The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent’s Florida Educator’s Certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, FRANK T. BROGAN, as Florida Commissioner of Education, is statutorily responsible for maintaining teaching certification standards, and is authorized to enforce the provisions of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes. Respondent, JOEL M. BURKI, at all material times hereto, was a certified teacher in the State of Florida. STIPULATED FACTS Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 686763, covering the area of Art Education, which is valid through June 30, 1997. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an alternative education teacher at St. Pete Challenge School in the Pinellas County School District. During 1992, Respondent was reported to Professional Practices Services for allegedly using excessive force with students. On or about September 22, 1992, the Department of Education and Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement extending through the end of the first semester of the 1992-1993 school year. Respondent satisfactorily completed the agreement, and on or about April 9, 1993, the Commissioner issued a finding of no probable cause to take disciplinary action concerning his educator’s ceritficate. On or about January 30, 1996, the Pinellas County School District investigated Respondent for allegedly engaging in inappropriate conduct with students. The district subsequently reported Respondent to Professional Practices Services. On or about March 20, 1996, Respondent resigned his teaching position effective March 22, 1996. THE ALLEGED INCIDENT OF MISCONDUCT An incident occurred at the St. Pete Challenge School at some time shortly after January 26, 1996, in which five male students, aged nine-to-ten years old, fell down at the door outside Respondent’s art and music classroom. As a result of this incident one student suffered a cut lip, and one other complained of a headache. The students involved in this incident initially had been disrupting Respondent’s class prior to roll call. Respondent had instructed these students to wait outside the classroom door until Respondent attended to the remaining students in the classroom. Respondent then intended to address this disciplinary situation. The five misbehaving students were outside for a very short period of time when they observed another teacher approaching. Upon seeing the teacher approaching, the five students attempted to re-enter Respondent’s classroom; however, Respondent at this time was also opening the door from the other side. The force of Respondent opening the door caused a chain reaction resulting in the fall of the five students on the outside of the door. The injured students were taken to the front office for treatment. None of the injuries sustained was serious. Respondent did not intend to cause any physical contact with the five students, nor to cause any physical harm to the students. Respondent was not physically abusive to the five students involved in this incident. It is the policy of the Pinellas County School District that a teacher shall not use physical force upon a student absent extraordinary circumstances which require physical intervention for the protection of other students or school personnel. Respondent in this incident did not use physical force in a manner inconsistent with the policy of the Pinellas County School District. Respondent is considered mild-mannered, cordial, and friendly in both his professional and personal capacities. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Administrative Complaint filed in this matter alleged in paragraph 4 that "Respondent grabbed minor student J.M. and pushed him," and "Respondent also pushed minor student,” A.H. into other students causing A.H. and the other students to fall." No evidence was presented at final hearing to support these allegations; however, there was testimony from minor student, K.D., that Respondent pushed another of these students, B.W., which then caused the chain reaction fall. Petitioner, accordingly, made an ore tenus motion for leave to amend the administrative complaint to conform to the evidence. The student in question, B.W., testified at final hearing and did not state that Respondent pushed him. On cross- examination, B.W. testified that Respondent pushed some other unidentified student during the incident. There was no clear and consistent evidence that Respondent pushed any identified student including B.W. or A.H. during this incident. Another student involved in the incident, C.G., who also testified at final hearing, on cross-examination confirmed Respondent's account of this occurrence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire 501 First Avenue, Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Mark Herdman, Esquire HERDMAN and SAKELLARIDES, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, (Board), was responsible for operating the public schools in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Susan E. Brown, was employed as a plant operator at the 16th Street Middle School in St. Petersburg, a school operated by the Board. She had a son enrolled in Lynch Elementary School, operated by the Board. On or about November 9, 1995, Respondent's son, V.B., was sent home at the end of the regular school day with a referral slip, signed by Ms. Proper, the principal, which reflected that the child had used inappropriate language to a female student in the class that day. The language was, "Suck my dick." The alleged incident was discussed in a class meeting and the matter was referred to the principal as the result of a recommendation by the class. The referral slip was not enclosed in an envelope. The child's teacher had had prior conferences with Respondent regarding her child's academics and behavior. Mrs. Brown was very much upset by this referral, not only from the standpoint that such language was attributed to her son, but also because the referral slip was not enclosed in an envelope. As a result, early the next day, November 10, 1995, she arrived in the office at Lynch Elementary where she was met by Ms. Lemos, the data preparation clerk, at the front counter. Respondent loudly demanded to speak with the principal. When informed by Ms. Lemos that the principal was in an awards ceremony at the time but would be back shortly and would see her upon her return, Respondent nonetheless insisted on seeing the principal immediately. She also demanded to speak with the