The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of gross incompetence and falsification of course sheets as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the exhibits received into evidence, the stipulation of the parties, and testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on April 1, 1987, as an instructor and was issued instructor certificate number 129487. Respondent was employed at Central Florida Criminal Justice Institute located at the Mid-Florida Vocational Technical Institute, beginning in March 1989. During the relevant period, Respondent was employed as Program Director/Coordinator of advanced and specialized training. Respondent was also the Assistant Director of the Academy. Respondent has prior experience as a corrections officer and as a certified probation officer. Respondent received a Masters degree in education and is a certified teacher. In February of 1992, Ron Kazoroski was the Director of the Criminal Justice Institute at the Mid Florida Vo-Tech. Respondent was responsible for initiating night courses at the Institute for the benefit of the officers who worked the second or third shifts. February 1992 was the second time that the Instructor Techniques class had been offered at night. Respondent had planned to be more involved in the instruction of the Instructor Techniques course than she had been in the previous time the course was offered and had scheduled herself to teach several blocks of instruction. However, the week before the course was to start, Respondent was informed that she needed major surgery within two days. Respondent spent Wednesday and Thursday trying to find instructors to cover for her, prior to her scheduled surgery on Friday. Respondent contacted Pam Eckler, an instructor at the academy, to assist her in locating qualified instructors who could teach on short notice. Respondent was trying to prevent the cancellation of the course. On the first night of class Respondent was recuperating from the surgery. Respondent submitted six certificates of absence for the period of January 28 through February 26, 1992. The Instructor Techniques course started on February 3, 1992, and finished on February 28, 1992. The course was scheduled in the evening from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Florida Department of Law Enforcement regulations required the Instructor Techniques course to be 80 hours long, and the class was formatted for that many hours. In February of 1992, Barbara Bushnell was a Corrections Officer employed by Orange County Corrections and assigned to the Training and Staff Development Department. Bushnell was assigned to the Academy prior to the Instructor Techniques class in February of 1992. Bushnell was certified as an instructor by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. In February of 1992, Pamela Eckler was a Correctional Training Supervisor for Orange County Corrections, Department of Training and Staff Development. Eckler was also an instructor, certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Eckler was asked by the Respondent if she was interested in teaching the evening Instructor Techniques course in February of 1992. Eckler agreed, and was offered the opportunity to teach the classes of her choice. Eckler decided to teach Adult Learning Theory on February 3, 1992, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and Liability and Ethics on February 4, 1992, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.. On February 21 and 25, 1992, Eckler was assigned to monitor the student presentations from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. On February 3, 1992, Eckler received a telephone call from the Respondent who had just had surgery on Friday, asking her to move her block from 7:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Respondent also asked Eckler to give the class a short orientation to the course. Eckler taught her two-hour segment and allowed the students to leave on February 3rd at 7:30. On February 4, 1992, Eckler taught a four-hour block on Liability and Ethics. Eckler utilized the whole time period, and the students were not let out early. On February 20, 1992, Respondent called Eckler and told her that she was not needed to teach on February 21 because the Respondent had given the class an off-campus assignment. Eckler did not teach the class on February 21, 1992. Eckler was scheduled to monitor the students’ presentations on February 25, 1992, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Several students had a problem with the lesson plan development. Eckler characterized the problems with the lesson plans as major, with the problems being in different areas. In February of 1992, Georgette Thornton, a Lieutenant with Orange County Corrections and a certified instructor by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, was asked if she was interested in teaching part of the Instructor Techniques course. Thornton called the Respondent who indicated that she needed an instructor for February 10, 11, and 12, 1992, as an emergency replacement. Thornton agreed to teach two hours on February 10, four hours on February 11, and four hours on February 12th. Thornton found out from the students that it was the second week of class, and the students were not aware who the Respondent was. The students did not know what their final project was. Thornton talked to the Respondent, explaining her observations. She asked her to speak to the class about their responsibilities for their final project. Respondent appeared at the class on February 11th and told the class what their final project was. Respondent also covered part of the class material that Thornton was supposed to instruct. Thornton then elaborated on what Respondent had said. Thornton did not have sufficient materials given to her by Respondent to fill up the four-hour time block she was scheduled to teach. She did not have an adequate opportunity to supplement the materials given to her by Respondent, since they were given to her on Friday and the class was on Monday. Respondent told Thornton in front of the class to cover the rest of the material and to allow the students to leave early. Thornton covered everything that was in the guide and released the students at 7:30 p.m. on February 11th. Thornton also gave them a thorough review on the 12th of the items that they could expect on the exam. Thornton released the students at 7:00 p.m. Thornton decided to write a memo to the director. Thornton was concerned about the poor organization of the class and the lack of guidance given the students by Respondent. Thornton did not feel that the students were getting the amount of instruction they deserved in the class. A week or two before the class was scheduled to start, Bushnell was asked by the Respondent to teach a portion of the Instructor Techniques class being offered in February of 1992. Bushnell was asked to replace an instructor who had an emergency situation and could not teach. Bushnell was asked to teach Lesson Plan Development on February 13 and 14, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Bushnell had in her possession a copy of the goals and objectives of the Instructor Techniques course, which was part of the materials she previously had in her possession. She also had in her possession the FDLE Instructor Techniques Instructor Guide, which had all of the different areas to be covered in the course, including goals and objectives. Bushnell was given an ample amount of time to prepare for her block of instruction. Bushnell taught the Instructor Techniques class from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on February 13, 1992. Bushnell placed posters on the wall showing the two types of outlines for lesson plan development. She was informed by the students that the Respondent had already told them that the outline format was not going to be used. Bushnell informed them that there were several different types of formats, and that she would be instructing them using the outline format. The outline format was taken from the Instructor Techniques Instructor Guide. On February 14, 1992, Bushnell met with the Respondent prior to class to sign her contract for teaching the class. She also discussed details concerning the expectations of the class. The Respondent told Bushnell that the students were used to having some time during lesson plan development to work on their lesson plan outside of class. She expected Bushnell to give the students an outside assignment. Bushnell covered the materials in the outline and instructed her class until 9:30 p.m. Bushnell did not have enough time