prepare them unless Thornton allowed teachers to complete them during class time. There were thirty-six weeks during school year 1983-84. All teachers were required to prepare lesson plans for each of those weeks, and to turn them in prior to the beginning of each school week. The plans were then filed, and in the event a teacher was absent, the substitute teacher would use the plans and instruct the class without a break in continuity. Ferrara was absent for three weeks in the spring of 1984. However, he left no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute. During his absence, the substitute had no disciplinary problems. When he unexpectedly returned to class after this absence, the students booed him, and then, according to the substitute, the "entire class went out of control." Ferrara thereafter required his students to repeat the work previously done for the substitute. Ferrara continued to ignore repeated requests by the department chairman to make lesson plans available. These requests were in the form of memoranda to all department personnel on August 25, October 5, November 17 and December 7, 1983 and January 17, 1984. As of February, 1984 he had turned in only three weeks' plans for the preceding twenty-week period. The department chairman wrote him a memorandum on February 10 requesting that such plans be filed. Even so, in June, 1984 the department chairman reviewed the lesson plans filed by department staff for the prior year. She found that Ferrara had completed plans for only five of the thirty-six weeks during the just completed school year. Of those completed most were generally unsatisfactory. Ferrara did not deny this, but pointed to the fact that two or three other department teachers were also continually tardy in filing their plans. This was confirmed by the department chairman. Ferrara began to come to work late and leave early during the school year although he was warned several times to adhere to the defined duty days. He also had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Because of Ferrara's continuing performance problems, Thornton placed Ferrara on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure effective April 25, 1984. This procedure is designed to provide assistance to teachers having performance problems. Basically, it provides the teacher with an explanation of any deficiencies, assistance and guidance in the cited areas, and an "adequate" period of time in which to correct them. Its main purpose is to salvage an employee's career. In his letter, Thornton told Ferrara he was being placed on the NEAT procedure because of deficiencies in the following areas: inability to use acceptable teaching techniques; inability to maintain a positive classroom environment; inability to establish and maintain a professional and effective working relationship with parents, students and colleagues; and failure to submit proper records, including, but not limited to, progress reports and lesson plans, as required by the school center, the School Board and state law. Ferrara was given until October 16, 1984 to "fully correct these deficiencies." The two met in a conference May 4, 1984 to discuss the procedure and Ferrara's responsibility to correct the deficiencies by the established date. It was pointed out to Ferrara that he would be given time off to visit other personnel while seeking assistance, and that three individuals on the county staff were available for consultation on his noted deficiencies. Ferrara viewed the NEAT procedure as a "charade" and a way for the School Board to fire him. Although he admitted he resented being placed on NEAT, Ferrara stated he respected the system and did not intend to ignore it because he knew that to do so would give grounds to the Board to dismiss him. On May 30, 1984, Thornton prepared an annual evaluation reflecting the same deficiencies as were used to place Ferrara on the NEAT procedure. It also noted that Ferrara's areas of strength were his educational qualifications and his use of good oral and written language. Ferrara was given a copy of the evaluation and, although he disagreed with its contents, signed it on May 30, 1984. School Year 1984-85 On August 21, 1984, Ferrara met with Thornton and the assistant principal and discussed various types of assistance that were available to him which had not yet been provided. Ferrara told Thornton he was not interested in any assistance and walked out of Thornton's office. On October 22, 1984, Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the following deficiencies required corrective action: continued failure to submit timely lesson plans; continued inability to establish positive rapport with staff, parents and students; continued failure to maintain a positive classroom atmosphere; and a continued deficiency in his teaching techniques. Ferrara was also told that there had been "some improvement in (his) performance," and that Thornton believed he was "making an effort to improve (his) performance, and because of this, the time for correcting his deficiencies under the NEAT procedure was being extended until the end of the school year. During the school year Ferrara's classroom management problems continued. For example, one guidance counselor observed that most of the students visiting her were students in Ferrara's classes. In fact, over half of the students she gave counseling to desired to transfer out of Ferrara's class and sought her assistance in doing so. The dean of students observed that some 35 percent to 40 percent of total disciplinary referrals by all teachers came from Ferrara, including six students at one time. This dean found most of the referrals unnecessary, and ones that could have been handled by Ferrara. In addition, she was called to Ferrara's classroom about four times each semester to calm down the class. It was established that the students deliberately "egged" Ferrara on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. Other credible testimony established that Ferrara's class was out of control on many occasions, and that this disruption affected the amount of learning that took place in the classroom. One dean suggested to Ferrara that he observe other teachers so that he might improve his classroom performance. In teacher-parent conferences, Ferrara preferred to discuss his personal problems with the school board administration rather than the problems that the student was experiencing. In other instances, Ferrara would not respond to requests by parents to contact them. On September 19, 1984, at Thornton's request, the area administrator, H. W. Berryman, visited Ferrara's classroom to observe and monitor Ferrara. This was the only teacher observation that Berryman had performed as an area administrator. On that particular day Ferrara needed some ten minutes to get the class started. Berryman noted that during Ferrara's lecture, only a few students were attentive, and that most were note-passing, carrying on conversations and creating mild disruptions which Ferrara failed to stop. However, Berryman complemented Ferrara on his knowledge of the subject matter and said his overall delivery was reasonably good. He suggested Ferrara take less time to "start-up the class, and to take steps to insure that his class was more attentive during the lecture. On October 4, 1984, Ferrara was observed by another administrator, Dr. Mona Jensen, for the purpose of assessing his teacher performance. This was also done at Thornton's request. Jensen is a consultant certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) and a trainer of other administrators in the use of FPMS. The FPMS utilizes a form for evaluating teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four areas: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Dr. Jensen monitored Ferrara in these four areas and provided Thornton and Ferrara with a copy of her written report. Among other things, she observed a negative interaction between Ferrara and his students, and that there was a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. Some of his comments were caustic in nature, and he never smiled in class. Like Berryman, she observed students talking to one another and not participating in the activity. She recommended that improvements be made in all areas which her report addressed. On October 29, 1984, Ferrara was observed by Lois Biddix, who is also a FPMS certified state trainer. Biddix used the same type of form as did Jensen in evaluating Ferrara. On her visit, Biddix observed students talking to one another, and participating in activities unrelated to the lesson. She described the class as sedentary and lethargic, with students suffering from boredom and frustration. She attributed this to Ferrara's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. These observations were consistent with those made by Berryman and Jensen, and her recommendations for improvement were in the same areas as those of Jensen. Dr. Jensen returned to Ferrara's class for a second observation on January 31, 1985. While Ferrara spoke clearly and directly on that day, and had good communicative skills, Dr. Jensen found most students did not participate in the discussion. She also found a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. During the lecture, Ferrara demonstrated anger at a remark made by a student, and told the student that if she wanted a confrontation, he would gladly accept her challenge. Dr. Jensen's evaluation and notes were given to Ferrara after the visit. The recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. A number of Ferrara's 1984-85 students testified at final hearing. Their testimony painted a picture of continued class management problems. For example, it was confirmed that groups of students would collectively begin coughing at one time or squeaking their chairs in harmony to antagonize Ferrara or test his mettle. It was also confirmed that he continued to call freshmen "stupid" and "immature," that he told his students he hated teaching ninth graders and that the school administration was wrong in making him teach that level of students. He also discussed his pending lawsuit during class hours and referred to the school administration in a negative manner. On at least one occasion he discussed the qualifications or lack thereof of another department teacher. It was further pointed out that Ferrara refused to give credit for assignments given by his substitute teacher. There were complaints that Ferrara punished the students for talking by making them sit in a hot classroom without opening the windows or running the air-conditioning. There was also a "lot" of cheating during class even though Ferrara was present in the room. The general consensus of most students was that the class was boring, and that they did not learn a great deal in this type of environment. Ferrara was required to spend 7 1/2 hours each day on campus. 2/ During the year, he did not always arrive at school on a punctual basis or spend the required number of duty hours at school. On April 11, 1985, the department head wrote Thornton a memorandum criticizing Ferrara for his repeated tardiness, and leaving before 2:15 p.m. After Thornton notified Ferrara about this complaint, there was an improvement on his part. During the second semester of the school year, a guidance counselor, Elizabeth Konen, approached Ferrara and told him that the parents of one of his students desired a parent-teacher conference to discuss their child. Ferrara told Konen he did not have time to meet with parents. Konen found this to be the usual response of Ferrara whenever such a request was made. On another occasion, he wrote a note to Konen stating he had no time to meet with parents, but after Thornton intervened and ordered a conference, Ferrara attended. In December 1984, Thornton requested that Ferrara produce proof that he gave his students progress reports as required by Board policy. Ferrara could produce only two such reports, although he claimed four others had also been given reports. This was after Ferrara had been previously criticized on October 21, 1984 for the same deficiency. On January 8, 1985, Thornton again gave written notice to Ferrara that he give timely progress reports to all students who were failing or working below expectation. Even after this second warning, a student, S. Z., complained to Konen in February, 1985 that she had not been given a progress report by Ferrara. This was brought to Thornton's attention in a letter written by S. Z.'s mother. On March 25, 1985, Thornton wrote respondent a letter outlining his continued areas of "serious deficiencies," and his lack of improvement in those areas since being placed on the NEAT procedure. He was warned that unless there was "significant improvement," Thornton would have no choice except to recommend he be terminated. Ferrara was urged to implement the suggestions outlined in the letter, and was told that "any reasonable assistance" requested by him would be given. Despite receiving numerous criticisms for failing to turn in lesson plans, respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year 1984-85. However, he did turn in a complete set of plans at the end of the year, but they did not indicate what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. On June 10, 1985, Ferrara was given his annual evaluation for the school year. It noted numerous continued deficiencies in three broad areas: classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. The only noted areas of strength were knowledge of the subject matter and use of proper grammar and written language. In his meeting with Thornton, Ferrara was told, among other things, that he should not make unprofessional remarks to his students, that he must adhere to defined duty days, that he must file lesson plans and progress reports on a timely basis, and his attitude with peers should improve. School Year 1985-86 Despite Ferrara's failure to correct all deficiencies by the end of school year 1984-85, Thornton made a decision to give Ferrara one last chance to rehabilitate himself under the NEAT procedure. On August 19, 1985 Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the NEAT procedure was being extended until November 1, 1985 and that he must correct all deficiencies by that date. This gave, Ferrara a total of sixteen academic months under the remedial program. The letter also stated that if the deficiencies were not corrected by November 1, Thornton would make a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools concerning Ferrara's employment status. Respondent had been criticized for giving an unusually high rate of failing grades to his students during prior years. It was established that his failure rate was substantially higher than for other teachers in school years 1981-82 and 1982-83. For example, his failure rates in 1981-82 and 1982-83 were 24 percent and 33 percent, respectively. In 1983-84, it was a little more in line (18 percent) with that of the other teachers to whom he was compared. After the first semester of school year 1985-86 had ended, Thornton reviewed Ferrara's grades and found the failure rate had been substantially reduced. Indeed, it was then slightly over 10 percent, thereby supporting Ferrara's contention that he had improved in this cited area of deficiency. On November 18, 1985, a thirty minute evaluation of Ferrara's class was conducted by Sandra Cowne, an assistant principal at JIL. Among other things, Cowne found that Ferrara still had no up-to-date lesson plan book. She noted that Ferrara was in need of improvement in four areas of performance. All other areas indicated satisfactory performance. On December 2, 1985, D:. Jensen visited Ferrara's classroom to monitor and evaluate his performance. The purpose of the visit was to determine if Ferrara had implemented the recommendations for improving instruction previously made after her earlier visits. Dr. Jensen asked to meet with Ferrara just prior to the hour of observation but he refused saying he didn't want to discuss anything. She then asked for his lesson plan and was given a plan that was too brief and had insufficient detail. During the actual observation, she found that Ferrara had not added any positive teaching behaviors to his technique although she had suggested this to him after her earlier observations. According to Dr. Jensen, Ferrara's main deficiency was that he failed to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. She concluded that Ferrara was an ineffective teacher, ranking below average due to his lack of positive behaviors. A copy of her evaluation and notes was given to respondent. H. W. Berryman made a second visit to Ferrara's classroom on December 10, 1985 for a repeat evaluation. Berryman initially noted that Ferrara had heeded his prior advice from September, 1984, and had speeded up the start-up time for beginning his instruction. However, Berryman