teacher involved. She was upset about the referral slip a teacher has written regarding her son. When informed that the offending teacher was in class and could not be interrupted at the time, Respondent said, "I'll interrupt her," and left the office, heading for the classroom. Ms. Lemos immediately used the intercom system to forewarn the teacher and also immediately called the intervention specialist. Ms. Robinson, the teacher in question, heard Ms. Lemos' warning over the intercom system and within a few seconds, Respondent burst into the classroom, waived a sheet of paper, later determined to be the offending referral sheet, in her face and said, "I don't want this shit again", along with other obscene words including the word, "fucking." Ms. Robinson asked Respondent to leave the classroom, but she refused. Respondent asked for "that ass-hole, Jonathan." Jonathan is another child in the class who, Respondent believed, is the one who made the offensive comment attributed to her son. Respondent's actions were upsetting the children. Some were screaming and others were crying. Ms. Robinson claims that even Respondent's son called for her to stop, but she did not. Respondent stated to the teacher, "If I have to come back, I'll kick someone's ass." Ms. Robinson continued to try to get the Respondent to leave the room and managed to get herself and Respondent out of the room and into the hall. At this point, Ms. Robinson tried to go back into the classroom and close the door with Respondent out in the hall, but Respondent forestalled this, slapping Ms. Robinson's hands away from the door. At one point in the altercation, apparently in the classroom or nearby but in sight of some of the children, Respondent pushed Ms. Robinson away from the door, using both hands to the teacher's upper arms or torso. As a result of the Respondent's actions, Ms. Robinson was emotionally and mentally affected. She was afraid for her life at the time of the incident because the Respondent appeared very angry and was physical with her. The teacher's professional and family life has been affected by this assault. She was afraid to go back into the classroom and missed several days work because of it. She did not seek psychological counselling or a physician and she has now returned to the classroom, but this incident has affected her teaching and she still has trouble sleeping at times. Based on what happened, Ms. Robinson would not want to work in the same school with the Respondent. The altercation involving the Respondent and Ms. Robinson was heard by another third grade teacher, Ms. McLaughlin, who had come to the third grade pod of four classrooms to get another student. As she walked toward the pod she heard someone using profanity, including the words, "Shit. How dare you write this?" After going into her own classroom to get the student she wanted, Ms. McLaughlin came out to see Ms. Robinson pinned with her back to the open door facing away from the classroom, and a parent, identified as the Respondent, up close to her face. She saw Respondent, who was very loud, push Ms. Robinson with both hands Ms. McLaughlin did not hear Ms. Robinson say anything but noted she was trying to close the classroom door. As Ms. McLaughlin watched, the intervention specialist, Ms. Mills came up and took control. Ms. Mills went to the room as a result of the request by Ms. Lemos. As she approached the pod, she heard loud yelling and saw Ms. Robinson with her back to the door and Respondent yelling at her, facing her. Ms. Mills yelled at the Respondent directing her to return to the office. At this point, Respondent turned toward her and yelled that some "shit had been written on [her] baby's paper." She wanted to talk with the principal and, according to Ms. Mills, threatened to "mess them all up." As the two women were walking toward the office, Respondent also allegedly called the staff "fucking crackers", and when advised by Ms. Mills to keep her voice down because children were present, said she didn't care. Ms. Mills claims some children were present as they went toward the office. As Ms. Mills and Respondent arrived at the school office the Respondent was still yelling. Ms. Mills directed her to leave the campus but she refused and continued to demand to see the principal. At this point, Ms. Mills advised the office staff to call the police. Upon the arrival of the principal, Ms. Mills left the office and returned to the classroom where she found the children frightened and upset. When the principal, Ms. Proper, arrived at the front office she told the Respondent to go into her private office because she was yelling so loud. Ms. Proper could hear Respondent from down the hall. When Proper got the Respondent into her office, she asked what was wrong and in response, Respondent waived the referral slip. Ms. Proper took it and looked at it and this had the effect of calming the Respondent down somewhat. However, when Ms. Proper explained why the referral had been written, Respondent exploded again and Ms. Proper told her to leave the campus. Before she could do so, the police arrived. According to Ms. Proper, Respondent's actions upset the awards ceremony, a teacher was made upset and required a substitute, the office staff was upset, and she had to spend several hours with the police. In addition, at least one parent has called the school and expressed concern about the incident. This was the parent to whose daughter the obscene comment was allegedly made by V.B., Respondent's son. At the time of the incident neither Ms. Proper nor anyone else involved knew that the Respondent worked for the school system. Respondent did not identify herself as a school employee nor was she wearing any kind of uniform which identified her as a Board employee. All of the children who testified at the hearing, whether for the Board or for the Respondent, indicated they had, to some degree or another seen and heard the incident. There is no doubt that Respondent physically battered Ms. Robinson at the doorway to the classroom. Whether she intended to injure her is doubtful, however. Respondent clearly used profanity in front of the children, but it is equally clear she did not address the profanity toward them. By the same token, it does not appear that Respondent threatened the children in any way. Though she denies having done so, it is found she did refer to one child, Jonathan, as an ass-hole, but she did not direct that comment to him directly. Respondent has worked as a plant operator, (janitor), for