to cover all of the material she was supposed to cover. The students stated that they were having trouble with the lesson plans and requested her help in their development. Bushnell offered to help them on their lesson plans during the time she was scheduled to teach. Bushnell had concerns about how the class was being conducted and wrote a letter to Director Kazoroski, stating her concerns with the Instructor Techniques class. The students were upset due to a lack of direction being given by the Respondent. The students were also confused due to misunderstandings on how the lesson plan should be written. In February of 1992, Jacqueline Miller was an instructor in the Instructor Techniques course offered that month that the Respondent coordinated. Miller was asked by the Respondent to critique the students making their presentations. Miller was not required to do any preparation to complete her instruction, since it only involved critiquing the students. Miller contracted to critique the students for twelve hours between February 24 and 27, 1992. Miller utilized the maximum amount of time allowed for each day that she was in class. Although the skill level of the students varied considerably, none received a failing grade. On March 2, 1992, Eckler, Thornton, and Bushnell met with Kazoroski to discuss the problems with the class. The students were confused because Bushnell had taught Lesson Plan Development using the guidelines from the Instructor Guide, but the Respondent instructed the class to do it differently. This inconsistency confused them. Respondent did not assist them in their lesson plan development. The course was not well organized. The class was given a week to work on their lesson plans at home, with no one available to assist them, and they were confused about how to complete them. The Respondent’s instructor skills for this class were criticized. However, Respondent’s skills were not evaluated. On several occasions, the students were allowed to leave early from class. The Respondent would tell the class that they had assignments to do at home or out of class. The instructor notes to the Instructor Guide state that [T]his instructor guide was developed with the intention of providing the basic instructional material for this course. The individual instructor will find that only the minimum has been provided. None of the blocks of instruction provide the entire material for the topic being instructed. Each instructor is expected to use the provided material as a starting point and a reference source. The instructor notes to the Instructor Guide state that [E]ight hours have been provided for lesson plan development in class. This block was provided to allow the instructor to assist the students in their individual development of lesson plans. This does not suggest that students will not be required to work outside the classrooms. It was the policy of the Criminal Justice Institute to keep class documents, including the attendance sheets, from every class that was offered at the institute. The documents were kept in a file cabinet in the director’s office and were supposed to be kept in a secure place. The attendance sheets were required for FDLE audits to show that each student attended the requisite number of hours for the class. The records of the Instructor Techniques course offered at Mid-Florida Vo-Tech in February 1992, were reviewed including the overall attendance records for the Instructor Techniques class, which were signed by the Respondent. It was the policy of the Criminal Justice Institute that 50 minutes of instruction, with a 10 minute break, constitute 1 hour of credit. The class was given credit for 80 hours attended. However, there were 16 hours of class cancelled by Respondent, including the class on February 28, 1992, when that class was cancelled by Respondent because the course was over. All of the students received credit for four hours on February 3, 1992, when Eckler allowed the students to leave after two hours. For February 11 and 12, 1992, Respondent gave each student credit for four hours, although Thornton allowed the students to leave after two hours on February 11, and after three hours on February 12. The students were given credit for four hours for February 19, 20, and 21, 1992, for lesson plan development that was done outside the classroom. The FDLE requirements are that the Instructor Techniques course allows for eight hours of lesson plan development in class. It was usual for an academy to have an instructor available during the lesson plan development to answer any questions or concerns of the students while they worked on their lesson plans in class. FDLE rules stated that if a student missed over ten percent of the class, that student was deemed to have not successfully passed the class. The early release hours and the out-of-class assignments given to the students were not reflected on the overall attendance sheet signed by the Respondent.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violations of Sections 11B-20.0012(1)(b), (d), (e), and/or (f), Florida Administrative Code, and that the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Phyllis Blackmon Ledbetter 202 Dalton Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s applications for a Florida Educator’s Certificate (teaching certificate) should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued by Respondent on April 20, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed as a behavioral specialist by Tri-County, an entity that provided certain employees to the School Board. Pursuant to his employment with Tri-County during the 2003-04 school year, Petitioner worked at Port St. Lucie High School (PSLHS) in a classroom for students who had been identified by the School Board’s Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Program as being severely emotionally disturbed (SED). Petitioner has never been employed directly by the School Board. Petitioner’s position with Tri-County did not require that he have a teaching certificate. Likewise, the work Petitioner did in the SED class pursuant to the contract between Tri-County and the School Board did not require that he have a teaching certificate. For reasons that were not revealed at the formal hearing, the SED teacher with whom Petitioner worked left his or her employment during the school year. As a result of the teacher’s absence, Petitioner took over the SED for a short period of time. There was no evidence that Petitioner’s continued employment was dependent on his having a teaching certificate. The school administration of PSLHS was required to annually check the certification of each teacher at the school and to submit to the School Board a report listing any educator who was teaching outside of his or her certified field. This report is called an “out of field” report. For the school year 2003–04, Ms. Brooks, the assistant principal of PSLHS, was required to prepare the out-of-field report for the school. Ms. Brooks initially listed Petitioner as teaching out of field. However, while preparing the out of field report, Ms. Brooks discovered what appeared to be a temporary teaching certificate bearing Petitioner’s name (the subject certificate). The subject certificate reflected that Petitioner was certified in ESE for grades K-12 for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005. Ms. Brooks located the subject certificate in a binder that contained photocopies of teaching certificates for all of the PSLHS instructional personnel. The subject certificate looked suspicious to Ms. Brooks because it had no certification number on it and because Petitioner’s name was written in a different font than the font that is typically used on teacher’s certificates. Ms. Brooks promptly reported the suspicious certificate to Ms. Thompson at the School Board office. Ms. Thompson immediately called Ms. White at the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) offices in Tallahassee. Upon investigation with the FDOE, it was discovered that the subject certificate was fraudulent. The FDOE has never issued a teaching certificate to Petitioner of any kind. Ms. Brooks testified that photocopies of teaching certificates are provided to the school by teachers and that as far as she knew, no one other than the teacher would have a copy of the teacher’s teaching certificate. It is clear from her testimony that Ms. Brooks was referring to certified teachers with properly-issued teaching certificates. It is also clear from her testimony that Ms. Brooks had no first-hand knowledge as to how or when the subject certificate was placed in the binder. Petitioner testified that he did not provide the school the subject certificate. Petitioner testified that he did not know who would have provided the subject fraudulent teaching certificate to the PSLHS and offered no other explanation as to its existence. The undersigned concludes that the evidence presented by Respondent is insufficient to establish that Petitioner furnished the subject certificate to the administration of PSLHS.3 Petitioner applied to FDOE for a teaching certificate on two occasions. Neither application has been processed to completion. On December 19, 2001, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the field of athletic coaching. On December 22, 2003, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the field of physical education. Those teaching certificates were never issued because Petitioner’s prior criminal history caused Professional Practices Services (PPS) to place a hold on his applications4 and because Petitioner has not provided an official transcript documenting his college degree.5 Those reasons were in addition to the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons dated April 20, 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny Petitioner’s applications for teaching certificates. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 190841, covering the areas of elementary education and reading, which is valid through June 30, 1993. The Respondent has applied for renewal of her teaching certificate, and her renewal application is being held pending a resolution of this matter. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Seminole Middle School in the Pinellas County School District. On or about August 19, 1979, the Respondent was arrested in Sylva, North Carolina, and charged with driving while intoxicated. On or about December 20, 1979, the Respondent was convicted and her driver license was revoked for 12 months. The Respondent submitted an Application for Teacher's Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on September 7, 1982. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. The Respondent submitted an Application for Name Change and/or Duplicate Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on March 2, 1983. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. The Respondent submitted an Application for Extension of Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on March 1, 1984. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. On or about February 26, 1985, a Madeira Beach Police officer observed the Respondent driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. The Respondent failed several roadside sobriety tests and refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. On or about April 29, 1985, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the Pinellas County Court to the charge of driving under the influence. The court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced her to serve 12 months probation. The court further ordered the Respondent to pay a $500.00 fine, enroll in a DUI school, and revoked the Respondent's driver license for six months. On or about October 30, 1986, a Madeira Beach Police officer observed the Respondent driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. The Respondent failed several roadside sobriety tests. The Respondent's blood alcohol level was found to be in excess of the legal limit. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. On or about March 6, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty in the Pinellas County Court to the charge of driving under the influence. The court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced her to serve 10 days in the jail, to be served in the "Weekend/Daywatch Program", to be followed by one year of probation. The court further ordered the Respondent to enroll in DUI school, attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and revoked the Respondent's driver license for 10 years. The Respondent submitted an Application for Extension of Certificate and Application for Addition and/or Upgrade to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on June 23, 1987. The applications each included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations? In her sworn response to each question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. The Respondent submitted an Application for Educator's Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on June 13, 1988. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. The Respondent submitted an Application for Name Change and/or Duplicate Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on February 24, 1989. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. On or about January 5, 1993, the Respondent was observed driving a vehicle in Pinellas County, Florida while her driver license was revoked. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving with a revoked license. On or about February 24, 1993, the Respondent entered a plead of guilty to the charge of driving with a revoked license in Pinellas County Court. The court adjudicated her guilty and ordered her to pay $500.00 in fines and court costs. The Respondent has been an effective classroom teacher for 36 years, mostly teaching sixth grade. The Respondent's evidence was that she resorted to alcohol in response to three successive traumatic events in her life: (1) the death of her husband in 1976, which required her to become independent and the sole parent of her son and four daughters and to return to graduate school to enable her to become the sole support for her family; (2) the murder of her son in 1982; and (3) the cancer death of her mother in 1986. Despite her alcohol problem, the Respondent was able to be an effective school teacher through the years and did not allow her personal problems to seriously adversely affect her work. Her last alcohol-related incident was in October, 1986. The Respondent's principal from approximately 1987 through 1992, a man named Bill Mock, had a well-deserved reputation for administering the Respondent's school through intimidation and threat of punishment. Since applications for teacher certificates routinely were processed through the school administration offices, the Respondent was afraid that the principal would learn of her DUI arrests and convictions from reading the Respondent's teacher certificate applications and that he would fire her or impose conditions on her continued employment at the school that would be intolerable for her. In order to protect her job and livelihood, and ultimately her family, the Respondent rationalized to herself that it was not necessary to disclose those arrests and convictions on her teacher certificate applications. When Mock retired at the end of the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent reported her violations to her new school principal, and on or about March 31, 1993, received a written reprimand, but no suspension or dismissal, for her failure to acknowledge her arrests to the Department of Education. The Respondent has continued to be an effective middle school teacher. The Respondent's arrest and conviction for driving with a revoked driver license may have been "set up." Her ride to school cancelled at the last minute, leaving the Respondent without enough time to walk. She drove herself straight to school, and there was a policeman waiting for her in the school parking lot at the end of the school day. Otherwise, she did not drive with a revoked driver license. The Respondent's driver license is revoked until March, 1997, but she is eligible for a work permit upon completion of a driver education class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged and suspending her teacher certificate for one year, to be served beginning at the end of the current school year. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 (Copies furnished, continued) Karen B. Wilde Executive Director The Florida Education Center, Room 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent is qualified to hold a certificate as a correctional officer in the State of Florida, by failure to successfully complete the required training, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 29, 1993, as a corrections officer, and was issued Certification Number 141634. On August 17, 1992 the Respondent signed up for and attended orientation for the Public Safety Recruit/Corrections course conducted by the Lake County Area Vo-Tech Center in Eustis, Florida. The contents of the Public Safety Recruit Manual was explained to the class and Respondent received a copy of the manual. The academic grading policy in the manual provides that the minimum passing grade that a student must achieve on each exam is a score of 75 percent. A student may fail only one exam and still remain in good standing at the academy. Respondent signed a Student Acknowledgment of School of Public Safety Requirements and Rules of Conduct. He acknowledged that he had read and understood them and agreed to comply with the standards. Respondent failed the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission defensive tactics practical examination with a score of 66. On October 27, 1992, Respondent was notified orally and in a written memorandum from the program coordinator that he had failed the examination. However, he was given until July 29, 1993 to remediate and requalify. Respondent did not take any steps to requalify in this area. On November 10, 1992, Respondent failed Block Test 1 with a score of 59. On November 13, 1992, Respondent was notified orally and in writing of his second examination failure. He was then advised that in accordance with the Master Plan of Instruction and the grading policy of the school that he was terminated from the program. Respondent's final grade for the Public Safety Program was listed as an Incomplete. Respondent was advised that he would be required to retake the entire recruit program in order for him to receive certification. A CJSTC 67 Training Report Form was completed by the Lake County Area Vo-Tech Center for the Public Safety Recruit/Corrections course sequence number 15-92-502-02 and was forwarded to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Standards and Training in Tallahassee. The Training Report form reflects that forty-six recruits attended the course. Thirty-nine were listed as having passed and seven were listed as failed or incomplete. Respondent was listed as having failed the program. The Training Report for Respondent's class was received by the Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Standards and Training on April 12,1993. Due to a programmer's error, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Standards and Training's Automated Training Management System (ATMS) computer system automatically generates a certificate and certificate number when an individual who is employed is entered into the system regardless of the grade achieved. The procedure in place at the time required a Department employee to visually scan the certificates being generated and remove the ones for those persons who had failed or did not complete the program. Respondent was employed at the time his name was entered into the ATMS. The ATMS generated a certificate with Respondent's name on it, Certificate Number 141634. Respondent was certified as a corrections officer as of January 29, 1993 and the certificate was forwarded to him. Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission in error and the certification should be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent has failed to complete a commission-approved basic recruit training program, as required by Subsection 943.13(9), Florida Statutes (1993), and that Respondent's certification must be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 - 17 Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karen Simmons, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Dubose 242 West 6th Street Apopka, Florida 32702
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission impose discipline against the Respondent for sexual misconduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 686332, covering the area of emotionally handicapped education, which was valid through June 30, 2002. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Bayonet Point Middle School in Pacso County School District. A.Y. was an emotionally handicapped student who had been a student of the Respondent in the 1999-2000 school year. Between June and December 2000, when A.Y. was 13 years old, the Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with A.Y. This relationship included kissing, fondling, and on more than one occasion the Respondent's digital penetration of A.Y.'s vagina. On or about December 15, 2000, the Respondent was observed meeting A.Y. at a library when she got into his car and drove away. He later claimed he was counseling her. The Respondent was charged with two counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts with a minor as a result of his behavior with A.Y. On November 26, 2001, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both counts. The Respondent was adjudicated guilty on both counts, and sentenced to eight years in prison, followed by seven years of probation, concurrently on each charge. James Davis, the Director of Human Resources for the School Board of Pasco County where the Respondent taught, testified. Mr. Davis was a certified teacher with many years of experience and testified about professional standards and the impact of the Respondent's acts upon the school system. For a teacher to enter into a sexual relationship with a student, especially a young, emotionally handicapped student, is very harmful to the student emotionally and academically. A.Y. became defensive, and then felt guilty that she had caused the Respondent to get into trouble. Furthermore, such conduct destroys the faith the parents and other community members have in the educational system. There were articles in the newspaper about the situation which were adverse to the educational environment. The parents of A.Y. were very angry about the acts committed by the Respondent. The Respondent, when questioned by administrative staff for the Pasco School District, admitted he made an error in meeting A.Y., but denied any other inappropriate conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered permanently denying the Respondent a teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 James C. Howard Gulf Correctional Institution 500 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 34655 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Department of State hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference- the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department Of State, Division Of Licensing, enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $1,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6780 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected. The evidence fails to establish that the certificate was signed by Moore, who did not testify at the hearing. Rejected. Not supported by the evidence. Neither Meyer nor Wiese testified at the hearing. (This ruling is related to the second proposed finding identified as "4".) Rejected. Not supported by the evidence. Neither Meyer nor Wiese testified at the hearing. Respondent The Respondent filed a letter containing unnumbered paragraphs which is treated herein as a proposed recommended order. The paragraph beginning "I TAKE EXCEPTION" is regarded as paragraph #1. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1, 2. Rejected. The proposed finding is applicable to the weight of the testimony which clearly established that the witness received an inadequate level of instruction. 3. Rejected. The Respondent stipulated to the fact that Dale and Moore were in the same class. The stipulation was placed on the record. The Petitioner released Moore from testifying based on the stipulation. 4, 6-12. Rejected, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 DV's Security Guard School Stephen Paul DeVillo 10871 Ruden Road Fort Myers, Florida 33917-5513