continued to be concerned with the lack of involvement by a large majority of the students in the classroom. Although he found that Ferrara had "in-depth content knowledge" of the subject matter, he concluded that Ferrara had "serious negative attitudinal problems in reacting to all of the students assigned to his classes." Several of Ferrara's students testified about their experiences in Ferrara's classroom during the first semester. They confirmed that respondent's teaching techniques had not changed from prior years. For example, it was established that the usual disruptions occurred during his class, such as students sleeping, passing notes, talking and generally being inattentive. Ferrara again called his freshmen students "immature" and "childish," and told them that he had been demoted to the freshman class because the school board could not fire him. It was pointed out that once he told the students that they were immature, Ferrara would lose control over the class. There were continuing complaints that the classroom was too hot, and that Ferrara told the students if they were unhappy about the room temperature to complain to the administration. On one occasion, he refused to move his classroom to an adjacent empty room even though a student had vomited on the floor and the stench remained after the area was cleaned. It was also established that Ferrara continued to talk in class about his pending lawsuit and the problems he was having with the school administration. During the first semester, Ferrara continued to send large numbers of students to the dean for minor infractions. He also sent as many as six at a time. Ferrara was now disciplining his students before referral by making them write repetitious sentences. However, this is considered to be an inappropriate form of discipline. This form of discipline prompted complaints from both students and parents to the administration. It was confirmed through testimony of an assistant principal that respondent's classroom control had not improved over a three- year period. This observation was concurred in by various guidance counselors who received visits from Ferrara's students. During the first semester of the school year, there was no improvement in respondent's professional relationship with his peers. He refused to speak to most colleagues, and openly expressed his disdain for the department chairman. When respondent was in the department workroom, the atmosphere was hostile and uncomfortable. Similarly, like in other years Ferrara did not attend open house. He also failed to provide adequate lesson plans as previously ordered on a number of occasions. At the end of the first semester, Thornton concluded that sixteen academic months was a sufficient time to allow Ferrara to correct his deficiencies. Finding that respondent was "damaging" his students, that no improvement in Ferrara's performance or attitude had occurred, that he was making no contribution to the school program, and that he was still besieged with student and parent complaints, Thornton concluded that disciplinary action was justified. Thornton did acknowledge that Ferrara had improved in the areas of adhering to duty hours, issuing progress reports, taking roll call and reducing the number of failures. Even so, he concluded that this was insufficient to satisfy his overall teaching performance deficiencies. Moreover, he found that Ferrara's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired. Thornton accordingly recommended that Ferrara be terminated. Ferrara's suspension without pay became effective on February 19, 1986 and he has remained in that status since that time. Respondent's Case Ferrara traced all of his problems to what he perceived to be an uncalled for demotion to the ninth grade classroom in school year 1981-82. He felt it to be unjust, and an action which ignored the seniority he had attained over the years. He acknowledged that once the reassignment occurred he became demoralized and bitter and was never the same teacher again. Ferrara did not deny that he called students names. He also conceded that he had problems maintaining classroom discipline, but suggested he was being paid to teach, not to discipline. Ferrara further admitted he yelled at students, and sent a great many to the dean's office, but blamed much of this on a small group of students who always instigated trouble in his classroom. Ferrara asserted his classroom discipline would actually improve at times during this period, but that each time Thornton sent a note criticizing him, he became demoralized and would again lapse into his prior ways. Although Ferrara considered the NEAT procedure a means by which petitioner could fire him, he contended he attempted to correct his deficiencies. However, it was Ferrara's contention that only through reassignment to the eleventh grade could he actually improve and correct his deficiencies. He believes Thornton to be biased since Thornton is a defendant in Ferrara's lawsuit. However, independent administrators confirmed that the deficiencies cited in Thornton's memoranda were real, and that Ferrara had made no visible effort to correct most of them. Moreover, contrary to his assertions, Ferrara was accorded adequate notice, sufficient means and ample time to correct his cited deficiencies. In this regard, the School Board satisfied all regulations pertaining to the rehabilitation and dismissal of an employee. Ferrara also pointed out that Thornton prepared a special file called the "Larry Ferrara Drawer" in November, 1982 so that Ferrara's actions and performance could be documented. However, Ferrara's teaching performance was in issue by this time, and Thornton was simply conforming with various state, local and union requirements that potential disciplinary action have a well-defined paper trail. Ferrara did not deny he missed all graduations and open houses from 1981 through 1985. He justified his absence from graduation ceremonies on the ground they were too "sentimental," and stated he was always ill whenever open houses were scheduled. Ferrara denied that students were punished by keeping the room hot. He blamed the heat on an often inoperative and inadequate window air- conditioning unit in his classroom, and windows that were difficult to open. This was denied by the school maintenance chief. Various students corroborated Ferrara's claim that the air-conditioner did not always work, but it is found that Ferrara sometimes punished his students in this manner. Ferrara attempted to repudiate the testimony of former students who testified for petitioner at final hearing by offering favorable testimony of other former students. However, the latter testimony either pertained to time periods too remote to be relevant to this proceeding, or was discredited by more persuasive and credible testimony from petitioner's witnesses. Ferrara contended he prepared all required lesson plans but waited until the end of the school year to turn them in. However, even it this were true, this was contrary to school policy since such plans were required to be turned in the week before they were to be used. Ferrara suggested that most of his difficulties were caused by his creating "waves" at JIL. As noted above, he believed Thornton and the administration were biased against him because he had sued them, and because he had publicly criticized various school policies and individuals in the news media. But it was never established that such animosity existed, or if it did, that it played a role in the dismissal process. Finally, Ferrara professed a sincere desire to continue in the teaching profession, albeit at a more mature grade level. He does not wish to be terminated after a twenty-one year career. He desires to be reinstated at JIL and allowed to teach the eleventh grade as he did during the years 1970- 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency (inefficiency), misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, and that he be dismissed as-an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board. DONE and 0RDERED this 11th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment in the Broward County School System for alleged violations of Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Petition for Dismissal, dated April 12, 1979. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew Paragraphs II B, E, and J of its Petition for Dismissal.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner in the Broward County School System as an instructor in art at Plantation High School since 1970. He is currently on continuing contract status. The course which he has taught in the past include design, drawing, craft, sculpture, and ceramics. (Testimony of Respondent) During 1971, Respondent made a practice of having his students fill out a form questionnaire which contained personal information such as name, address, telephone, and date of birth. Additionally, the form included blocks concerning the student's grades, and prospective college attendance. It also asked if the student had any "hang ups" or police record, and if the student liked "rapp sessions" and why. School policy which was disseminated to teachers at faculty meetings required that any such forms had to be approved by the school principal, but Respondent had not sought such approval. When the matter came to the attention of the principal, he informed Respondent that he should discontinue use of the form and Respondent complied. (Testimony of Hanes, Saur, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In the fall of 1971, Jill Saur, n'ee Alexander, was a student in Respondent's ceramic and pottery class during her senior year. In October and November, 1971, she complained to school officials that she had received several early morning telephone calls from Respondent concerning his desire to come to her house and have sexual intercourse with her. These calls involved Respondent's use of obscene terms and caused the student to become apprehensive and frightened. Although she had recognized Respondent's voice over the telephone, school officials were unable to identify the caller from tape recordings that she had made of the calls at their suggestion. She testified at the hearing that she was too frightened to prefer charges against Respondent. She confronted Respondent on one occasion at the high school, but he denied making the calls. Although the school conducted an investigation, no official action was taken except that the principal told Respondent to leave the students alone. (Testimony of Saur, Tankovich, Hanes) During the 1974-75 school year, Respondent asked a 13 year old ninth grade student, Darlene Wilcox, to stay after class and come into his office. He asked the student to sit down and then closed the door. He handed her an issue of the magazine "Psychology," opened it to an article which had the word "sex" in the title and asked her if she had ever read a magazine like that before. Although the student testified that Respondent locked the office door from within the room, the only way in which the door can be locked is by a key on the outside entrance to the room. There is a large inside window to the office from which persons in an adjoining classroom can observe activities within the office. After showing the article to the student, another student entered the adjoining classroom and Respondent left the office and told the girl that he would see her in class the next day. (Testimony of Wilcox, Van Vleet, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In the fall of 1977, Kathy Weber, a 17 year old 12th grade student, was at a local establishment called the "Crown Bar" with student friends one evening. Although she was not one of Respondent's students, he joined her group at the bar and commenced conversing with her. During the course of the conversation, Respondent took the girl's wrist, stated that he could read her mind, and proceeded to tell her her birth date. On one occasion thereafter, Respondent phoned Kathy at her home, but she declined to converse with him. Also, he later saw her at school and told her that if she went to the Crown Bar again he would meet her there. He also asked her to go "bumming" with him sometime which he explained meant that he would like to go shopping with her. In late November or early December, he entered a class taught by Linda Whealin during a class session which was attended by Kathy. He asked permission from Mrs. Whealin to excuse Kathy when she finished her work in order that she could help in the office. The teacher agreed, but Kathy did not go because she was afraid of Respondent and felt that he took a "too personal attitude" toward her. This incident came to the attention of the school principal who, together with the assistant principal, discussed the matter with Respondent in early December. During these discussions, Respondent stated that he could read minds, that he did call Kathy at her house because she wanted to talk to him, and that he had asked for her to be excused from Mrs. Whealin's class because he wanted her to help him inventory a large art order. The school officials warned Respondent concerning his conduct and advised him to restrict any student contact to classroom situations. The matter was summarized in a memorandum prepared by the assistant principal, dated December 5, 1977, and Respondent signed the document acknowledging that he had read it. He also submitted a rebuttal stating his version of the circumstances involving the student. (Testimony of Weber, Whealin, Hanes, Laughton, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Susan Clement was a student of Respondent during the, 1977-78 school year. On different occasions, Respondent grabbed her neck with his hands, pinched her buttocks, and pushed up against her buttocks with his body from behind while she was washing her hands at a sink in the classroom. Once he told her that there were rumors that she was going to bars and meeting male teachers there. After one of these incidents, she complained to the school principal about Respondent's actions. During her school attendance, she smoked marijuana approximately three times a week and sometimes was under the influence of marijuana while attending classes. She testified, however, that it did not affect her memory or ability to concentrate in art class. (Testimony of Clement) Sherry Larkin was a student of Respondent during the past two years. During her ninth grade, he complained to her mother that Sherry was wearing thin shirts to class which disrupted the other students. Her mother, another teacher at Plantation High School, told her not to wear "Indian" clothes or jeans to school in the future. The student had been observed by another art teacher wearing sheer blouses at school. (Testimony of Larkin, Van Vleet) During the past school year, Respondent, while talking in class to a student, Lori Evans, pinched her above the breast for no apparent reason. At other times he pinched her on the buttocks during class, and slapped her on the buttocks with a ruler without giving any reasons for his actions. Lori also saw him slap another student, Angela Lash, with a ruler in the same manner. (Testimony of Evans) During the past school year, Respondent asked to see a student, Theresa Jackson, after class because she had become upset with his comments concerning her art work. After class, he told her that he wanted to embarrass her because he didn't want other students to know that he favored her or gave her special attention. He told her she was the most beautiful student he had ever had and put his arm around her. He also inquired as to her job and family and told her that if she ever had any problems, he would be glad to talk to her and help her out if she was "up tight." In one instance during the school year, the student wore shorts to class and Respondent told her that he didn't care if she wore them, but that the boy sitting at her table might get excited. On another occasion, he told her she should not wear so much eye makeup because her eyes were pretty enough without it. The student dropped the art class at the end of the first semester because she feared going back to his class since he treated her "special." (Testimony of Jackson) Tammy DeCarlo was a senior at Plantation High School during the 1978- 79 school year, but not one of Respondent's students. In February, 1979, while Tammy was loudly conversing with another student in a school corridor, Respondent came up and joined the conversation. Tammy was the school yearbook editor and had been having problems in its publication. About a week later, she saw Respondent again at school and they discussed some of her problems with the yearbook. Several days later, another student told Tammy that Respondent wanted to see her. Tammy went to his room and he asked her to go to his office. On the way, he picked up a tissue paper flower and gave it to