the school system for four years, starting at the 16th Street Middle School only shortly before the incident in issue. Her hours are from four in the afternoon to midnight. She has one child, V.B., who attended Lynch Elementary at the time in issue. Respondent recalls that on November 9, 1995, V.B. came home from school with a referral which was not in an envelope nor was it folded over. When she saw it she was upset over the way it was written. She felt that her son's alleged language could have been more discreetly put and she also felt the slip should have been put in an envelope for transmittal. The referral did not require her to come to school, but she went anyway to see why the slip had been written and transmitted as it was. She also wanted to know why she wasn't called about it. Consequently, on the morning of November 11, 1995 she went to the school office and spoke with the lady at the front desk. Respondent admits to using the word "shit" to describe the referral but denies she cursed anyone in the office. When she asked to speak with the principal she was told that she was in a ceremony and to come back later. Nonetheless, Respondent insisted on speaking with the principal but cannot recall what she said next. She remembers having the impression that the office staff did not want to see the referral, so she decided to go to her son's classroom to speak with the teacher about it. Respondent claims the office staff did not tell her not to go to the classroom. When she got there she asked the teacher why she sent the referral home without it being in a sealed envelope. When the teacher merely shrugged in reply, Respondent repeated the question and admits to again using the word, "shit". With that the teacher asked her to leave the classroom and she claims she started to do so with the teacher behind her. Respondent admits to using the word "shit" a third time but denies calling the teacher a bitch, and most specifically, she denies having cursed at any of the students. It has been found that she did not curse at the student. As she and the teacher were departing the classroom, Respondent indicates she again asked the teacher, in a voice louder than normal, why she had sent the referral home as she did. In doing so, she admits to holding the referral up in front of the teacher's face and claims that the teacher then pushed her hand out of the way. The teacher allegedly pulled on the door to close it and told Respondent to leave. Respondent claims she then turned away and pushed the door but denies having ever come into contact with the teacher. The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates, however, that she pushed the teacher at least once, and it is so found. Respondent also admits to having used the word "shit" in front of the second lady who came to the room in a query about the referral. It was this individual, Ms. Mills, with whom Respondent walked back to the office. However, she denies having threatened her or stating that she or anyone else would be "messed up", and further denies having referred to Ms. Mills or anyone else as a "fucking cracker." She also denies having used the word "shit" with the principal, though it is clear she did. She claims, however, that the principal neither asked her to come into the private office nor gave her a reason for the referral. This is irrelevant, however. Respondent admits she was on her way back to the classroom from the office a second time but before she could do so, the police arrived and she talked with them. Respondent did not think she was frightening the children by her actions, but it is clear she was. She did not intend to do so. All she wanted was an answer to her question. She admits she was angry when she went to the office and when she went to the classroom. She admits to entering the classroom without knocking or without an invitation because the door was open even though the class was in session. However, she justifies her conduct as a result of having been upset. Respondent's work supervisor has never heard Respondent use profanity to her co-workers, to teachers or to students while on the job or otherwise. He has never received a complaint about her behavior from either students or teachers. He has heard other employees use profanity from time to time, but never in a direct confrontation with each other or in front of students or teachers. Mr. Morris has never disciplined any of his workers for using curse words but would do so for inappropriate conduct. He is aware of the Board's sexual harassment rule, but other than this is unaware of any Board rule which prohibits the use of curse words. Based on his limited experience with the Respondent, he has no concern over her working in an environment where she might come into contact with middle school students or teachers. When he hired her he knew of no record of prior discipline regarding the Respondent and apparently there is none. He agrees it is important not to use profanity around students and that students should feel safe in the school setting. In that regard, if he were to know that an employee did what Respondent is alleged to have done, he would feel that person should not be employed as a plant operator. James M. Barker, an administrator with the Board's Office of Professional Standards, investigated the allegations against the Respondent and concluded that they were accurate and constituted various violations of Board Policy 6Gx52-5.31 which outlines in writing offenses and penalty ranges for employee misconduct. He interviewed the teachers involved but not the students, and when he interviewed the Respondent, she denied all of the allegations. She admitted she was upset by the comments contained on the referral slip but denied either touching a teacher or using threatening language. Notwithstanding, Mr. Barker's investigation indicated to him that Respondent had improperly harassed a student, used inappropriate or disparaging remarks to students, improperly interacted with colleagues, and committed misconduct in office, all in violation of Subsections (l), (n), (p) and (v) of the policy. The aforementioned sections list not only the conduct which is considered actionable, but also suggests a penalty range for the imposition of discipline when misconduct is found to exist. In each case, the suggested penalty ranges from either a caution or a reprimand to dismissal. Section 3 of the same policy outlines aggravating or mitigating factors which may be considered when determining the appropriate penalty. In