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License and/or Class "G" Statewide Firearm License should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence introduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On or about June 7, 1989, Respondent filed an application for a Class "D" Security Officer License with the Department. The application form asked the applicant whether he had ever been arrested and to list any and all arrests. The application specifically provided that "falsification of this question may be grounds for denial of your license." Respondent answered affirmatively that he had been arrested. The only specific incident listed on the application was an arrest in 1979 for a charge of "asault [sic] with a deadly weapon intemp [sic] to kill Fay N.C. [sic]." The Application also required the applicant to set forth the outcome of all arrests. Respondent replied that the "charges was [sic] drop [sic]." On or about July 17, 1990, Respondent submitted an application with the Department for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. The application form for this license included an identical request regarding prior arrests. In response, Respondent checked the box indicating he had never been arrested and wrote "N/A" where he was supposed to indicate the date, charge and outcome of the arrests. Respondent has not provided any explanation for why his Class "D" Application disclosed an arrest in 1979, but his Class "G" Application did not reference this arrest. This discrepancy is not alleged in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner has submitted a certificate from the Cumberland County, North Carolina Superior Court which indicates that a criminal summons was issued for "Angelo Louis Lugo" on or about May 5, 1987, for a charge of "M Assault By Pointing A Gun." It is not clear whether this summons is directed at Respondent nor is it clear whether the Summons was ever served and/or the subject was arrested. The ultimate disposition of this criminal case is not clear. Respondent denies ever being served with the summons referenced in this court record. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent was ever arrested in connection with this matter. Petitioner has submitted a second certified record from the Cumberland County, North Carolina Superior Court, which indicates that Respondent was issued a "Citation" on March 10, 1986, for the charge of "M Shoplifting Concealment Goods." No other evidence or explanation of this record has been provided. Respondent admits that he was issued a Notice to Appear in court after he was caught by store security personnel taking aspirin from a bottle. He testified that he did not list this matter on his applications because he was not "arrested." Instead, he claims that he was merely issued a citation to appear in court. The evidence presented in this case did not refute Respondent's version of the events surrounding this court record. In sum, the evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent was ever formally "arrested" for this incident. The ultimate disposition of this criminal charge is not clear from the record in this proceeding. Counts III and IV of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint are based upon an incident that occurred on February 9, 1993 between Respondent and Jorge Ruiz. There is a good deal of conflicting evidence regarding this incident. Both Respondent and Ruiz have testified and/or given statements on several occasions about the incident including statements to the police, testimony in a related criminal proceeding against Respondent and depositions taken in connection with a civil lawsuit filed by Ruiz against Respondent, Respondent's employer and the Bank where Respondent worked. It is impossible and unnecessary to resolve all of the conflicts in the differing accounts of the incident as described by Respondent and Ruiz at various times. After considering all of the evidence presented, including the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, the findings in this Recommended Order are based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented. On February 9, 1993, Respondent was working as an armed security guard at a Barnett Bank in Plantation, Florida. At approximately 1:30 p.m., Respondent was working outside the bank in the vicinity of the drive-thru lanes. He was there to direct traffic and monitor the area. Around this time, Jorge Ruiz pulled into the paved area in front of the drive-thru booths. Ruiz had been to the Bank on numerous occasions in the past and he had often used the drive-thru windows. Ruiz has a very powerful radio in his pick-up truck and he admits that he tends to play music at a loud volume. On at least one prior occasion, Ruiz had proceeded to the drive-thru station with his radio blasting. The tellers had complained about the noise coming through the intercom system. During the week or so prior to February 9, 1993, Ruiz and Respondent had at least one minor confrontation. During this prior instance, Respondent advised Ruiz that he had to turn his radio down before he reached the drive-thru booth because the intercom system picked up the background noise and it interfered with the tellers' ability to communicate with the customers. Ruiz replied that he would turn down the radio when he got to the window. When Ruiz entered the Bank's parking lot on February 9, 1993, his radio was playing loudly. Respondent approached the driver's side window of Ruiz' vehicle and asked Ruiz to turn his radio down. Ruiz responded with a number of obscenities. Respondent told Ruiz that unless he turned his radio down, he could not use the drive-thru facility. Ruiz refused to comply. Respondent stood in front of Ruiz' vehicle and directed him away from the drive-thru lane. Ruiz' vehicle moved forward and bumped into Respondent. Respondent drew his gun and shouted at Ruiz to stop the car and get out. Respondent claims that he intended to hold Ruiz while he called the police. The parties exchanged words and Ruiz' truck again moved forward striking Respondent. Respondent was not knocked down or otherwise injured, however, his gun discharged. The bullet penetrated the windshield of Ruiz' truck and hit the steering wheel. A fragment from the steering wheel struck Ruiz in the neck or chest area, causing a minor wound. Respondent contends that he was justified in drawing his weapon and/or using deadly force "to prevent the escape from custody of a person who committed a felony in his presence." This contention is rejected because there is no evidence that Ruiz was attempting to escape. Furthermore, it is not clear that Ruiz in fact committed a felony, nor does it appear that the use of force was reasonably necessary under the circumstances of this case. Respondent also contends that he was justified in drawing his weapon in self-defense because he was being threatened by a deadly weapon, i.e. Ruiz' truck, and he had no reasonable means of escape. Respondent claims that he was boxed in by a vehicle in front of the truck and had no reasonable way to retreat from the "deadly force" that confronted him. Respondent's contention that he had no reasonable means of escape is rejected as not credible. Contrary to Respondent's claim, the evidence was clear that Respondent had reasonable means of escape. Moreover, there were alternate ways to handle the situation which would have diffused rather than exacerbated the tension and danger. Respondent claims that the gun discharged accidently when the truck hit him. No persuasive evidence was presented to refute this contention. Indeed, in some of his statements, Ruiz admitted that the gun may have gone off by accident when his truck struck Respondent. In sum, it is clear that Ruiz was belligerent and abusive and that his car bumped into Respondent twice. Nonetheless, Respondent's contention that he was justified in drawing his weapon and that he had no reasonable means of escape is rejected. While it can not be concluded from the evidence presented that Respondent deliberately shot at Ruiz, the evidence did establish that Respondent was guilty of negligence, misconduct and/or incompetency when he drew and pointed his loaded weapon at Ruiz. The circumstances did not justify Respondent pointing a loaded weapon at Ruiz. Without question, Respondent failed to demonstrate that level of discretion and caution that is expected of a person licensed to carry a firearm in the course of his employment. After the gun went off, Respondent immediately jumped into the truck and took Ruiz to a nearby hospital where Ruiz' minor injury was treated and he was released.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I, II, and III of the Third Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent and finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Count IV of that Third Amended Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violation, Respondent should be fined $1,500.00, his Class "G" Firearms License should be revoked and his Class "D" Security Guard License should be placed on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2566 Petitioner has not submitted any proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's proposed recommended order included a section entitled Findings of Fact. However, that section does not include any individually numbered proposed findings of fact and the paragraphs contained in this section of Respondent's proposal include a mixture factual assertions, argument and legal conclusions. The proposal has been fully reviewed and considered. However, because proposed findings of fact have not been separately identified, no rulings are made with respect to Respondent's proposal. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 James S. Benjamin, Esquire Benjamin & Aaronson, P.A. 100 Northeast Third Avenue, Suite 850 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether to impose sanctions against Respondent, Brooke Braly, up to, and including, revocation of her Educator’s Certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for monitoring each person who holds a Florida Educator Certificate and who is working in any school district within the State. Part and parcel of the Commissioner’s duties is the determination of whether any teacher violated any of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. At all times relevant hereto, Ms. Braly held Florida Educator Certificate No. 1106771, covering the areas of elementary education and English for speakers of other languages. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2021. Ms. Braly is employed as a teacher in the Volusia County School System, teaching at the School in the area of Modified ESE with Varying Exceptionalities. Her students were those with physical and/or mental disabilities which resulted in learning difficulties. Ms. Braly had served in that position for seven years as of the date of final hearing, including the 2017-2018 school year. An incident occurred at the School on December 5, 2016, i.e., the 2016-2017 school year, involving the Student. Based on that incident, the Commissioner issued an Administrative Complaint on November 21, 2017 (some 10 months later), which contained the following allegations: On or about December 5, 2017, [Ms. Braly] failed to notify school administrators after she confiscated a BB gun from a student at the beginning of the school day. [Ms. Braly] also failed to properly secure the BB gun to prevent the student from regaining possession of it while still on school property. The Salient Facts From the evidence presented, it is clear that on December 5, 2016, the Student approached Ms. Braly at the beginning of the school day. The Student told Ms. Braly that he had inadvertently failed to remove his BB/airsoft pistol from his backpack before leaving for school that morning. He asked her what he should do, and Ms. Braly took the gun from him to secure it for the day. At no time was she worried that the Student had intentions of using the BB gun or that it was a serious problem. In fact, Ms. Braly did not even believe it was a BB gun, but thought it was a plastic toy gun. At the end of the day, the Student took the gun home with him. As the Student was exiting the school bus at his stop that afternoon, another student sitting on the bus saw the BB gun, which the Student had stuck into his waistband under his shirt. The Student’s shirt was lifted for some reason and the other student spotted the gun. That student went home and immediately sent an email to several School administrators to report what he had seen. The administrators reviewed surveillance videos from the bus and identified the Student as the person carrying the gun. An investigation ensued and the Administrative Complaint was filed. The less clear and/or less persuasive “facts” of this case are set forth below. The Gun The Commissioner presented a picture of a BB gun at final hearing which was purported to be the same gun Ms. Braly had confiscated from the Student on December 5, 2016. The black and white picture shows a replica Smith & Wesson handgun of small to average size. Ms. Braly says that the gun depicted in the picture is not the gun she took from the Student. The Student’s father brought a handgun to final hearing that he said was the gun at issue. It was plastic, lightweight, and tan and black in color. There was a clip (presumably for holding BBs) that could slide into the handle of the gun. The father demonstrated how to insert the clip and how to “cock” the gun by sliding back the top portion. That action would engage a spring that would release once the trigger was pulled, i.e., it was a spring-fired pistol, not a recoil action weapon. According to the Student, the gun fired plastic pellets rather than BBs. Ms. Braly, who only saw the gun for a few moments on the morning of December 5, 2016, remembers it to be black with an orange tip, unlike the gun produced at final hearing. At some point, the Student was asked to identify the gun from a picture depicting several different handguns. The Student pointed out to an investigator which of the depicted guns looked most like his BB pistol. The photographic line-up was not offered or admitted into evidence, so no finding is made as to what it may have shown, vis-à-vis what the gun looked like. At the final hearing, the Student’s father acknowledged that he had previously told School administrators he had destroyed his son’s gun back in December when the event occurred. The gun he produced at final hearing was obviously not destroyed; in fact, it looked very new and barely used. The Student said the gun produced at hearing was the same gun he gave to Ms. Braly on December 5, 2016. Mr. Starin, an investigator for the Volusia County School District, was tasked with looking into the incident. He did not speak to the Student’s parents nor did he attempt to locate the gun (other than having the Student identify what the gun looked like from the pictorial lineup). The most persuasive evidence is that the gun given to Ms. Braly on December 5, 2016, was the same as or similar to the one depicted in the Commissioner’s exhibit and proffered at final hearing. It was very light and obviously a toy, but was designed to resemble a real gun. Though it looked somewhat like a real weapon from afar, it is hard to believe anyone who held the gun or saw it up close would think it real or capable of causing serious harm to a person. December 5, 2016 As the Student was walking to his bus stop, he told his sister he had forgotten to remove the BB gun from his backpack after carrying it with him to the park the night before. His sister advised the Student to give the gun to his teacher so as not to get in trouble at school. Upon arrival at the School, the Student immediately approached Ms. Braly, who he trusted and believed would help him do what was most appropriate in this situation. When no other students were nearby, the Student told her about the gun. Ms. Braly took the gun and placed it in her office in a desk drawer. The Student remembers her placing the gun in a cardboard soda can box. Ms. Braly remembers just placing it in a desk drawer. It is patently obvious by his actions that the Student had no intentions of displaying the gun at school for any purpose. He very intentionally tried to diffuse any danger or unease that might have arisen due to his mistake. Ms. Braly took the Student’s actions and demeanor into account when deciding what to do. Ms. Braly thought the toy gun would be safe in her locked office as that was where she kept her purse and car keys during the school day. Normally no one had access to the office during the day, except that construction was going on and some of the workers did have access to the office. Ms. Braly did not consider those workers a threat to steal anything or to rifle through her desk during the day. She also did not consider the toy gun worthy of anyone’s interest. She believed her response to the situation was reasonable, based on all the circumstances and her knowledge of the Student. At the end of the day, the Student retrieved the gun. How that occurred is not entirely clear from the evidence. The Student says that he asked Ms. Braly at the end of the day if he could get his gun. She was very busy at the time and just told him, “yes,” so he went into the office and retrieved it. He remembers Ms. Braly telling him to put it in his backpack so that no one else would see it. He did so, but then transferred it to his waistband later. An ESE co-teacher with Ms. Braly remembers Ms. Braly being completely absorbed in the preparation of an Individual Education Plan for another student that afternoon. The co-teacher had instructed students not to bother Ms. Braly and does not remember the Student or anyone else talking to Ms. Braly that afternoon. Ms. Braly does not remember being asked by the Student whether he could get his gun from the office. She simply did not even think about the gun after acquiring it that morning. To her, the gun was a toy and did not warrant much attention. Sometime the next day, she realized the gun was gone and surmised that the construction workers must have left the door open so that the Student was able to get his gun. She did not explain why she thought the Student – rather than the workers – had taken the gun from her