her. In the office, they discussed her yearbook deadline and he mentioned that he had "ESP." He gave her several examples of his ability in this regard. He told her not to tell anyone that he was talking to her in order that they would have a "better trust." Tammy later told her mother about her conversation and thereafter spoke to the assistant principal about Respondent. However, nothing materialized from this discussion. A few days later, Tammy received a note telling her that Respondent wanted to see her again. Again, he took her into his office. During their conversation, Respondent told her that she didn't trust him because she had been hurt by a boy friend. He told her to close her eyes and concentrate, and then told her that the boy just took her out so that she could make love with him and that he had tried to make her do something she didn't want to do. Tammy told him she didn't know what he was talking about and Respondent said "What is it, oral sex?" Respondent also asked her what kind of birth control she used and the student told him. He asked her to give him "something personal." Since she was afraid of him, she offered to let him have her necklace. He asked to take it off her neck and did so. A week or so later, she saw Respondent again and he asked her to come in to see him during her lunch hour but she declined. Later, she asked a friend to get her necklace back from Respondent. He returned it, together with a picture. During their initial conversation, Respondent referred to Tammy's journalism instructor as a "male chauvinist pig" when Tammy complained that the instructor was taking all the credit for publication of the yearbook. Tammy's parents made a written complaint to school authorities concerning Respondent's conduct. (Testimony of DeCarlo, Hanes) Several of Respondent's former students testified that they had never seen him act improperly in class or inquire into the personal lives of students. They considered him to be a warm, friendly teacher who occasionally would pat a student on the back or put his arm around a student's shoulders. Other students testified that he often placed his arm around the shoulders of various students. Respondent's ability as an art instructor has never been questioned and one of his colleagues considers him to be the best ceramics instructor in the county. During the period 1971-1979, Respondent's principal at Plantation High School warned him concerning various incidents involving female students approximately four or five times. (Testimony of Graff, Landers, Cirille, Wilcox, Larkin, Evans, Jackson, DeCarlo, Hanes, Van Vleet) Respondent testified as a witness and denied ever making improper phone calls to Jill Alexander Saur or showing a magazine article to Darlene Wilcox. He denied pinching Lori Evans above the breast or on the buttocks or slapping her on the buttocks with a ruler. He stated that she was a pour student and unreliable when given a student task. Another teacher corroborated his testimony as to the student's unreliability. Respondent denied pushing against Susan Clement at the classroom sink or pinching her buttocks, but conceded that he might have grabbed her neck when she did not "clean up her mess" in the classroom. Respondent testified that after he notified Sherry Larkin's mother about the thin blouses she was wearing, her personality changed and she became angry and frustrated at him frequently. Prior to that incident, she had confided in him concerning spending a weekend with her boyfriend and giving him personal information concerning the fact that her sister was living with her boyfriend and that he dealt in drugs. He admitted that he had told a student, Nancy Brown, that she should wear better bra support on one occasion when she was wearing a knit top that was "very revealing." Respondent stated that the reason he had visited the Crown Bar was to join students whom he was teaching at night at Broward Community College. On the occasion when he introduced himself to Kathy Weber there, he discerned from her conversation that she had a "problem" with her boyfriend and that he later asked her to go to a shopping center in order that they could talk about her problem without being accused of doing something improper. He believed that she was probably drinking because of her problem and that he wanted to gain her confidence and then try to counsel her not to drink. In regard to the allegations involving Tammy DeCarlo, Respondent testified she seemed upset when he first saw her in a school corridor and that he had recently been advised by the assistant principal that students and parents were complaining that he was not being "consoling enough to my students." Therefore, even though he had been warned at the end of the prior academic year not to become personally involved with the students, he decided to talk to Tammy and was able to calm her. He admitted giving her paper flowers in his office and testified that they talked about ESP because she had said that her mother had studied the subject. He admitted making the statements relating to birth control and oral sex to Tammy because it seemed that she was having trouble with one of her boy friends and that she had said her sexual relationship with the boy was "old hat." In that regard, he testified in part as follows: When we were talking about her boy friend and her intercourse with her boy friend, I believe I made the statement, "Do you play it safe?" She said, "Yes." She said that she used the foams and he used condoms. Here again, I stated, Well, this is your thing, or that is your life. I think that she made the statement that he wanted to try something different. I may have said, do you mean oral sex, you know, kind of in a shocking manner. She said, I believe at the time, she agreed at the time, that this is what he wanted to do. She said something about, she wasn't quite sure about it. I said well, that is your life, your decision. Respondent conceded that he had been counseled concerning his relationship with female students by the principal about four times. He is of the opinion that school guidance counselors have too much paper work and could not see students on a personal basis. Therefore, he felt that if anyone had a problem they could come and talk to him because he could "listen well." He stated that he had "straightened out" a number of students and they and their parents had complemented him in the past. He denied any ability to read minds or that he had told the assistant principal that he could do so. It is found that Respondent's testimony wherein he denied the incident involving student Wilcox, and denied the physical actions involving students Evans and Clement is not credible. His testimony denying the telephone conversations with Jill Saur is not considered credible, but her testimony was received in evidence solely for the purpose of showing a motive, intent, or design regarding Respondent's relationships with other students. (Testimony Of Respondent, P. Park)
Recommendation That Respondent be dismissed from his employment as a member of the instructional staff of the Broward County School System, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. George Allen, Esquire 116 Southeast Sixth Court Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Richard H. Frank, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Broward County School Board Attn: Edward J. Marko, Esquire Post Office Box 4369 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 237129, covering the areas of social studies and work experience coordinator. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies instructor at Columbia High School in the Columbia County School District. Respondent has been a school teacher since January, 1967 and has taught school in the Columbia County School District since 1968, excluding two (2) years for military service. Respondent has a good record as a teacher in the Columbia County School District and has never been accused of any professional misconduct in the past. Adrianne Lewis (Lewis) was a sixteen (16) year old student at Columbia High School in the first semester of the 1985/86 school year and became acquainted with the Respondent when she was a student in his third and sixth period classes. Lewis did not start in Respondent's sixth period class until two (2) weeks after the beginning of school in August, 1985 and was required to make up work missed during the first two (2) weeks. Respondent has a consistent policy with regard to make-up work which requires all students to make up work either before or after school and not during class. During the first six (6) weeks of school, Lewis made up several tests that she had missed both before and after becoming a student of Respondent. The complaining witness, Adrianne Lewis, testified that on two (2) separate occasions, most probably in September, 1985, the first time during a school pep rally and the second time while she was taking a make-up test after school, the Respondent, among other things, kissed her on the mouth and neck, fondled her breasts, rubbed and fondled her derriere, attempted to put a balloon under her shirt and asked why she was afraid of him and sex. However, the more credible evidence is that: (a) On September 13, 1985, Lewis went to Respondent's classroom during a school pep rally to take a make-up test, arriving around 2:50 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (b) After Lewis turned in the test, Respondent spent approximately ten (10) minutes with Lewis discussing a problem she was having; (c) During the time Lewis was in the Respondent's classroom and office, Ken Stark was in an adjoining classroom with connecting windows which had only a portion of the view blocked; (d) Later in September, 1985, Lewis stayed after school to take another make-up test, arriving around 3:30 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (e) During the time Lewis was in Respondent's office turning in the test, Respondent's elder son, John D. Evans, III was present and observed no misconduct on Respondent's part in regard to Lewis and; (f) Respondent, at no time during these two (2) occasions or any other occasion, improperly touched Lewis or engaged in any misconduct with respect to Lewis. During the second six (6) weeks of school, Lewis began missing class regularly. Due to a School Board policy concerning unexcused absences, Respondent consulted with Tom Grubb, Guidance Counselor, and was instructed to contact Lewis' parents. Respondent was unable to contact Lewis' parents or her grandmother, with whom she lived, but did contact her aunt, Denise Lewis. Respondent informed Denise Lewis of Lewis' absences and the need for Lewis to makeup her work or risk failing. Respondent's conversation with Denise Lewis occurred during the week of October 28, 1985 and about one (1) week later Denise Lewis conveyed the message to Lewis. Lewis did not mention the alleged improper touching by Respondent to Denise Lewis at this time but did say that Respondent did not like her and was going to fail her anyway. When Denise Lewis informed Lewis' grandmother of her absences, Lewis became upset because her grandmother had not previously known about Lewis' absences. On or about October 31, 1985, Lewis reported to Sergeant James Rutledge that she had been improperly touched and fondled by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. During the week of November 6, 1985, Lewis again reported to Sergeant Rutledge that she had been improperly touched by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. Rutledge went with Lewis and her girlfriend to the dean's office and notified the dean that Lewis was outside and needed to talk to him. On or about November 6, 1985, Lewis became upset with Respondent about calling her aunt and angrily told him not to call her aunt again. Lewis told Respondent that she was going to inform the administration of his alleged misconduct. Thereafter, the matter was reported and investigated by the administrator. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Respondent was arrested and charged with battery. Subsequent to the arrest, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida filed a No Information and the cause was dismissed. There was no evidence to prove that Respondent's conduct had reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. There was no evidence that Respondent had exploited the teacher/student relationship with the minor female student for his own personal gain, exposing her to harm and unnecessary embarrassment. There was no evidence that Respondent had: (a) accepted or offered any gratuity, gift, or favor to, or from, anyone; (b) used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; (c) intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or; (d) failed to make reasonable effort to protect student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3994 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Rejected that portion of the finding of fact concerning Lewis requesting Respondent to sign, and Respondent signing, a balloon as immaterial and irrelevant. The balance of the finding of fact is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The fact that Lewis skipped classes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis took a second test before December, 1985, is adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis reported the alleged incidents is adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis told the Respondent that she had reported the alleged sexual contact to the administration is adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The fact that a No Information was filed and the case dismissed is adopted in Finding of Fact 16 but that the State Attorney dismissed because the contact was consensual is rejected as hearsay that does not supplement or explain any other evidence in the record. 19-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. In these findings, the Petitioner relies mainly on the testimony of Lewis, testimony which I did not find credible. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 7.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 16.-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 20.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practice Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Brooks Meyer, Brooks, and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The facts which resulted in the filing of these administrative charges are not in great dispute. The Respondent, Henry Gooch, taught the class of Marriage and the Family during the summer term of 1975 at Santa Fe Community College. The college class schedule listed this course and indicated that the course included the weekend of July 12 and 13. Classes began around July 2, 1975, and Respondent informed the students that class attendance was required for this course, any student who missed over three classes would receive a "W" (for which a student does not receive a course credit), that the weekend experience would count as five class sessions, and that the course would, because of this weekend, terminate two weeks earlier than normal. Respondent Gooch stated that the weekend experience was a requirement for the course and that any student that did not attend would receive a grade of "W." At no time were any students given an indication of what was to take place during this required weekend "experience." The weekend experience took place on Little Lake Santa Fe outside Gainesville, Florida. One student advised the Respondent that because of religious reasons, she could not attend. This student did not attend the weekend experience and received a "W" for the course. Failure to get credit for this course caused this student not to graduate after the summer term and required her continuing attendance and enrollment at Santa Fe Community College. Students were permitted to bring their spouses to the weekend experience and several of them did. After the students arrived, the Respondent began a group discussion on the topic of public nudity. This discussion became very heated and apparently some of the students got the impression that nudity was part of the program for this weekend. Several of them, in fact, asked Mr. Gooch whether he intended to require nudity as part of the weekend experiences. Mr. Gooch assured them it was not. After this discussion had ended Mr. Gooch began what has been called "the machine game." Basically what happened is that one student was asked to come into the center of the room and imitate a machine. After this had begun, the other students were advised to join in by forming a circle or a line and to imitate the machine in unison. Each student was then asked to exchange pants with the student in front of then. At this time, at least one student found this activity to be extremely objectionable. Several other students did not participate in the exchange of