this case, Mr. Barker recommended dismissal of the respondent because he could find no factors in mitigation but did find aggravation in the severity of the offenses committed, the involvement of students, the potential for damage to the public and the actual emotional damage imposed upon Ms. Robinson and the students. Even though the Board's policy and general practice is to impose discipline progressively, here he recommended dismissal immediately because of Respondent's comments before students and her aggression toward Ms. Robinson. Mr. Barker is aware that Respondent has been employed by the Board for only a relatively short time and that she was not employed at the school where her misconduct occurred. He is also aware that Ms. Robinson did not seek medical of psychological help as a result of her contact with Respondent but does not know if any member of the public was involved. He considers Ms. Robinson and the staff at Lynch to be coworkers of the Respondent even though they are not employed at the same school and they did not know Respondent was a Board employee at the time of the incident. This is an overly broad interpretation. Mr. Barker's recommendation was based on his determination that the Board does not consider it appropriate for any employee of a public or private school to act as Respondent did in this instance. Teachers should not have to fear assault in class and students should not have to be exposed to conduct like that alleged here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a Final Order affirming the temporary suspension of Respondent with pay and her termination from employment with the Board as of December 14, 1995. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-6148 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for the allegation that the Respondent pointed her finger at the students. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted but not probative of any fact in issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Lydia S. Castle, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Incorporated 641 First Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Michael H. Olenick General Counsel 32399-0400 The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 23rd day of January, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Michael A. Graham, was a middle school teacher at West Miami Junior High School (WMJHS) in Miami, Florida. He is under a continuing contract as a teacher for petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). He has been an employee in the school system since 1975 and a full-time teacher since 1981. Graham holds bachelor and master degrees from the University of Miami and is currently taking course work at Florida International University towards a second master's degree. On January 12, 1988 the Board voted to suspend Graham without pay for thirty days effective January 20, 1988 for "just cause and misconduct in office." On July 1, 1988 the Board issued a Notice of Charges containing six counts of alleged misconduct. 1/ The charging document alleged that respondent failed to disclose on his job application dated September 24, 1981 that he had been previously arrested on numerous occasions, (b) intentionally exposed a student, I.M., to unnecessary embarrassment, (c) intentionally exposed a student, V.E., to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, (d) intentionally committed a battery on U.C., a student, (e) continually and intentionally refused to discontinue uttering profane and/or vulgar language in his classroom during school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, and (f) continually and intentionally refused to discontinue excessive tardiness and excessive absences during the same school years. These charges will be taken up separately below. Filing A False Application (Counts I and II) During the course of his employment with the Board, Graham has filled out various applications and other informational forms. Relevant to this proceeding is an application for an instructional position filed with the Board on September 24, 1981. The application asked the following question: Have you ever been convicted of anything other than minor traffic violations? Graham responded in the negative. Sometime after Graham filed the above application, the Board had an occasion to run a background check on him. Among other things, the Board uncovered the fact that Graham had been arrested on February 29, 1976 for resisting an officer without violence to his person and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. The first charge was nolle prossed while Graham was found guilty of the second charge and received a suspended sentence. Certified copies of these records have been introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 10. Although petitioner did not introduce into evidence certified copies of other arrests, there was testimony, without objection, that Graham had been arrested for the following charges: 12/17/71 - public drunkenness 6/05/74 - theft 5/14/76 - worthless checks 4/08/77 - "warrant arrests" 5/18/77 - worthless checks 9/11/79 - worthless checks 9/17/81 - aggravated battery 11/05/82 - worthless checks 2/21/86 - worthless checks During a conference with a school administrator on August 21, 1987, Graham acknowledged that, with the exception of the May 14, 1976 arrest which he did not remember, and the April 8, 1977 matter which he stated involved a voluntary return on his part to the State of Indiana, all other arrests occurred. However, there is no evidence that Graham was convicted of any of these charges, and his testimony that all charges were later dropped was not contradicted. At hearing Graham explained that he thought the question concerning prior arrests on the employment application meant whether his civil rights had ever been taken away. Since they had not, he stated he believed his negative answer was appropriate. Exposing Students to Embarrassment or Disparagement (Counts III and IV) It is alleged that in school year 1986-87, respondent exposed I.M., a seventh grade female student, to "unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." The student did not appear at hearing but gave post-hearing deposition testimony. As clarified at hearing, this charge stems from alleged off-color remarks about I.M.'s clothing made by Graham to I.M. in front of the class. I.M. was a student in Graham's history class in school year 1986-87. While in class on May 11, 1987, I.M. left her desk to go to the