office. At any rate, the Student retrieved his gun before he left for home. As he was exiting the school bus, the other student noticed the gun in his waistband and notified School administrators. That action is very understandable considering the school shootings across the nation in recent times. December 6, 2016 Once the school administrators got word about the gun and identified the Student, they contacted Ms. Braly. The School resource officer, Deputy Abato, went to Ms. Braly’s class and asked to talk to her. They went into her office, away from the students, and she was asked about the gun. The conversation lasted only a few moments. Deputy Abato was only concerned with whether the gun was real or not. Convinced it was not, he did not pursue the matter. Later, Ms. Braly was asked by assistant principal Feltner to write a statement concerning the incident. Her statement reiterated what had happened, i.e., the Student showed her the gun, she identified it as a toy and placed it in her office, and the Student later retrieved it. Again, how she knew that the Student retrieved the gun rather than someone else getting it is not clear. Deputy Abato’s statement from that same day mirrored Ms. Braly’s statement. Deputy Abato said that if a student pulled a gun on him that looked like the one in the picture offered into evidence, he would order the student to put the gun down. If they did not do so, he would likely shoot them. Whether the gun the Student had was like the picture is not clearly established in the record. The best evidence is that the gun could have looked like that, but even that evidence is neither clear nor convincing. The gist of the Commissioner’s argument in this case is that: IF an armed deputy saw the Student with the gun, and IF the deputy ordered him to put it down, BUT the student did not immediately comply, THEN the deputy MIGHT be inclined to fire on the student. Though completely plausible in general terms, that eventuality seems very unlikely under the facts of this case. Later Developments On December 15, 2016, Investigator Starin issued an “Investigative Summary” describing his findings after conducting a brief investigation. The report did little more than recite what other people had said. Mr. Starin concluded that the Student brought the gun to school, gave it to his teacher, and retrieved it at the end of the day. The summary provides little substantive information and makes no recommendation or assertion of wrongdoing by Ms. Braly. The investigator only talked to three people as part of his minimal investigation into the incident on December 5, 2016: Ms. Braly; Deputy Abato, who had only secondhand knowledge; and the Student. It is remarkable that Mr. Starin did not interview Ms. Braly’s co-teacher or her paraprofessional, both of whom were in the classroom that day, or the Student’s parents. The overall level of the investigation is consistent with the degree of seriousness of the events. That is, there was a slight breach of protocol, but no probability of harm to the Student or others at the School. The Board decided that the incident nonetheless warranted some discipline. The School Board notified Ms. Braly that a letter of reprimand would be issued and she would be suspended for three days without pay. Although this was a fairly low level of discipline, Ms. Braly has challenged it; the matter is currently in arbitration. Notwithstanding the discipline imposed, the Board has re-hired Ms. Braly for the 2018-2019 school year in the same position she has held for the past seven years. In fact, she has continued teaching at the School since the December 5, 2016, incident. She is an effective teacher and has not had any other disciplinary actions against her, and the School recognizes her as an effective ESE teacher. The Commissioner also seeks to discipline Ms. Braly, noting that she failed to report the incident and did not adequately secure the toy gun. Both of these allegations are true, whether they violate any particular policy or not. The Commissioner proposes a letter of reprimand, suspension of Ms. Braly’s Educator Certificate for six months, and two years of probation. However, based on the best evidence available, Ms. Braly’s conduct was both reasonable and essentially benign. If any sanction against Ms. Braly was warranted, it should be minimal at worst.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Brooke Braly, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of August, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about August 2, 1977, in Duval County, Florida, did expose his sexual organs by masturbation inside a pornographic booth in the presence of a plain clothes city vice detective at a Jacksonville movie theater, and further, whether or not Ossie L. Gardner plead guilty to the lesser charge of "indecent exposure" and was fined 550.00 plus court costs, all in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example to students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about June 29, 1967, in Leon County, Florida, did solicit for a lewd and lascivious act by an offer to commit and engage in lewdness, to wit, fellatio with an employee of the Tallahassee Police Department, in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example for students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's Certificate filed by the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, against Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into several stipulations. The first of those stipulations was that the statements in the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's, Certificate found under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are agreed to and established as facts in this cause; therefore, with the recitation of those facts in the following quotation, those facts under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are hereby established. "JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS" "OSSIE L. GARDNER is the holder of Post-Graduate, Rank II Florida teaching certificate number 181441, covering Math, Emotionally Disturbed and Junior College, which is valid until June 30, 1993." "OSSIE L. GARDNER has been employed as a math/science teacher at the Juvenile Shelter in Jacksonville, Florida. He holds a tenure contract in Duval County where he continues to teach at this time. The Professional Practices Council received a report from Buford H. Galloway, Director of Evaluation and Development, indicating that OSSIE L. GARDNER was charged with Exposure of Sexual Organs by Masturbation on August 2, 1977. Pursuant to this report and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, staff of the Department of Education conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on February 13, 1978 made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that OSSIE L. GARDNER is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause on February 13, 1978, and directed the filing of this petition. The Petitioner has authority under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education to file this Petition. The State Board of Education has authority under action 231.28, Florida Statutes to revoke the teaching certificate of OSSIE L. GARDNER." At the commencement of the hearing, the parties further agreed to stipulate to the introduction of certain items of evidence without the necessity for authentication of those documents. Finally, the parties agreed to stipulate to the introduction of the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden, as a late-filed exhibit, to be used by the undersigned in the same way as the testimony offered in the course of the hearing. The facts in the case revealed that on August 2, 1977, between 3:30 and 4:00 P.M., Officer J. W. Lockley of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Duval County, Florida, was making a routine check of the J & K Adult Theater in the 400 block of Main Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This theater contains material of sexual content. Among other features of the theater are certain booths located behind a curtained area, which is separated from the other part of the establishment. Those booths have coin-operated projectors which allow for the display of preselected film clips which have been obtained from the proprietor. The booths are approximately four feet by seven or eight feet in dimension and the patron may stand up or in some cases may sit down in the booths. The booths have a further feature which is a door which has instructions that it must be closed during the course of the film being shown. On the date in question, Officer Lockley went into the area of the theater which contains the booths and observed the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, in Booth No. 8. At that time, the door to the booth was open and Gardner was observed with his sexual organs exposed, and was observed stroking his exposed penis with his hand in an upward and downward motion. A film was playing in the booth, being projected on a small screen. The film depicted sexual activity between male participants, specifically fellatio. Officer Lockley passed up the aisle from where he had observed this activity on the part of the Respondent and then returned to the area of the booth in which Mr. Gardner was located. At that point, Gardner continued to stroke his penis and to look and obtain eye contact with Lockley and then to look down at his penis. Lockley subsequently arrested Gardner for exposure of sexual organs, in violation of Section 80003, Florida Statutes. Gardner later plead guilty to a municipal ordinance violation of indecent exposure, City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. 