clothing. One student, Ron Griffith, who found the activities objectionable, left the room and shortly thereafter left the weekend with his wife. The student Griffith eventually filed a formal complaint with the School Administration outlining his version of the activities of the weekend and his feelings that the Respondent's conduct was extremely unprofessional. This statement was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The Respondent stated that the factual allegations in that complaint are accurate. At least one other student left the weekend after the machine game had been completed and that student also received a "W." Shortly after student Griffith filed his formal complaint with the School Administration, the Respondent Gooch was suspended from teaching responsibilities at Santa Fe. This occurred on August 1, 1975. Another instructor took over the responsibilities for teaching Marriage and the Family and in that manner the course was completed. It is admitted that the school regulations regarding field trips was not complied with by the Respondent Gooch. A copy of the school regulations in the school policy manual had been assigned to Gooch as Department Coordinator. Mr. Gooch claims he was not aware of the field trip policy and would have complied with it had he known. For several students that did not attend the weekend trip or left before its completion and who received "W's" for their final grade, there was no real showing that an alternative requirement for course completion was made available to them. It is true that the Respondent Gooch testified he intended to give several of these students an opportunity to make up the missed time at this weekend, but whatever effort he put into this was certainly inadequate, particularly in light of the fact that his prior announcements would give any reasonable person the absolute impression that failure to participate and complete this weekend made the grade of "W" mandatory. There is certainly no question that the Respondent, Gooch, did violate provisions of the College Policy Manual. The pleadings filed in this case admit such did occur. The crucial issue is whether these were mere technical violations or whether the nature of the Respondent's conducts should be considered serious infractions. It is undisputed that the Respondent required the attendance of students in this course at this weekend experience. The charges filed on behalf of the college state that the students were coerced to attend this weekend. Perhaps coerced is not the most appropriate word to use, but it is certain attendance at this weekend was mandatory on a threat of receiving no credit for the course. It is also undisputed that the students were not given any indication of what to expect during this weekend. The Respondent should have known that his planned activities for this weekend would be objectionable or distasteful to at least some of the students in this class. Those students were given no choice or alternative course of study by which they could have received credit for this course as a substitute for this weekend experience. As a result, these students, as mentioned above, did not participate in the weekend experience and received a grade of "W" for the course of Marriage and the Family. The failure of these students to receive credit for this course was a direct result of the Respondent's not complying with school policy. Even though the Respondent advised the class the weekend experience was a mandatory requirement in time for the students to drop this course and add another one to receive required credit, that opportunity was not very meaningful without a better explanation of what was involved in the "weekend experience." The students could not be held responsible for having made a choice in this matter when they were uninformed as to what they were choosing. A student should not be subjected to requirements found to be personally distasteful without at least the sanction of the University and the informed consent of the student. In this case, neither occurred, as the school policy on field trips was not followed and the students were kept in total ignorance as to what the itinerary was for this weekend. The students who received a "W" grade cannot be said to have failed to meet the minimum requirements in this course when one of the announced requirements, the unapproved field trip, violated school policy. It must, therefore, be concluded the Respondent Henry Gooch did violate School Policy 1- 5.17 by causing several students to receive the grade of "W" for not participating in the weekend. Were it only that the weekend turned out to be less than completely successful, this matter might be dismissed as nothing more than exercise of poor judgement on the part of the Respondent that caused no real harm. However, the violation of school policy combined with this poor judgement caused several students to lose credit for the course and at least one not to graduate in time. The loss to the students cannot be replaced and the harm to them is real, not speculative. Therefore, it is recommended that the Respondent Gooch be found to have violated school policy, and suspended until the end of the Fall Quarter of 1975, thereupon to be returned to faculty Status on an annual contract status. Furthermore, he should not be considered for reinstatement on a continuing contract basis for one year and during this probationary period, not be eligible for pay adjustment. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Cates, Esquire Attorney for Respondent 635 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida Robert V. Bookman, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 222 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in humanities at the College's Clearwater campus. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1996. He began as an adjunct professor and has been a full-time instructor since 1998. Respondent works under a continuing contract of employment, which is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent had never been subject to disciplinary proceedings during his employment with the College. At Respondent's July 2004 annual evaluation meeting, Provost Stan Vittetoe and Program Director Anne Cooper expressed concerns about Respondent's failure to keep office hours and the fact that he did not show up for a class he was scheduled to teach. Respondent attributed these problems to his ongoing divorce proceedings. Dr. Vittetoe lectured Respondent on the importance of not allowing "life issues" to affect his work, but did not otherwise discipline Respondent. In the fall semester of 2003, Respondent taught three humanities courses: Humanities I, Humanities II, and East/West Synthesis. Humanities I and II consist of a chronological study of Western civilization. East/West Synthesis focuses on non- Western cultures, such as those of India, China, Japan, Africa, and the Middle East. Pamela Socorro has been a student at the College since 2002. She enrolled in Respondent's East/West Synthesis class in August 2003. The class was scheduled to meet twice a week, on Monday and Wednesday evenings, for the length of the fall semester. Each class period lasted one hour and 45 minutes. Respondent also played keyboards for a local jazz and rhythm and blues band called Bus Stop. Respondent was not a regular member of the band, but sat in for the band when its regular keyboardist was unavailable. Bus Stop played at nightclubs and bars in the Tampa Bay area. In his humanities classes, Respondent would announce the dates of his engagements with Bus Stop and invite the students to come out and hear the band. In response to one such general invitation in late October 2003, Ms. Socorro and a group of friends went to a bar called the Rare Olive in Ybor City to see Respondent perform with Bus Stop. The Rare Olive did not admit persons under 21 years of age. Ms. Socorro was 19 years old at the time, and her friends were also under 21. Respondent intervened with management, asking if Ms. Socorro could come into the bar provided she did not drink alcoholic beverages. Ms. Socorro was allowed to come into the bar, though at least one of her friends, Rian Salmun, was not admitted. During a break from playing, Respondent spoke with Ms. Socorro for five-to-ten minutes. This was their first one- to-one conversation. During this conversation, Respondent asked Ms. Socorro her age. She told Respondent that she was 19 years old, and he told her that he was 33 years old. In November 2003, Ms. Socorro and Respondent had a conversation on the College campus during which Respondent mentioned that Bus Stop would be playing at the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg on November 21, 2003. Because Respondent was sitting in with the band on short notice, he did not have an opportunity to announce this performance to his humanities classes. On November 21, 2003, Ms. Socorro went to the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg with her mother, her aunt, and a group of friends. Ms. Socorro used a friend's identification card to obtain admittance to the bar. Respondent joined Ms. Socorro and her party during a break. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro if she wanted a drink, and she told him that she liked "fruity drinks" and shots. Respondent walked to the bar and came back with two shots. They downed the shots together.2 After about an hour at the Rare Olive, Ms. Socorro's mother wanted to leave. Respondent did not want Ms. Socorro to leave and asked what she would be doing later, after she took her mother home. Respondent gave Ms. Socorro his cellular telephone number, and she said she would call him later. She entered the number into her mother's cellular telephone directory. Ms. Socorro and her group left the bar. Once outside, Ms. Socorro realized that she had neglected to save Respondent's phone number into her mother's cell phone directory. Maria Albornoz, one of Ms. Socorro's friends, went back into the bar and obtained Respondent's cell phone number again for Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro did not call Respondent later on the night of November 21, 2003. She did call him on the afternoon of November 22, 2003, and left a message on his cellular telephone. Respondent returned the call that evening. From this point forward, Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of that evening's events differ in several particulars. According to Ms. Socorro, Respondent asked her if she would like to attend the Fall Dance Concert at the College with him that evening. Respondent testified that he had mentioned the concert in class that week, and asked Ms. Socorro whether she was planning to attend, but did not ask her to go with him. Ms. Socorro testified that they arranged on the telephone to meet outside the theater, met as planned, went in together, and sat together in the back row of the theater. Respondent testified that they happened to arrive at the same time and that they sat together in the back of the theater because the recital had already started when they entered. Ms. Socorro testified that, after the recital, she and Respondent arranged to meet at the Marble Slab, a local ice cream shop. Respondent testified that he mentioned that he was going for ice cream but that he did not ask Ms. Socorro to join him. Before proceeding to the ice cream shop, Respondent spoke to several performers of his acquaintance, while Ms. Socorro went across the street from the College to the residence of her friend, Mr. Salmun, and spoke with him for a few minutes. At the hearing, Mr. Salmun testified that Ms. Socorro told him she was meeting Respondent for ice cream at the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro recalled walking past Respondent's car in the Marble Slab's parking lot and seeing two child car seats in the back. At the time, she was unaware that Respondent was involved in divorce proceedings or that he was the father of twin three-year-old daughters. Respondent was already seated at a table in the Marble Slab when Ms. Socorro entered. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Socorro ordered ice cream. They sat at the table and talked about their families, their astrological signs, Pilates and dance teachers they had in common, yoga, and Latin dance. They eventually felt self- conscious about sitting at the table in the ice cream shop without making a purchase, and they continued their conversation outside the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she was a good student and was doing very well in his class. He asked Ms. Socorro not to "announce" that she had seen him play at the Rare Olive or had gone with him to the dance recital, "because he could get in trouble." He told her that he should not see her again while she was in his class, but he did not tell her that he was forbidden to see her. Respondent urged Ms. Socorro to complete her class assignments and exams as quickly as possible, the implication being that they could begin dating once she had completed the class and received a final grade. Despite his cautionary statements, Respondent also discussed going out to a Latin club with Ms. Socorro so that she could help him with his dance technique. Respondent testified that he was surprised to see Ms. Socorro arrive at the Marble Slab, especially given that she did not order ice cream. He stated that this was the first clear signal that Ms. Socorro might have a romantic interest in him. Respondent recalled that Ms. Socorro asked him to go out with her to a dance club, but that he told her that was "out of bounds." However, he also told Ms. Socorro that he was interested in pursuing a relationship once she was out of his class. To the extent that Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of events on November 22, 2003, differ, Ms. Socorro's version is credited. Even in his own version of events, Respondent agreed that he returned Ms. Socorro's telephone call. He denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the dance recital. However, Respondent admitted telling Ms. Socorro that he was going to the recital and asking Ms. Socorro if she was going. Similarly, Respondent denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the Marble Slab, but there could be little other reason for him to tell her that he was going there. Finally, Respondent admits that he made it clear to Ms. Socorro that he was very much interested in pursuing a relationship with her, as soon as the formality of having her as a student in his class could be dispensed with. On the evening of November 29, 2003, Ms. Socorro attended a performance of the play "Miss Saigon" at Ruth Eckerd Hall in Clearwater. When she came home after the play, she learned that Respondent had telephoned her. She returned the call the next day, while shopping in Orlando with her mother. Ms. Socorro talked to Respondent about "Miss Saigon," because the play was related to the East/West Synthesis course Respondent was teaching. They discussed the Thanksgiving break, then made plans to see the movie "Gothika" that evening at the AMC Woodlands 20 theater complex in Oldsmar. Respondent and Ms. Socorro attended a late showing of "Gothika," then sat and talked in the theater's parking lot until approximately 5:30 a.m. Respondent testified that this was his first "real talk" with Ms. Socorro and that they began to get to know each other at this time. They also shared their first kiss, described by both principals as a "French kiss." Ms. Socorro was scheduled to report to her job as a nanny at 5:45 a.m. on December 1, 2003. She went straight to work from the movie theater parking lot, but arrived late to her job. Because she was unable to change clothes before work, she ended up reporting to Respondent's class that evening wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date the night before. When she arrived at class, Ms. Socorro noted that Respondent was also wearing the same clothes he had worn the previous evening. While Respondent agreed that he went with Ms. Socorro to see the movie "Gothika," and accepted her version of what happened that night after the movie, Respondent contended that this date occurred on December 9, 2003, the day after he gave out the final grades for Ms. Socorro's East/West Synthesis class. Respondent contended that he did not speak with or see Ms. Socorro on November 30, 2003. He denied any recollection of seeing Ms. Socorro in his class wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date. Ms. Socorro testified that she did go to the movies again with Respondent on December 10, 2003, but that they saw "The Last Samurai." Respondent denied ever having seen "The Last Samurai." Ms. Socorro's version of the chronology of these events is more credible and is accepted. Ms. Socorro's recollection of the events of November 30, 2003, was precise in its detail, belying Respondent's contention that she was somehow confused or mistaken as to when they saw "Gothika" together. On December 8, 2003, Ms. Socorro took her last exam in Respondent's class. The exam was a multiple choice "fill in the bubble" test that Respondent machine graded that evening while the students waited. Respondent was able to tell Ms. Socorro that she had made an "A" in his class before she left his classroom on December 8th. However, Respondent did not officially post the grades for his class until December 16, 2003. The semester officially ended on December 19, 2003. Prior to the end of the fall semester, Ms. Socorro told Respondent that her friends Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun knew that she and Respondent were dating. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she should tell Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun not to speak to anyone about their relationship. Ms. Socorro and Mr. Salmun were best friends. They saw or spoke to each other every day, and they prepared their schedules for spring semester together before the end of fall semester. Mr. Salmun told Ms. Socorro that he intended to take a class from Respondent, because he needed one more humanities course and Respondent's class fit into his schedule. Ms. Socorro explained to Mr. Salmun that she had discussed this matter with Respondent, who had told her that they could not socialize with any friends of Ms. Socorro's who were taking classes from Respondent. Mr. Salmun nonetheless signed up for the class, though he dropped it for a humanities class taught by another instructor prior to the close of the fall semester. Ms. Socorro told another friend, Teona Gogoladze, that she should not enroll in Respondent's class for the spring semester, due to Respondent's concerns about his relationship with Ms. Socorro becoming widely known. Ms. Gogoladze registered for Respondent's class anyway, because it fit her schedule better than any other humanities class, and she had done well in a previous class taught by Respondent. Ms. Gogoladze told Ms. Socorro that it would not be "the end of the world" if she had to avoid seeing Ms. Socorro with Respondent for one semester. As it happened, Respondent and Ms. Socorro did socialize with Ms. Gogoladze once during the spring semester, attending a party at her house for the airing of the last episode of the television show "Friends." During the Christmas break between fall and spring semesters, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went out to clubs at least twice. On December 19, 2003, they went with a group of College students to an "end of semester" party at Terra, a Latin club in Ybor City. The next weekend, they went to 10 Beach Drive, a piano bar in St. Petersburg. The couple spoke on the telephone on Christmas Day, exchanged Christmas gifts, and spent New Year's Eve together. Respondent introduced Ms. Socorro to his sister and his father. Respondent and Ms. Socorro continued to see each other during the spring semester of 2004. Ms. Socorro had registered for classes, but withdrew from the College for the semester in order to visit her sick father in Venezuela. Ms. Socorro testified that, although Respondent did not press her to withdraw from the College, their relationship improved when she was not in school because Respondent felt less stress about students seeing him on his dates with Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent "constantly" bought her alcoholic beverages during their relationship, though he knew she had not reached the legal drinking age. Ms. Socorro went to the bars at which Respondent was playing with Bus Stop. Respondent would "hang out" with Ms. Socorro during breaks and buy her drinks. At a bar called J.B.'s in Sarasota, Respondent used his credit card to open a tab for a group of people, including Ms. Socorro. At the end of the evening, Respondent was startled at the amount of the bill. Everyone in the group except Ms. Socorro reimbursed Respondent for their drinks. Ms. Socorro did not register for classes at the College for the 2004 summer semester. She cited her relationship with Respondent as her main reason for staying out of school: I knew that when I went back to school, I knew it was going to be a little difficult, because when we would go out to anywhere around town, restaurants, Gary knew everyone. His students were everywhere. He felt uncomfortable. He always asked if the person knew me. So, I knew it was going to be difficult. * * * At that point, by the summer, we were a couple and we had been together for months. I knew it was going to be stressful again and I was working at-- I believe I was beginning to work at a bank and the bank, if I was there long enough, was going to pay for school. And I decided that, putting all these things together, that I would not go in the summer, either. Respondent taught classes during the 2004 summer semester. Margaret Gunn was a student enrolled in one of his classes. Once while Ms. Gunn was in his office, Respondent asked her to come out to a bar to hear his band play. Ms. Gunn declined the offer. Respondent asked her again in September 2004, and Ms. Gunn again declined. Ms. Gunn testified that Respondent's requests made her somewhat uncomfortable, but that she nonetheless maintained a cordial relationship with him. During the annual fall semester orientation in 2004, College president Dr. Carl Kuttler spoke about sexual harassment during a faculty and staff meeting attended by Respondent. Dr. Kuttler stressed that relationships between instructors and students were not allowed if the instructor could in any way affect the student's grade, academic progress, or academic environment. Ms. Socorro described Respondent's reaction to Dr. Kuttler's presentation: He was upset and that was the first time I heard the name "Dr. Kuttler." I remember him saying that they had emphasized the subject of teacher and student relationships. And it was kind of like, "you see, I told you" kind of thing. He said that now he needed to be very, very careful. He was actually concerned, because me and Rian [Salmun] were having problems in our friendship and he was concerned that now Rian was going to be upset and he might say something to people out of spite. He was just-- he was scared. He was paranoid. He told me about a teacher that was fired. And he said, you know, they don't even know if he did it, they just think he did it and he was fired or he left or something happened and he was just scared. Ms. Socorro, who was planning to return to the College in fall 2004, offered to take her classes at a different campus, or at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, to assuage Respondent's fears. Despite the offer, she eventually registered to take classes at the College's Clearwater campus. Ms. Socorro also asked Respondent why their being seen together remained a concern, given that she was no longer his student. Ms. Socorro stated, "And he kept saying that it just looked bad, it just looked bad that I was his student at the school, because people would wonder how we met. It would be too much of a coincidence that we met, where we met or how." Respondent and Ms. Socorro agreed to give a false story to anyone curious about how they met. Ms. Socorro testified: He would ask me, please, just tell people that you met me at the bar or we would come up with kind of like a script of what I was going to say to [Respondent's] friends. It was usually I met Gary while he was playing out [with the band]. That's what I told everybody. * * * I was protecting him from anyone at all finding out. I don't know if-- I don't know. I don't know if he felt bad himself about it and he just didn't want people to know. He said people don’t-- he would say people don't know our relationship, they don't know us, they don't know how we are, and it doesn't look good that you're so young, it doesn't look good that I was your teacher and people perceive things differently, so let's not let them do that. Throughout their relationship, Respondent stressed to Ms. Socorro that she should not befriend students enrolled in his classes. Respondent testified that he did so not out of fear for his job but because he wanted to keep his professional and personal life as separate as possible. More credibly, Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that he was "risking everything" to continue his relationship with Ms. Socorro. During the 2004 fall semester, Ms. Socorro met and befriended Ms. Gunn, who had taken a class from Respondent during the summer semester and was taking a second class from Respondent in the fall. When they discussed their classes and teachers, Ms. Socorro pretended she did not know Respondent. Respondent became concerned that Ms. Socorro was seeing too much of Ms. Gunn, because he was afraid Ms. Gunn might "put things together." Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to stay away from Ms. Gunn. Ms. Gunn testified that it took only a few weeks for her to determine that Respondent was the "boyfriend" that Ms. Socorro described in their conversations. Respondent told Ms. Socorro that she should just go to her classes, sit through the lectures, then get in her car and leave the campus. Respondent demanded that Ms. Socorro decide between her relationship with him and the life of a "typical student," because he was "risking too much" to have Ms. Socorro jeopardize it by "hanging out" at school. Ms. Socorro testified that "things got really bad" between Respondent and her during the 2004 fall semester, due to their conflicts concerning Ms. Gunn and the pressure of hiding their relationship. They had "a lot of fights," some so bad that they would decide to "take breaks from each other" for as long as one week. Ms. Socorro recalled three such "breaks" before their final breakup in late November and early December 2004. On November 30, 2004, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went to the AMC Woodlands 20 movie complex to see a movie, but never made it past the parking lot because an argument commenced. Ms. Gunn had told Ms. Socorro that Respondent had quizzed her regarding her whereabouts on certain evenings, with the idea of ascertaining whether Ms. Socorro had lied to him when she promised to stop seeing Ms. Gunn. Ms. Socorro confronted Respondent about his questioning of Ms. Gunn. Respondent called her a "compulsive liar" and said that he was "torn" about their relationship and needed time to decide what to do. Ms. Socorro described this fight as "sad" and "horrible." Respondent testified that, despite her promise not to see Ms. Gunn during the fall semester, Ms. Socorro had surreptitiously gone over to Ms. Gunn's house on at least one occasion of which he was aware. He agreed that the confrontation over Ms. Gunn occurred on November 30, though he placed it at a Ruby Tuesday's restaurant.3 Respondent assured Ms. Socorro that they would talk things over the next day, but testified that he also made it clear to her that the romantic relationship was over. On December 1, 2004, Ms. Socorro repeatedly phoned Respondent, who did not answer her calls.4 She sent several e- mail messages to which Respondent did not respond. Respondent was staying at his father's house because relatives were visiting from out of town. That evening, Ms. Socorro went to Respondent's father's house. Respondent did not want a confrontation with Ms. Socorro because his children were with him. He promised to speak with her the next day. On the morning of December 2, 2004, Ms. Socorro drove over to Respondent's house. She had concluded that her relationship with Respondent was over, and she wanted to retrieve some possessions that she kept at his house. Respondent was not at home, but Ms. Socorro knew that the lock was broken on Respondent's sliding glass back door, and she let herself in the house.5 While looking for some of her jewelry on Respondent's bedroom dresser, Ms. Socorro found a letter from and photographs of one of Respondent's former girlfriends, a former College student named Marianna Csongova. She read the letter, and concluded that Respondent was having a relationship with Ms. Csongova at the same time he was dating Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro recalled having seen an e-mail exchange between Respondent and Ms. Csongova earlier in 2004. Respondent had explained away this e-mail, but Ms. Socorro now wondered if there were more e-mails between Respondent and Ms. Csongova. She went into Respondent's computer room and checked his e- mails. She found "tons and tons" of e-mails from Ms. Csongova, and responses from Respondent.6 Ms. Socorro continued searching Respondent's e-mail and found correspondence between Respondent and several other female students at the College. She printed "tons" of the e- mails. Respondent's printer ran out of paper before all of the e-mails printed. Ms. Socorro began forwarding the e-mails to her own e-mail account, but then got worried that Respondent would come home and catch her. She turned off Respondent's computer and left the house, taking a half-inch thick stack of printed e-mails with her. Respondent had spent the night at his father's house. He woke up on the morning of December 2, 2004, and drove to his own house to shower and dress for work. He noticed that the sliding glass door had been opened. He went to check his e-mail and noticed that the printer was out of paper. Respondent surmised that Ms. Socorro had been in his house and on his computer. As he had promised Ms. Socorro the previous evening, Respondent phoned Ms. Socorro and arranged for her to come over to his house early in the afternoon to discuss their relationship. Ms. Socorro had a doctor's appointment that afternoon to which Respondent had planned to accompany her. During their phone conversation, Respondent told Ms. Socorro that he would not accompany her to the appointment because he was driving to Orlando to see his brother, who was down from Atlanta on business. Ms. Socorro arrived at Respondent's house at approximately 12:30 p.m. She went in and they sat down to talk. They talked for nearly an hour about Ms. Gunn and the other issues between them. They did not discuss Ms. Socorro's having gone into Respondent's house that morning and printing his e- mails. Ms. Socorro testified that they both "pretended" not to know what she had done. At about 1:15 p.m., Respondent reminded Ms. Socorro of her doctor's appointment at 1:30 p.m. Respondent was also anxious to begin his trip to Orlando. Ms. Socorro again asked Respondent to accompany her to her doctor's appointment, but Respondent again declined. Ms. Socorro told Respondent that she still wanted things to work out. Respondent said that he did not think it would work, but agreed to talk with her again. Respondent walked Ms. Socorro out of his house and to her car. Respondent was the first to reach Ms. Socorro's car. He looked inside. Ms. Socorro then recalled that she had placed the stack of e-mails on the back seat of her car and that they were plainly visible from outside. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to unlock the car so that he could retrieve a CD that he claimed to have left in her car. Ms. Socorro used her keyless entry device to open the front door. Before Ms. Socorro could get in the car, Respondent reached in and opened the back door. He grabbed the stack of e- mails. Ms. Socorro threw herself onto Respondent's back, and they struggled over the e-mails on the back seat of the car. The papers were falling to the ground outside the car.7 Ms. Socorro pressed the "panic" button on her keyless entry device, setting off the car's alarm system. Respondent took the keys from her, stopped the alarm, and threw the keys outside the car. They continued to struggle inside the car, until Respondent managed to get out of the car. Neighbors were beginning to notice the struggle. Respondent told Ms. Socorro to calm down, that they both needed to act normal. They stopped fighting and picked up the e-mails. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to go back into the house and talk about matters.8 They walked to the front door. Respondent opened the door, slipped part way into the house, then tossed his stack of e-mails into the house, with the apparent attempt to deny entry to Ms. Socorro. She ran inside the house before Respondent could close the door. They began yelling at each other again. Respondent demanded to know what Ms. Socorro intended to do with the e- mails and threatened to kill her if she tried to "do anything to destroy everything I've worked for all of my life." Respondent tried to force Ms. Socorro out of the house. He pushed her against the wall near the front door and hurt her arm. As Ms. Socorro held on to the jamb of the open front door, Respondent hit her in the chest with his head and shoulder, shoving her off the front porch and into a bush below.9 Respondent took advantage of Ms. Socorro's fall to lock his front door from the outside. Ms. Socorro became hysterical. She began to laugh, unnerving Respondent, who tried to calm her down. As Ms. Socorro quieted, they discussed the e- mails. Respondent explained that he stayed in touch with Ms. Csongova because he needed to keep his options open. She asked him about the e-mails to the other girls. Respondent replied that the College would not care if he "flirted" with a couple of his students. Ms. Socorro asked Respondent why he went to such lengths to keep their relationship a secret, if the College didn't care. According to Ms. Socorro, the exchange proceeded as follows: He said, why do you want to do this? You're going to hurt my kids. . . . He said, you have to understand that I'm 34 years old. I'm not a child like you. You have your whole life ahead of you and I need to find a role model. I need to find a good woman for my kids to marry. And I knew that you and I were rocky and I had to do this and I was leading more than one life, more than one relationship and if I had to do it, I did it for my kids, that they need a mother. He said, I can't be alone when I'm 44. I remember telling him that he was sick. I said that you're just sick. That's sick. He said, do you want me to tell you the truth. He said, from the moment you told me that you had an eating disorder, I knew that you and I weren't going to work. And I kept yelling at him, if it was that long ago, why didn't you stop the relationship, because you have known that forever. He said, I thought you would change, but you never did. Ms. Socorro got into her car and started to drive away. Believing that Ms. Socorro was in no condition to drive, Respondent tried to talk her into waiting while he called her mother or some other person to come over and help her. Ms. Socorro declined any assistance from Respondent. She told him that she was hurt and needed to get to the hospital. She drove away. From her car, Ms. Socorro phoned her doctor's office, because she had missed her appointment. The doctor's receptionist was so alarmed that she stayed on the phone with Ms. Socorro until she reached her mother's office. Ms. Socorro's mother, Patricia Mills, drove Ms. Socorro to the emergency room of Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, where she was treated for scrapes, an injured wrist, and a slightly cracked rib. Due to the injured rib, Ms. Socorro had to take time off from her job as a waitress at Applebee's. She also wore a splint on her wrist for a time. The emergency room staff at Morton Plant Hospital notified the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which dispatched deputies to interview Ms. Socorro while she was still at the hospital. The Sheriff's deputies also interviewed Respondent. No arrests were made and no charges were filed in the matter. The Sheriff's Office reported the incident to the College. Ms. Mills phoned the College's security office to inform the College of the altercation between Respondent and Ms. Socorro. The security office passed the complaint to Clearwater campus Provost Dr. Stan Vittetoe. The College's standard procedure is to lock the computer of any instructor who is the subject of a complaint. Dr. Vittetoe locked Respondent's computer. On December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent to inform him that Ms. Socorro had lodged a complaint against him and to provide Respondent with an opportunity to give his side of the story. Respondent told them that during the physical confrontation with Ms. Socorro, he was merely trying to protect himself. He showed them a scratch on his cheek and stated that he had been trying to retrieve some papers that belonged to him. Respondent admitted that he had been involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro. This initial meeting with Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper lasted only about 15 minutes, because Respondent had a class to teach. Also on December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe met with Ms. Socorro and her mother. Ms. Socorro told Dr. Vittetoe that she began dating Respondent during the fall semester of 2003, when she was a student in his class. She told Dr. Vittetoe that she and Respondent often discussed the need to hide their relationship, because of its impropriety. She told Dr. Vittetoe that Respondent often bought alcoholic drinks for her when they went out to bars. Ms. Socorro admitted that she had printed e- mails from Respondent's computer and that it was Respondent's seeing those e-mails that triggered their physical altercation. Dr. Vittetoe requested a formal written statement detailing the facts of her relationship with Respondent. Ms. Socorro furnished a written statement to the College on December 8, 2004. On December 7, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent again. At the outset of the meeting, Dr. Vittetoe made clear the gravity of the situation, letting Respondent know that his job was in jeopardy. Dr. Vittetoe questioned Respondent about his involvement with female College students other than Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted that he had been involved with Ms. Csongova. Dr. Cooper, as Respondent's immediate supervisor, expressed concern at what appeared to be a pattern of romantic involvement with students.10 Dr. Cooper noted that Respondent was not following college procedures and appeared to view the female student population as potential candidates for relationships. Dr. Cooper recounted the meeting as follows: I raised questions with him in regards to his ability to maintain his professional boundaries and expressed great concern over the fact that he didn't seem to recognize that, in his position as an instructor, he had a position of authority and power and could easily use that to influence students' decisions. I remember that he said that, well, they weren't students in my class at the time that he had become involved with them. My concern was that if you say to a young, impressionable individual, well, I don't date students if they're in my class, well, then what you're saying is, well, just get out of my class and then we can have a relationship. And I tried to express that concern over the fact that he was not maintaining his professional boundaries. And then he shared that, well, he didn't want students to dislike him and, you know, he didn't know how to respond when a student came on to him. Dr. Cooper attempted to explain that the student/teacher relationship should not be a matter of "liking" or "disliking," but a matter of respect based on the teacher's knowledge of his subject matter and ability to foster the student's quest for knowledge in the teacher's field of expertise. Dr. Cooper was extremely concerned that Respondent seemed unable to understand or respect basic professional boundaries established between students and teachers. Dr. Cooper was also concerned that Respondent issued invitations to students to come watch his band play in bars that served alcoholic beverages, when most of those students were underage. She did not agree with Respondent's contention that a band playing in an Ybor City bar constituted a "cultural event." She suggested that, if Respondent wanted to share his music with his classes, then he should have the band come to the class and play. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to defend his relationship with Ms. Socorro, first by denying that it commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, then by pointing out how careful he had been to instruct Ms. Socorro not to discuss their relationship with other students and not to make friends with students on the Clearwater campus. At the conclusion of this meeting, both Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper concluded that Respondent had breached College rules and could not be trusted with the safety of College students. Dr. Vittetoe gave Respondent the option of resigning before completion of the investigation and a possible recommendation for termination. Respondent declined the offer of resignation. On December 14, 2004, Ms. Socorro met with associate provost Maria Edmonds. Because she was also an Hispanic female, Ms. Edmonds believed that Ms. Socorro might be more comfortable discussing the issues with her than she had been with Dr. Vittetoe. After the meeting, Ms. Edmonds drafted a memorandum summarizing her conversation with Ms. Socorro, the substance of which was consistent with the findings of fact above. Ms. Socorro executed a sworn affidavit attesting to the accuracy of Ms. Edmonds' memorandum, which was forwarded to Dr. Vittetoe. Dr. Vittetoe investigated Respondent's relationships with Socorro and other female College students. Associate Provost Jeff Davis interviewed students at the Clearwater campus to determine their knowledge of Respondent's relationships with various female College students. The investigation disclosed that Respondent had been involved with College students other than Ms. Socorro and Ms. Csongova. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Harmony Holt, who had been a student in his class during the 1999 fall semester. However, Respondent's romantic relationship with Ms. Holt did not commence until 2002, after she had graduated. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Kimberly Kimball. Ms. Kimball was in Respondent's class twice, first in the 2004 spring semester, then in the 2004 summer session. The summer session ended in July 2004, then Respondent dated her for a short time in September 2004, during one of his periodic breakups with Ms. Socorro. Respondent testified that he stopped dating Ms. Kimball because he was not over Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted to a "friendly, casual" dating relationship with his former student Kelly McGill in 2003. Respondent testified that, although there was a mutual attraction, no sexual relationship occurred with Ms. McGill. On December 13, 2004, Respondent submitted to Dr. Vittetoe his written statement concerning his relationship with Ms. Socorro. This document is a remarkable mixture of rationalization, self-pitying emotional immaturity, and self- centered moral obtuseness.11 Respondent commences with an irrelevant narrative of his divorce proceedings. He next describes his first contacts with Ms. Socorro. Respondent states that there was a "decision to meet and get to know each other on a more personal level." Though he "can't remember exactly how or when it happened," he is absolutely certain that it occurred after the conclusion of the 2003 fall semester. Respondent notes that he stopped dating other women after he had sexual intercourse with Ms. Socorro, on "about the 5th date." Respondent writes that he was concerned about the age difference, but that such differences are the norm in Ms. Socorro's Latin American culture. Respondent states, "Ultimately I was able to handle it because she seemed mature for her age." Respondent devotes a long passage to a discussion of Ms. Socorro's bulimia, notable for its emphasis on the impact her disease was having on its real victim, Respondent: "She could tell the bulimia was putting a strain on me to know what she was doing to herself everyday and that it was hurting me." Respondent writes that he accompanied Ms. Socorro to a therapist whose name he could not recall. This therapist, whom Ms. Socorro never saw again, apparently introduced the concept of "borderline personality disorder" to Respondent. The therapist also commended Respondent on how well he was dealing with Ms. Socorro. Respondent now realized that the borderline personality disorder was responsible for Ms. Socorro's "pathological lying," the fact that she could not hold a job, and the fact that she spent all her money on "binge foods and/or shopping." Respondent described the impetus for the final breakup as follows: The relationship problems came to a head this past month when she continued to socialize in the student population instead of with friends outside the school which was a boundary we set in the relationship and it made it uncomfortable for us to go out. I was too worried someone would see the two of us together. Eventually she met someone in a class that was in one of my classes and I asked her not to pursue the friendship until after the class was over so that there would be no possible problems. She continued to pursue a close relationship with the woman and lied about it on at least a couple of occasions. I wanted to look beyond it and even began to question why I asked her to do it and felt guilty that I might be negatively affecting her college experience and knew it needed to end quickly. Once again I was being manipulated and didn't realize it. I also was having difficulty because although this would only be an issue until she graduated in May of '05, I still felt it was something she knew was important to me but she didn't see it and just ignored it and lied to me about it. I couldn't see being in a relationship where a set boundary was ignored. Respondent concludes by alleging that Ms. Socorro "is retaliating against me for ending our eleven month long relationship and this retaliation is a form of sexual harassment." From the beginning to the end of the relationship, Respondent claims he was victimized, manipulated, and finally smeared by Ms. Socorro. Respondent claimed his only failing was being too nice for his own good. On December 16, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe issued a memorandum to Dr. Kuttler, the College president, stating as follows, in relevant part: The evidence, which we have received to date, causes us to have great and immediate concerns for our female students' safety and freedom from sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships. We have evidence that he has been assisting under age students with unlawful drinking, which is a serious violation of the law. With the evidence presented thus far, I have no choice but to recommend his suspension, effective immediately. Because of the above matters, I further recommend he not be allowed to come on campus or have any contact or conversations with students. Any retaliation by Mr. Rodriguez should be a separate cause for disciplinary action. I further recommend his dismissal be presented to the Board of Trustees. On December 17, 2004, Dr. Kuttler issued a memorandum adopting Dr. Vittetoe's recommendations. Respondent was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Dr. Kuttler anticipated that he would petition the College's Board of Trustees for the suspension without pay and dismissal of Respondent at the Board's next meeting, on January 18, 2005. Dr. Kuttler filed the Petition for Dismissal on January 12, 2005. By Order dated January 18, 2005, the Board of Trustees voted to suspend Respondent without pay and to forward the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, should Respondent request a hearing. Through counsel, Respondent filed an Answer on January 20, 2005, asserting his right to a hearing. As noted above, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 24, 2005. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did aid and abet at least one student under the age of 21, Ms. Socorro, in the unlawful drinking of alcoholic beverages. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did improperly use his position and abuse his power to encourage and induce female students to come to a nightclub in an attempt to establish a personal relationship, by giving female students inappropriate attention, which Respondent knew could lead to romantic and/or sexual relationships. The evidence established that Respondent would make blanket invitations to his entire class, male and female. However, Respondent would also select individual females, such as Ms. Socorro and Ms. Gunn, for personal invitations. The evidence established that Respondent knew, or should have known, that he was using his position as an instructor to manipulate impressionable young female students into attending his performances, whereby he hoped to impress them sufficiently to make them susceptible to his romantic overtures. As Dr. Cooper said to Respondent at one of their meetings, "[I]t seems like what's more important is for you to organize a set of groupies to follow your band," than to maintain the proper professional relationship with students. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did cause a female student, Ms. Socorro, with whom he had a romantic and sexual relationship, to stop her academic progress by inducing her not to continue her schooling at this College, adversely affecting the student's academic progress for Respondent's sole benefit. The evidence did not establish that Respondent made a direct demand that Ms. Socorro quit school. By her own testimony, Ms. Socorro did not attend classes during the 2004 spring semester because she wanted to visit her father in Venezuela. However, she also testified that her relationship with Respondent was much improved when she was not in school, because Respondent felt less pressure about students seeing him on dates with her. Ms. Socorro also testified that her relationship with Respondent was her main reason for not enrolling during the 2004 summer session. Respondent testified that he encouraged Ms. Socorro to complete her education, but only on his terms: that she stay on the campus only long enough to attend classes and that she socialize with none of her classmates. The unreasonable pressure placed on her by Respondent was unquestionably the cause of Ms. Socorro's decision not to attend classes for at least one semester during their relationship. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did have a sexual and/or romantic relationship with a female student, Ms. Socorro, during a time when the student was enrolled in Respondent's class or when Respondent was in a position to determine the student's grade or otherwise affect the student's academic progress or environment. The weight of the evidence leads to the finding that the romantic relationship between Ms. Socorro and Respondent commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, when Ms. Socorro was a student in Respondent's class. By the time the semester ended, Respondent and Ms. Socorro had attended a dance recital and a movie together. Their romantic relationship was well underway while Ms. Socorro was still a student in Respondent's class. Even if Respondent's testimony were fully credited, the couple went on their first "date" (not counting the dance recital and the Rare Olive meeting) on the night after Ms. Socorro took her final exam in his class. This fact, coupled with Respondent's admission that on November 22, 2003, the night of the dance recital, he told Ms. Socorro that he was very interested in pursuing a relationship with her, indicates that the romantic relationship between Respondent and Ms. Socorro did not blossom suddenly after she completed Respondent's class. Respondent's rationalization appears to be that it was perfectly acceptable for him to use his classes as a dating service, planning romantic relationships with his female students while they were in his class, so long as the actual dating did not begin until the semester ended. The College naturally and reasonably disagreed with Respondent's reading of the applicable rule, discussed in the conclusions of law below. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed an assault and battery upon Ms. Socorro. While their testimony about the events of December 2, 2004, differed in many particulars, both Ms. Socorro and Respondent agreed that she initiated the physical confrontation by jumping on Respondent's back as he attempted to get the e-mails out of the back seat of her car. It could be reasonably contended that matters then cooled off and that the second physical altercation at the front door of the house was initiated by Respondent and did constitute assault and battery. In any event, the facts of the situation were ambiguous enough that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office did not charge either party after completing its investigation. Though Respondent's conduct during the events of December 2, 2004, was an embarrassment to himself and the College, the specific allegation of assault and battery was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated that Respondent made untruthful or deceitful statements to College representatives during the investigation. At worst, Respondent appeared to suffer convenient lapses during which his memory became "fuzzy" or "foggy" when the thrust of his testimony varied from that of other witnesses. The evidence established that Respondent was deceitful to the various women in his life, but failed to establish that he said anything to College officials that he did not believe was true. The College's allegation that Respondent was married while some of the alleged misconduct occurred was technically proven but should have no bearing on the discipline imposed. Respondent had been separated from his wife for well over a year at the time he met Ms. Socorro and was in the process of finalizing his divorce and custody arrangements. For all the good reasons Respondent had to avoid a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro, remaining faithful to his wife was not one of them.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from any and all employment by the Board and/or the College and canceling his contract status retroactive to January 12, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2006.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked based upon conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, as contained in the Petition for Revocation filed by Petitioner on or about May 11, 1979. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew allegations B, E and J, which are set forth in the Petition. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties waived the thirty-day period prescribed in Subsection 120.56(3), Florida Statutes, requiring the undersigned to file a Recommended Order within the prescribed thirty-day period.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the legal memoranda submitted by counsel for the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Respondent, Michael S. Park, has been employed by the Broward County School System as an instructor in art at Plantation High School since 1970. He was continuously employed until his suspension on April 19, 1979. Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 274996, Post Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1985, covering the areas of art and junior college. Respondent currently enjoys continuing contract status. While employed by the Broward County School System, Respondent taught several courses, including design, drawing, craft, sculpture and ceramics. Pursuant to a probable cause determination made by the Commissioner of Education on May 11, 1979, the Petitioner, pursuant to authority contained in Chapter 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, filed a Petition seeking revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate based upon the following allegations: During the school year 1974-75, MICHAEL S. PARK locked a female student in his classroom office, presented her with a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex, and asked her if she had ever read such an article. During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL PARK asked a female student to go 'bumming' with him and to meet him at the night spot, 'Crown', and telephoned the home of the same student stating that 'Mike' from Plantation was calling. During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL PARK stated to a female art student that he knew for a fact that the she was going to bars for the purpose of meeting male teachers and eventually sleeping with male teachers. During the month of February, 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student who was not under his supervision as a teacher to come to his office during the school day at which time MICHAEL S. PARK questioned the student about family and personal problems stating that he knew the only reason a certain boy took her out was to make love to her. Further, MICHAEL S. PARK asked this student whether or not she participated in or agreed with the practice of oral sex. During the spring of 1978, MICHAEL S. PARK hugged one or more female students, grabbed one female student from behind and pushed himself up against her buttocks. During the spring of 1978 and 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the buttocks on one or more occasions. During 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the breasts on one or more occasions. Based thereon, it is alleged that the Respondent violated Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code. As such, the Petition concludes that the Respondent's alleged conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee. It is alleged in paragraph 1, subparagraph A. of the Petition that: During the school year 1974-75, MICHAEL S. PARK locked a female student in his classroom, presented her with a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex, and asked her if she had ever read such an article. The Respondent denied the allegation. Darlene Wilcox is the female student referred to in the allegation (TR 96-98). The thrust of student Wilcox's testimony is that Respondent invited her to stay after class one day and when her classmates left, he handed her a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex and asked her if she had ever read a magazine like that before (TR 97). Student Wilcox, who was a ninth-grade student of Respondent, testified that Respondent sat down across from her in a chair and asked her questions about how she was that day. They were interrupted by another student, whereupon Respondent immediately got up, opened the door, and told her he would see her in class the following day (TR 98). Respecting this allegation, the evidence reveals that it was impossible for Respondent to secure the lock on his classroom door from the inside, as alleged (TR 243-244 and 359). The evidence reveals that student Wilcox could have left the room by turning the doorknob. Student Wilcox told her parents about her encounter with Respondent, whereupon her parents replied that she should keep clear of Respondent and not be over-friendly with him. Paragraph C of the Petition alleges, in pertinent part, that: During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student to go 'bumming' with him and to meet him at a night spot, 'Crown', and telephoned the home of the same student stating that 'Mike' from the Plantation was calling. The female student referred to in the above-described allegation is Cathy Weber. The evidence respecting the above allegation reveals that during the fall of 1977, while a twelfth-grade student, Cathy Weber, was at a local establishment called the "Crown" bar with other students one evening. Student Weber was not a student of Respondent, although Respondent joined Weber and a group of her friends and started conversing with her at the "Crown" bar. During the conversation, Respondent took student Weber's wrists, stated that he could read her mind and proceeded to tell her birth date. On another occasion, Respondent telephoned student Weber at her home although she declined to talk to him. Additionally, during late November or early December, Respondent entered Linda Whealin's class and asked permission from instructor Whealin to excuse Cathy Weber when she finished her work in order that she could help in the office. Ms. Whealin agreed, but Cathy testified that she was afraid of Respondent and, therefore, took as much time as she could to complete her work because of the "too personal attitude" the Respondent evidenced toward her. The matter was brought to the attention of the Principal and Assistant Principal, which resulted in a counselling of Respondent by the Principal. During these counselling sessions, Respondent admitted that he told student Weber that he could read minds; that he called student Weber at her home because she wanted to talk to him and that he had asked for her to help him inventory an art order. Respondent was warned of his conduct by school officials and advised to restrict his student contact to classroom situations. A summary of the warning is embodied in a memorandum dated December 5, 1977, which Respondent signed acknowledging that he had read the warning contained therein. Respondent also submitted a rebuttal reciting his version of circumstances involving the student (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 and the testimony of Respondent and witnesses Lawton, Weber, Whealin and Hanes). The Respondent acknowledged talking to student Weber at the Crown bar; however, he testified that he was merely attempting to joke with the student, rather than, as contended by Petitioner, to advance a sexual topic to achieve a lustful objective. Paragraph D of the Petition alleges, in pertinent part, that: During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL S. PARK stated to a female student that he knew for a fact that she was going to bars for the purpose of meeting male teachers and eventually sleeping with male teachers. The student referred to in the above paragraph is Susan Clement. During the 1977-78 school year, student Susan Clement was a student of Respondent. Student Clement testified that during the school year, she smoked marijuana approximately three times a week and was sometimes under the influence of marijuana while attending classes. However, she testified that her ability or memory was not impaired and that she was able to concentrate in her art classes. She testified that on several occasions, Respondent grabbed her neck with his hand, pinched her buttocks, and pushed up against her buttocks with his body from behind while she was washing her hands at a sink in the classroom. Student Clement testified that Respondent told her that there were rumors going around that she was going to bars and meeting male teachers there. Following one of these incidents, student Clement complained to the school's Principal about Respondent's conduct. The Respondent denied making such statements to student Clement and testified further that Clement confided in him without any prompting on his part with respect to her relationship with males. Additionally, the Respondent urges that student Clement generally spoke to others about her personal life in an unguarded manner (testimony of Dan Van Fleet)(TR 134 and 236). Paragraph F of the Petition alleges that: During the month of February, 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student, who was not under his supervision as a teacher, to come to his office during the school day at which time MICHAEL S. PARK questioned the student about family and personal problems stating that he knew the only reason a certain boy took her out was to make love to her. Further, MICHAEL S. PARK asked the student whether or not she participated in or agreed with the practice of oral sex. The student with whom the Respondent allegedly addressed the above remarks is Tammy DeCarlo. In this regard, the evidence reveals that the Respondent had four conversations with student DeCarlo. Respondent acknowledged that he initiated the first conversation with DeCarlo. Evidence reveals that the above-referenced conversations occurred during February of 1979 while student DeCarlo was a senior at Plantation High School. DeCarlo was not a student of Respondent. While DeCarlo was conversing loudly with another student in a school corridor, Respondent joined the conversation based on DeCarlo's "frantic behavior" and the fact that she was shouting that "I'm going to kill him", referring to Mr. Kinder, the yearbook advisor, in a tone which was loud enough for Respondent and others to overhear the conversation (TR 76, 77 and 376). DeCarlo was the school yearbook editor and had been having problems with its publication. The thrust of the problem appeared to be that DeCarlo was of the opinion that although she was exerting all the effort towards the publication of the yearbook, advisor Kinder was receiving or attempting to receive all credit for her work. While the Respondent initially injected himself into the conversation with DeCarlo and another student concerning differences that DeCarlo was having with the yearbook advisor, Kinder, she later conversed with Respondent about various problems that she was having with the yearbook in the following weeks. During the third of approximately four conversations with Respondent, the evidence reveals that the Respondent told another student (Chris Sarko) that he wanted to speak with DeCarlo, whereupon Sarko summoned student DeCarlo to go to his office where he later joined her, bringing a paper flower with him to give her. In Respondent's office, they discussed the yearbook deadline and Respondent mentioned that he had "ESP". Respondent gave student DeCarlo several examples in that regard. Respondent requested DeCarlo to keep their conversations between the two of them, although DeCarlo later mentioned the conversations to her parents. DeCarlo's parents later spoke with the Assistant Principal about Respondent. Within a few days, DeCarlo received a note telling her that Respondent wanted to see her and again Respondent took her into his office. During this conversation, Respondent told DeCarlo that she did not trust him because she had been hurt by her boyfriend. Respondent later told her to close her eyes and concentrate and told her that the boy just took her out so that she could make love with him and that he had tried to make her do something she did not want to. DeCarlo replied that she did not know what he was talking about, and Respondent inquired "What is it, oral