restroom. She was wearing tight fitting pants. When she returned, Graham remarked in a loud voice, and in front of the class, that her pants were so tight he "could see her crack and count the hairs." Graham also made her perform a "fabric test" to ascertain whether she could pinch the cloth on the pants without pinching her skin. If I.M. pinched both skin and cloth, this confirmed that the pants were too tight. After Graham made his comments and required I.M. to take the "fabric test," I.M. became embarrassed, felt "cheap," began crying and left the room. She reported the incident to her counselor and prepared a written statement which is attached to her deposition. Also, she described the incident to a school investigator the same day, giving essentially the same version of events described above. This account is deemed to be more accurate and credible than a slightly different version of events given by I.M. by deposition some fifteen months later. Graham recalled the incident differently. According to his recollection, when I.M. returned from the bathroom to the classroom, he told her she had "inappropriate clothing," and if she disputed this, she would be given a hall pass to visit the principal. If the principal approved the pants, she could wear them to school. Otherwise, Graham told her not to wear them to his class in the future. Graham contended also that he said "Your clothing is too tight around the hips and crotch" and denied using the words "hairs" or "crack." He conceded he may have asked her to perform a "fabric test." However, this version of events is not deemed to be credible and is hereby discredited. Student V.E. is a fundamentalist Christian who was in Graham's American History class for the first three days of school year 1987-88. On the first or second day of class Graham gave a class assignment requiring the students to use the Bible as a historical reference but to explain the story without the (i ideas of miracles and deity. V.E. understood this to mean that she was to "take all miracles" out of the story and to "not have God in it." During class that day, V.E. asked a question about a Bible parable being discussed by Graham and, after she gave the biblical version of what happened, Graham asked her if she believed in magic. V.E. felt "bad" and "intimidated" by Graham's question. When she went home that evening, V.E. told her mother about the class assignment. The mother was upset and prepared a letter for Graham and the assistant principal questioning the subject matter of the assignment. V.E. was told by her mother to hand carry a copy of the letter to Graham the next day. Before she could do this, the assistant principal told Graham that V.E.`s mother had sent a letter. When she entered the classroom the next day, V.E. was asked by Graham if she had a letter for him. After being handed the letter, Graham asked V.E. why she told her mother about the assignment and added "I'm pissed." This episode took place in front of the entire classroom. This caused V.E. to be very "upset" and "embarrassed." She immediately transferred out of Graham's class. Graham countered that there was no "homework assignment" per se and that he was merely seeking to obtain "critical thinking" from his students. According to Graham, his discussion was consistent with the approved curriculum and was intended to have the students reconcile biblical stories with other theories of evolution of men. Graham believed that V.E. had misunderstood the discussion as being an attack on religion when in fact it was not. He added that, of all the students, only V.E. reached that erroneous conclusion. He conceded that he "may have" used the words "I'm pissed" but contended that he was justified in questioning her in front of the entire classroom because students frequently hurried off to other classes once the end-of-period bell rang. Battering Urbano (Count IV) In school year 1986-87, Urbano was a fifteen year old male student. He has since departed the state. It is alleged that Graham committed battery on Urbano. According to Graham, who gave the only eyewitness account of the entire fray, Urbano was still a student when the incident occurred but was in the process of withdrawing from school and moving to California. Urbano had been in several classes taught by Graham and had a history of disruptive conduct. Urbano returned to the campus one day to speak with a girlfriend who was in Graham's classroom. Urbano entered the classroom during a change in classes. Not wanting a confrontation, Graham requested the girl to ask Urbano to leave. When she did this, Urbano began cursing Graham and slowly backed into the hallway outside of Graham's classroom. As Graham attempted to close his door, Urbano blocked the door and pushed Graham who responded by pushing Urbano out of the doorway. Urbano then threw a four pound textbook into Graham's chest. After Graham asked Urbano to follow him to the principal's office, Urbano drew back his fist to strike Graham. At that point, and in self-defense, Graham struck Urbano with a blow to the side of his face. In retaliation, Urbano threw a karate kick into Graham's left knee. Graham followed by administering a second blow to Urbano's face. A female physical education teacher then approached the melee, grabbed Urbano on the shoulder and escorted him to the principal's office. According to Graham, Urbano was immediately suspended from school. This was not contradicted. There is no evidence that Graham was criminally charged with battery or disciplined by the school for the incident. Using Profane and Vulgar Language in Class (Count V) It is charged that in school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 Graham was given direct orders to discontinue "uttering profane and/or vulgar language while in the performance of assigned duties as a classroom teacher," and that respondent "continually and intentionally refused to discontinue" doing so. The allegations stem from disciplinary action taken in the fall of 1985. On October 17, 1985 respondent participated in a conference for the record with WMJHS principal Kavenaugh for using "very salty language" in the classroom. Neither Kavenaugh or Graham could recall what words were actually used by Graham. As noted in finding of fact 11, Graham used the words "I'm pissed" while talking to student V.E. in September, 1987. About the same time, he recited a "parable" in V.E.'s class which went generally as follows: A large flock of birds immigrated south one winter but one bird's wings froze, and