330.124. For this violation, Gardner was given a judgment and sentence of a $50.00 fine plus $2.00 court costs. In the course of the arrest, the Respondent indicated to Officer Lockley that he had bean arrested for similar conduct before in a matter in Tallahassee, Florida. This incident pertained to a situation which occurred in the Greyhound Bus Station in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 29, 1967. At that time, C. A. McMahan, an employee of the State Prison Camp, Division of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, was working as an agent with the Tallahassee Police Department to assist in the investigation of vice activities. In particular, McMahan was assisting in the investigation of alleged homosexual activities in the men's restroom of the Greyhound Bus Station. On the date in question at around 10:00 P.M., McMahan went into the men's restroom and entered one of the closed-in stalls in which a commode was located; Gardner went to one of the urinals in the bathroom facility. Before entering the stall, McMahan observed Gardner masturbating at the urinal. McMahan then closed the door to the stall and was seated in the area of the commode when Gardner moved into the area next to McMahan's stall and continued to masturbate as observed through a hole in the wall between the stall in which McMahan was located and the area where Gardner was positioned. After a period of three or four minutes, Gardner stuck his penis through a hole in the partition wall into the area where McMahan was located. At that point, McMahan left to tell Captain Burl S. Peacock of the Tallahassee Police Department, Tallahassee, Florida, of his observation. Both of these individuals went back into the restroom, at which point Gardner was arrested. Gardner, after being advised of his constitutional right to remain silent, admitted that he had gone to the restroom with the thought that he could get some "sexual relief", and further admitted putting his penis through the hole in the partition for the purpose of getting that "sexual relief." Gardner also admitted to Peacock that he had been involved in homosexual activities as early as the age of 18 and had performed sodomy on one occasion and had been a passive partner in homosexual activities at other times. Subsequent to the June 29, 1967, arrest, Gardner received psychiatric attention for his problem. For the incidents related in the matters of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, the Respondent has been charged with violations of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code; in that his conduct is alleged to be inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience; not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. A review of those stated sections of the Florida Statutes and the The Florida Administrative Code reveals that any substantive allegations cognizable through this complaint are found in provision of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, only. Therefore, no further reference will be made to Section 6A- 4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code. Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "(2) EXAMPLE FOR PUPILS.--Labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the principles of truth, honesty and pat- riotism and the practice of every Christian virtue." The conduct which has been established in the facts pertaining to the incidents of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure of the Respondent's sexual organs and the surrounding activities in those incidents, is conduct which shows that the Respondent is not laboring faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their deportment and morals' in violation of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes. No other violation of that provision has been established. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, together with the preamble to the overall Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "231.28 Suspension or revocation of certificates. The Department of Education shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying him the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (6); to revoke the teach- ing certificate of any person, thereby denying him the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to provisions of subsection (6); or to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person, provided: (1) It can be shown that such person obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means, or has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system, or to teach in or to operate a private school, or has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, or has had his certificate revoked in another state, or has been convicted of a mis- demeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, or upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seri- ously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, or has otherwise violated the provisions of law, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate, or has refused to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education or the school board in the district in which he is employed." Again, the acts of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure by the Respondent of his sexual organs and the facts therein, show that the Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. The only other possible violation under Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, which might be argued is the allegation of possible conduct which seriously reduces the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board. The sole testimony offered in the course of the hearing which would address that substantive accusation would be that testimony found in the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden. A review of that testimony indicates that the opinion of the principal of the school in which the Respondent teaches, to wit, the school No. 182, Juvenile Shelter School, is to the effect that the facts in these cases are not known to other persons in the school. Consequently, there is no testimony to indicate that there would be any loss of effectiveness if Mr. Gardner continued to teach. No other violations were alleged or proven.
Recommendation In the course of the hearing, matters in mitigation and aggravation were considered. In that presentation, it was demonstrated that the Respondent is a teacher with an outstanding background, as revealed by his personnel file, which is the Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It was also established that the Respondent is a man of distinguished service to his country through service in the United States Army, as established in the Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 7. Further, it was established that absent these incidents alluded to in the course of this Recommended Order, the Respondent has not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Petitioner on any other occasion. Nonetheless, in consideration of the nature of his profession, it is recommended that the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, have his Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 181441 REVOKED for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Mail: 530 Carlton Building 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida Charles E. Grabill, Jr., Esquire 168 Blanding Boulevard, Suite 2 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Mr. M. Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