sex?". According to DeCarlo, Respondent asked her to give him something personal, whereupon she took her necklace off and gave it to him. Respondent also inquired of her the type birth control pill she used and DeCarlo told him. Approximately one week later, student DeCarlo saw Respondent again. He asked her to come to see him during her lunch hour, but she declined. DeCarlo later asked a friend (Sarko) to get her necklace from Respondent, which was returned by the student, together with Respondent's picture. DeCarlo's parents made a written complaint to school authorities concerning Respondent's conduct. Respondent testified that he was regarded as a confidant among the students and that they frequently conversed with him about personal matters. He testified that the DeCarlo relationship, which was initiated by him, was motivated by a normal concern for a student who was visibly upset, and he felt that he could offer some assistance to student DeCarlo in resolving a crisis. Paragraph G of the Petition alleges that: During the spring of 1978, MICHAEL S. PARK hugged one or more female students from behind and pushed himself up against their buttocks. The primary incident in which Respondent is alleged to have gone beyond a mere touching of the shoulder is when he grabbed student Clement from behind and touched his lower torso against his buttocks. As stated earlier, Respondent denied this allegation. In this regard, several of Respondent's former students testified that they had never seen him act improperly in class or inquire into the personal lives of students. These students considered Respondent to be a warm, friendly teacher who occasionally would pat a student on the back or put his arm around a student's shoulders. In this regard, Van Fleet testified that the Respondent was a "touching, feeling type of friendly" person (TR 254). Other students testified that the Respondent often placed his arms around the shoulders of various students. During the period 1971 through 1979, Respondent's Principal warned him approximately four or five times concerning his involvement with female students (testimony of witnesses Graff, Wilcox, Landers, Cirillo, Larkin, DeCarlo, Evans, Jackson, Hanes and Van Fleet). Paragraph H of the Petition alleges that: During the spring of 1978 and 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the buttocks on one or more occasions. The two students involved in this allegation are Susan Clement and Lori Evans. The Respondent testified and denied that he pinched students Evans and Clement on the buttocks; however, he conceded that he might have grabbed Clement's neck when she did not "clean up her mess" in the classroom. Student Clement was not sure of the time when the Respondent allegedly pinched her or of the number of times when such acts were allegedly committed by Respondent. Instructors Dan Van Fleet and Gail Altman testified that students Clement and Evans both complained and were upset that the Respondent gave them failing grades. Noteworthy, also, was the fact that student Evans testified that there were students present at the time that the Respondent pinched her, although no corroborating student witnesses were called upon to verify said acts. Paragraph I of the Petition alleges that: During 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the breasts on one or more occasions. During the hearing, the only student who claimed to have been pinched by Respondent was Lori Evans. Again, the Respondent denied that any such conduct occurred on his part. Although Evans testified that there were student witnesses to the incident, no witnesses were called upon to testify during the hearing. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent, for the most part, denied that he engaged in any conduct which could be considered grossly immoral or inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience or conduct which would not be a proper example for students. He further denied that such conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring him and the educational profession into public disgrace and respect, or that it otherwise reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee. He testified that students confided in him and that he was an instructor who was overly concerned about the plight and well-being of students. In that regard, he testified that he interjected himself into conversations in situations wherein students appeared to have needed his counsel and guidance. Respondent denied pinching Lori Evans above the breast or on the buttocks or slapping her on the buttocks with a ruler. He testified that Evans' motive for giving testimony supportive of the charges is that she was a problem student who was unreliable when assigned a task. Additionally, Respondent denied pushing against student Susan Clement at the classroom sink or pinching her buttocks; however, he conceded that he might have grabbed her neck inadvertently as stated earlier, when she failed to "clean up her mess". Respondent's stated reason for visiting the "Crown" bar to join students with whom he taught was merely an effort to socialize with students and that respecting the Cathy Weber allegation, he was merely trying to assist her to resolve the problem that she was having with her boyfriend. He testified that the fact that he asked her to go shopping in a public shopping center indicates that he had no ulterior motive in making such request. Respondent voiced his opinion that student Weber was probably drinking due to that problem and that he wanted to inspire confidence in her to prevent her from drinking to resolve problems. Respondent's version of the incident surrounding the Tammy DeCarlo incident is much the same as his involvement with student Weber. That is, that he was simply trying to console her, which was prompted, in part, by counselling from the Assistant Principal to the effect that students and parents complained that he was not consoling enough to students. However, Respondent's testimony and inquiries, admittedly, as they related to his giving of flowers to student DeCarlo and inquiring into her sexual activity, missed the mark of a proper teacher-student relationship. Respondent's denial of the incidents involving student Wilcox, Evans and Clement as they related to his alleged physical contact is denied based upon the entire record, including other admissions by Respondent, including his inquiries into students' personal/social lives. In this regard, Respondent's inquiries relative to students' birth control pills, talks about oral sex, the giving of paper flowers to students and the embracing of students are considered immoral in a student-teacher setting and certainly does not inspire or set a proper example for students, as required in Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate, No. 274996, be suspended for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to accommodate exceptional education students, directed derogatory comments to students, and disclosed test grades in class in violation of Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); and, if so, whether the proposed penalty is reasonable. (Statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000). References to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in 2000.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is authorized to teach physical education in Florida pursuant to Florida Educator's Certificate Number 666407. The Certificate is valid through June 30, 2007. The Pinellas County School District (the District) employed Respondent as a physical education teacher at Gibbs High School (Gibbs) during the 2000-2001 school year (the school year). Respondent's students included students in the exceptional student education program at Gibbs (ESE students). Faculty and staff at Gibbs had tested ESE students in Respondent's classes, identified them as disabled, developed an individual education plan (IEP) for each student, and placed each student in a special education program. The IEPs for some students allowed the students to leave the classroom during testing for a learning lab or other supervised environment. Respondent refused to allow several ESE students to leave the classroom during testing. The students are identified in the record as A.A., A.S., J.T., and J.F. in order to protect their confidentiality. Respondent sometimes afforded ESE students an opportunity to hear their tests read to them at the front of the class. That opportunity violated each student's IEP. Respondent did not have discretion to deviate from an IEP. Some ESE students transferred from Respondent's class. Other ESE students refused to enroll in Respondent's class because of Respondent's reputation among ESE students for refusing to accommodate ESE students during testing. A number of parents complained to school officials about Respondent's failure to accommodate ESE students. Faculty and staff attempted to correct Respondent's behavior through informal conferences. A varying exceptionalities specialist, a teacher assistant, and an administrator with the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) each met with Respondent. Respondent answered an allegation and complaint from one parent by stating to a Gibbs administrator that the student was not an honor roll student, so Respondent's refusal to accommodate the student did not make a difference. Respondent complained to an assistant principal at Gibbs that, "They are ESE students. What are they doing here [in Respondent's class]? They shouldn't be here anyway." Respondent made derogatory comments to students during the school year. The derogatory comments included terms such as: fat, little slacker, stupid, sorry bunch of kids, Gomer Pyle, and Dutch Boy. Respondent asked one of her students, "What's a black boy doing with a Dutch last name?" Respondent asked another student if the student was tired from walking the streets at night and called her "sleeping booty." Respondent directed derogatory comments to students identified in the record as D.V., M.F., J.I., and A.W. Respondent referred to D.V., an African-American, as Dutch Boy because D.V.'s last name sounded Dutch to Respondent. Respondent suggested that D.V. should change names with a white student having a last name that Respondent believed was more appropriate for an African-American. Respondent used the terms "fat" and "stupid" when referring to M.F. and other students in M.F.'s class. Respondent used the term Gomer Pyle to refer to J.I. because J.I. was in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. (ROTC) program at Gibbs. Respondent told A.W. that larger people don't belong in the physical education class. The derogatory comments degraded students, embarrassed them, were inflammatory to some students, and violated District policy. Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Processional Conduct for Educators by making embarrassing or disparaging remarks and by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect students from mental harm. Respondent has made derogatory comments to students in previous school years. During the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school years, an assistant principal received complaints from students about Respondent's use of derogatory comments toward students. The assistant principal held a conference with Respondent on September 15, 1997, and completed a Conference Summary that instructed Respondent to use better communication with students and parents; and to be more professional in addressing students. The complaints against Respondent continued. On September 30, 1997, an assistant principal held a formal conference with Respondent to discuss Respondent's use of derogatory comments to students. The assistant principal again instructed Respondent to refer to students only by their given name and use more professionalism in addressing students. An assistant principal met with Respondent on October 1 and 7, 1997; and on February 13, April 1, and May 4, 1998. In addition to several "walk-throughs," the assistant principal visited Respondent's classroom for an evaluation on March 31, 1998. The annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year rated Respondent's judgment as an "I," meaning that improvement was expected in addressing students. The "I" on Respondent's annual evaluation required school administrators to prepare a "Success Plan" to help Respondent address the issues that resulted in the "I" rating. The Success Plan that Respondent signed required Respondent to use positive comments that enhance the self worth of students. Respondent's use of derogatory comments toward students continued during the 1998-1999 school year. An assistant principal held conferences with Respondent on: October 12, 26, and 27, 1998; November 11, 1998; and January 28, March 11, Aril 15, May 3, and May 4, 1999. The assistant principal visited Respondent's classroom on: November 3, 1998; and January 28, March 1, March 11, and April 7 and 15, 1999. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998-1999 school year contained more "Is" than the previous evaluation. Respondent received an "I" rating for: (1) Instructional Strategies Conducive to Learning and Critical Thinking; (2) Assessment of Students; and (3) Judgment and Professional Ethics. During the school year at issue, the OPS administrator and Respondent discussed a letter from a parent regarding Respondent's use of derogatory comments. The parent complained that Respondent asked H.T., the parent's daughter, if H.T. was going to be a dentist. H.T.'s last name is related to a dental term. Respondent denied she ever made the comment and then told the OPS administrator, "I can look at her mouth and tell you no." Respondent subsequently told H.T. not to go running to H.T.'s mom if H.T. had a problem with Respondent. Respondent read student grades aloud in class without the permission of the affected student in violation of District policy. Respondent also read the names of students receiving a grade of "A," "B," or "C" thereby disclosing the names of students with lower grades. Disclosing the grades of students in class without the permission of the student invades the privacy of the student and exposes the student to embarrassment. Respondent has a history of disclosing student grades in class. On May 17, 2000, the OPS administrator issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for disclosing student grades during the 1999-2000 school year. In relevant part, the letter of reprimand stated: I advised you that one concern was related to your announcing student grades of students in front of the entire class. You said that the Governor had given schools grades and that you could tell students their grades. I advised you that was not so; that student information was protected and confidential and I directed you to refrain from the practice. You said that you didn't read all of the grades. I noted that students said you read grades of students who had A's, B's, and C's. I said that some students who had lower grades were embarrassed. I again reiterated that you should cease reading the grades. Respondent continued to disclose student grades during the school year at issue. Respondent read to the class the grades of A.A., A.S., A.W., C.A., and M.F. Each had failing grades. Respondent passed a test completed by A.S. down a row of students so that each student could see the test score on the front of the test and stated audibly that the only thing A.S. "got right" on the test was the date. The comment embarrassed, upset, and humiliated A.S. The District placed Respondent on administrative leave in October 2000. After Respondent returned from her administrative leave, the OPS administrator received more complaints about Respondent's behavior, and issued another letter of reprimand to Respondent on April 27, 2001. Respondent wrote the following message on the letter prior to returning the signed copy to the OPS administrator: "This is BS. Thank you [OPS administrator]." The District transferred Respondent from Gibbs to a school where Respondent works with another teacher. The transfer shows that Respondent had lost her effectiveness at Gibbs, but not as an employee. The District had a lot of complaints at Gibbs about Respondent. There were issues with Respondent's effectiveness at the school. The District determined that a transfer to another school might help Respondent "get a new start."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c) and (f); guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); suspending Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate during the summer session after the current school year; and, on the date of the Final Order, placing Respondent on probation for two consecutive years, including the period of suspension, subject to the conditions prescribed in Petitioner's PRO. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