it fell to the ground. A horse came along and deposited cow shit on the bird. Although the cow shit did not smell good, it kept the bird warm. A cat then came upon the fallen bird, wiped the cow shit off of its wings and ate it. The moral: not everyone who shits on you is your enemy, and not everyone who does you a favor is your friend. Graham acknowledged reciting the above story in class but claimed he used the word "chip" instead of "shit." However, V.E. stated she heard the word "shit," and this version of the events is accepted as being more credible. Principal Kavenaugh gave some vague testimony about other incidents of vulgarity but could not give specifics as to when this occurred or what was said. Other than the order to quit using "very salty language" in October 1985, there is no evidence of any other orders given to Graham by a principal or administrative officer directing him to refrain from using vulgarity or profanity. Excessive Tardiness and Absences (Count VI) The notice of charges alleges that in school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 Graham was "given direct orders to discontinue his excessive tardiness and/or excessive absences," and that he "continually and intentionally refused to discontinue" doing so. Assistant principal Sotolongo authored memoranda to respondent on May 27, 1986 and March 25, 1987 regarding class absences. The first concerned respondent sitting in the teacher's lounge ten minutes after class had started on May 23, 1986. For this infraction, Graham received a reprimand. The assistant principal stated that Graham was "periodically" absent from class but could not recall the number of times this occurred or the dates of such absences. The second memorandum was prompted by Graham being absent from school during the afternoon of March 24, 1987. Graham's explanation of having to see a doctor for a workers' compensation injury was not accepted as being satisfactory. Principal Kavenaugh authored a memorandum on May 6, 1986 concerning punctual attendance by Graham. The memorandum was prepared after Graham had been late to school at least ten times between January 10, 1986 and May 5, 1986. Respondent promised to make an "extra effort" to comply with attendance requirements. There is no evidence that, after the May 6, 1986 memorandum, Graham was late for school or that he refused to comply with attendance requirements. Miscellaneous Graham was told by principal Kavenaugh on one occasion "to be courteous and free of sarcasm" while teaching his students. This order was memorialized in a memorandum dated June 19, 1987. There is no evidence he disobeyed this order. On November 10, 1987 Graham was placed on prescription for one item of performance. This meant he had to correct a deficiency in professional performance and responsibilities. The prescription was prompted primarily by the V.E. incident and the parable given in the history class, both occurring in September, 1987. There is no evidence that Graham did not fulfill the terms of the prescription. According to Dr. D. Patrick Gray, who was accepted as an expert in professional ethics, performance appraisal and professional or personnel management, Graham violated the teachers' code of ethics by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, unreasonably denying a student access to a diverse point of view, and failing to keep the confidence of personally identifiable information concerning a student. He opined further that, given respondent's conduct as described in the Notice of Charges, Graham's effectiveness as a teacher had been seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of those charges in Counts I and II and a portion of Count III. All others should be dismissed. Respondent should also be suspended without pay for thirty days as proposed by the agency in its suspension notice effective January 20, 1988. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 19th day of September, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY 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 25th day of August, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner demonstrated just cause for the dismissal of the Respondent from employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact In a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed to the following facts: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Marlon J. Pearce was employed by Petitioner as a school teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to the Contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, and subject to the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education and of the School Board in accordance with § 1012.33(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to § 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida and § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). On November 5, 2000, a conference-for- record (CFR) was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 7, 2001, another CFR was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 15, 2002, a CFR was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. On May 28, 2002, a meeting was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. At its regularly scheduled meeting of June 19, 2002, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against the Respondent. John Schoeck is currently and for the last two years has been the Principal of North Hialeah Elementary School. For the preceding five years, he was the Principal at North Glade Elementary School. While at North Glade, Mr. Schoeck hired the Respondent, Mr. Pearce, to teach physical education. (Tr. 13) After a November 5, 2000, conference-for-record (CFR) with Mr. Pearce, Mr. Schoeck issued certain directives to Mr. Pearce. Among those directives were the requirement for professional conduct with parents, students and staff, and prohibitions on using profanity, on making verbal or physical threats to parents, students or staff members, and on having verbal or physical confrontations with coworkers. (Tr. 18, 208- 209, P-6) Mr. Schoeck also referred Mr. Pearce to the Employee Assistance Program based on interpersonal behavior observed on the job. (Tr. 9, P-5) An allegation that the Respondent hit a student in the back with his fist was unsubstantiated, in March 2001. The Respondent testified that the student was loud, easily influenced and had an attitude. (Tr. 185) Another student at North Glade Elementary School became involved in a rock-throwing incident with the Respondent. The Respondent described the student as defiant. He testified that after the student threw a rock and hit him, he grabbed her arm to make eye contact, but after she "started going wild and shaking," he let her go and she fell to the ground. There was testimony that her shirt was torn when she reached the principal's office, but the Respondent denied that it was ripped when she left him. (Tr. 186-188, 212-213) On March 7, 2001, Mr. Schoeck held another CFR with Mr. Pearce, as a result of certain allegations by a student and his mother that Mr. Pearce called the student a "punk." Mr. Schoeck found Mr. Pearce insubordinate and reiterated the directives issued after the November conference. (Tr. 24-25, 209-210, 215-216, P-9) The Miami-Dade Schools Police Department ("the school's police") investigated several students' complaints alleging that Respondent had subjected them to corporal punishment. The police found the complaints to be unsubstantiated. Each time there was an incident, the Respondent was reminded of the School Board's policy prohibiting corporal punishment. (Tr. 32-33) Late in the 2000-2001 school year, the Respondent was reassigned to the region office and, subsequently, for the 2001- 2002 school year to Lawton Chiles Middle School (Tr. 33 and Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation) On November 7, 2001, a charge of verbal abuse, for calling a student "stupid," was substantiated against the Respondent. (Tr. 219, P-17) The Respondent testified that what he said was "stop acting stupid" because the student was loud and saying she knew why he had been fired from his other job and was quoting the Bible. (Tr. 197-198) He also said that, in the heat of the moment, he also called her stupid. (Tr. 200) On November 8, 2001, the Respondent violated the School Board policy against "unseemly conduct, or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace," by using the word "nigga." (Tr. 60-67 and P-16) The Respondent testified that the racial slur was made "under his breath" and not intended to be heard by students. He testified that what he said was "you're going to drive a nigga crazy," and that the comment was directed to himself, not the student. (Tr. 195) The Respondent testified that he told a student "If I was your dad, I would ring your neck," because the student was disruptive, defiant and not following directions. (Tr. 195-196, 218-219) In December 2001, a student was playing with a toilet valve and water was squirting out on the floor in the boys' locker room. After the student left the stall and walked over towards him, the Respondent grabbed him by the neck and shoved him. After an investigation by the school's police, the charge was found to be substantiated. (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) The Respondent testified that he grabbed the student's shoulder but did not push him. (Tr. 201-202) Although the student had stopped spraying water at the time he confronted him, the Respondent considered his intervention appropriate because the wet floor created a safety concern. (Tr. 205, 214-215, 217-218) At the same time, other students began slamming locker doors in the locker room. The Respondent called the students involved "a bunch of assholes," and said "If you do this one more time, I could lose my job for hurting you." (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) About the same time, the Assistant Principal at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Alberto Iber, received a complaint from the parents of another student. While he was playing with an injured student's aluminum walker, the Respondent grabbed him to try to retrieve the walker and pushed him to the ground. He also said to the student "fuck you." Charges of corporal punishment and the use of profanity were substantiated. (Tr. 93-112 and P-19) The Respondent admitted that he pulled the student down after saying "This is going to be the final time I ask you to sit down." (Tr. 204) He said he used the "f" word under his voice. (Tr. 205) When the Respondent was first assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School, the Principal, Karen Robinson met with him to discuss the previous incidents at North Glade Elementary School and to discuss expectations that he would abide by the School Board's rules. Each time there was an incident involving the Respondent, Ms. Robinson called the District's Professional Standards Office which referred the matters to the school's police to conduct the personnel investigations. (Tr. 119-133, 219-220) After the fourth personnel investigation at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Ms. Robinson contacted the personnel director for the region. She was concerned that the incidents involving the Respondent were escalating from inappropriate verbal to more serious physical interactions with students. As a result, she recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. (Tr. 135-136 and P-21) Barbara Moss, the District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, agreed with Ms. Robinson's and the region personnel director's recommendations to terminate the Respondent's employment. (Tr. 164-165, P-22 and 23) Ms. Moss, in turn, recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. She met with Respondent to notify him of the proposed action. (Tr. 165-166) The Superintendent of Schools also recommended that the School Board take action to terminate Respondent's employment and notified the Respondent of that recommendation. (P-24 and 25) The Superintendent also notified the Respondent when the School Board, at its meeting on June 19, 2002, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against him for misconduct in office, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.108, on Violence in the Workplace; 6Gx13-4A-1.21, on Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment - Prohibited. Notice of the availability of an administrative hearing to contest the action was also included. (P-24 through 26)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay on June 19, 2002, terminating Respondent's employment, and denying the Respondent back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 2nd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merritt R. Stierhelm, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade - Law Department 2200 Biscayne Boulevard, 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of having been convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" and thereby subject to having her employment terminated for just cause by the Petitioner in accordance with Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of having been absent without authorized leave in violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, and thereby subject to having her employment terminated for just cause by the Petitioner in accordance with Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Charles F. Blalock, Jr., was the duly elected Superintendent of Schools of Suwannee County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Janette Walls was a member of the instructional staff of the Suwannee County School District, employed by the District School Board of Suwannee County, Florida (Board) under an annual contract. While a written annual contract had not been executed between the Board and the Respondent for the 1989-1990 school year due to Respondent's being on maternity leave the first 9 weeks of the 1989-1990 school year, the contractural relationship was the same as set forth in the 1988-1989 annual contract (except for salary which is not in dispute) executed by the Board and the Respondent which provided for dismissal for just cause during the term of the contract as required by Section 231.26(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent plead Nolo Contendere to the charge of passing worthless checks to Pic N Save in the amount of $50.10, Jiffy Food Store in the amount of $35.00, Suwannee Pack in the amount of $25.00, Suwannee Pack in the amount of $40.53 and Jiffy Food Store in the amount of $21.47 in Case Numbers 89- 1103 MN, 89-1127 MN, 89-1128 MN, 89-1135 MN and 89-1203 MN in the County Court, Suwannee County, Florida. The court in each case adjudicated the Respondent guilty and ordered restitution and assessments in the total amount of $712.10 and placed the Respondent on supervised probation for a period of 12 months in each case. There was no evidence presented as to whether the Respondent paid any of the restitution and assessments ordered in these cases. 4. In Case Numbers 89-1170 MN, 89-1171 MN, 89-1172 MN, 89-1173 MN (orders dated June 5, 1989), 89-1179 (order dated June 6, 1989), 89-1211 MM, 89-1212 MN (orders dated June 14, 1989), 89-1798 MN (order dated August 21, 1989) and 89- 1799 MN (order dated August 23, 1989) in the County Court of Columbia County, Florida the Respondent plead guilty to the charges of passing worthless checks in the amount of $37.42 to Suwannee Swifty on May 5, 1989, $47.63 to Suwannee Swifty on May 6, 1989, $49.86 to Suwannee Swifty on May 5, 1989, $13.00 to Suwannee Swifty on May 9, 1989, $35.00 to Suwannee Swifty on Nay 8, 1989, $6.86 to S & S Store #5 on May 16, 1989, $8.70 to S & S Store #5 on May 9, 1989, $25.00 to Suwannee Swifty on May 9, 1989 and $37.52 to Suwannee Swifty on May 16, 1989. As a result of her plea in the above-cited cases the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty, ordered her to pay restitution and court costs and placed her on probation. There was no evidence presented to show whether the Respondent paid the restitution and assessments ordered in these cases. 5. In Case Numbers 89-478 MN, 89-479 MN, 89-480 MN, 89-647 MN, 89-648 MN, 89-649 MN, 89-650 MN, 89-651 MN. 89-652 MN, 89-653 MN and 89-702 MN in the County Court of Hamilton County, Florida the Respondent plead guilty to the charge of passing worthless checks in the amount of $30.34, $60.00, $60.00, $57.00, $68.91, $62.00, $55.29, $72.45, $65.00, $52.48 and $46.32. On August 4, 1989 the court adjudicated Respondent guilty in Case Numbers 89-478 MN, 89-479 MN and 89-480 MN and ordered the Respondent to pay restitution plus $300.00 in court costs. The Court also placed Respondent on 6 months probation in each case. On December 1, 1989 the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty in Case Numbers 89-647 MN through 89-653 MN and 89-702 MN and sentenced her to 4 months in the Hamilton County Jail with a condition for her release upon her serving 30 days and paying costs and restitution in the amount of $1,279.45. Respondent was incarcerated from on or about December 1, 1989 until on or about December 18, 1989. Respondent was granted personal leave for December 1, 1989. During the school week of December 4 - 8, 1989 Respondent's mother called in to advise the school that the Respondent was sick and that her father was either ill or had died and Respondent would not be in to teach and requesting sick leave for the Respondent. Sometime during the following week of December 11 - 15, 1989 Respondent's mother called again and requested further sick leave for Respondent. On all occasions when sick leave was requested, it was made clear that Respondent would have to fill out a request for sick leave. On December 19, 1989 when Respondent returned to school she completed and signed three Claim For Leave Compensation forms requesting sick leave for the periods of December 4-8, 1989, December 11 & 12, 1989 and December 13 - 15 & 18-19, 1989. It is apparent that Charles M. Sweat, Principal of Suwannee Elementary West signed the Respondent's leave requests recommending approval without paying any attention to who was requesting the sick leave because upon learning that he had signed Respondent's leave request knowing of her incarceration in the Hamilton County Jail prior to his signing the leave requests, he attempted to "white-out" his signature. The request for leave was never approved by the Petitioner, which is required, although such approval may be in some cases after the fact. Respondent may have been paid for this leave time by the Board and, if so, could be considered as approval of the requested leave after the fact; however, there is insufficient evidence to show that the Board did in fact pay the Respondent for this leave time. The Respondent was absent from her work at Suwannee Elementary West without authorized leave for the period of time of December 4 - 8, 11- 15 and 18-19, 1989.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Suwannee County District School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent, Janette Walls' employment with the Suwannee County School District effective January 9, 1990, the date Respondent was suspended without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles F. Blalock, Jr. District School Superintendent, Suwannee County, Florida 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Victor Africano Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Ms. Janette Walls 843 Alderman Road # 531 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
