Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 190841, covering the areas of elementary education and reading, which is valid through June 30, 1993. The Respondent has applied for renewal of her teaching certificate, and her renewal application is being held pending a resolution of this matter. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Seminole Middle School in the Pinellas County School District. On or about August 19, 1979, the Respondent was arrested in Sylva, North Carolina, and charged with driving while intoxicated. On or about December 20, 1979, the Respondent was convicted and her driver license was revoked for 12 months. The Respondent submitted an Application for Teacher's Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on September 7, 1982. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. The Respondent submitted an Application for Name Change and/or Duplicate Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on March 2, 1983. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. The Respondent submitted an Application for Extension of Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on March 1, 1984. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. On or about February 26, 1985, a Madeira Beach Police officer observed the Respondent driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. The Respondent failed several roadside sobriety tests and refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. On or about April 29, 1985, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the Pinellas County Court to the charge of driving under the influence. The court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced her to serve 12 months probation. The court further ordered the Respondent to pay a $500.00 fine, enroll in a DUI school, and revoked the Respondent's driver license for six months. On or about October 30, 1986, a Madeira Beach Police officer observed the Respondent driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. The Respondent failed several roadside sobriety tests. The Respondent's blood alcohol level was found to be in excess of the legal limit. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. On or about March 6, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty in the Pinellas County Court to the charge of driving under the influence. The court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced her to serve 10 days in the jail, to be served in the "Weekend/Daywatch Program", to be followed by one year of probation. The court further ordered the Respondent to enroll in DUI school, attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and revoked the Respondent's driver license for 10 years. The Respondent submitted an Application for Extension of Certificate and Application for Addition and/or Upgrade to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on June 23, 1987. The applications each included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations? In her sworn response to each question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. The Respondent submitted an Application for Educator's Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on June 13, 1988. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. The Respondent submitted an Application for Name Change and/or Duplicate Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on February 24, 1989. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. On or about January 5, 1993, the Respondent was observed driving a vehicle in Pinellas County, Florida while her driver license was revoked. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving with a revoked license. On or about February 24, 1993, the Respondent entered a plead of guilty to the charge of driving with a revoked license in Pinellas County Court. The court adjudicated her guilty and ordered her to pay $500.00 in fines and court costs. The Respondent has been an effective classroom teacher for 36 years, mostly teaching sixth grade. The Respondent's evidence was that she resorted to alcohol in response to three successive traumatic events in her life: (1) the death of her husband in 1976, which required her to become independent and the sole parent of her son and four daughters and to return to graduate school to enable her to become the sole support for her family; (2) the murder of her son in 1982; and (3) the cancer death of her mother in 1986. Despite her alcohol problem, the Respondent was able to be an effective school teacher through the years and did not allow her personal problems to seriously adversely affect her work. Her last alcohol-related incident was in October, 1986. The Respondent's principal from approximately 1987 through 1992, a man named Bill Mock, had a well-deserved reputation for administering the Respondent's school through intimidation and threat of punishment. Since applications for teacher certificates routinely were processed through the school administration offices, the Respondent was afraid that the principal would learn of her DUI arrests and convictions from reading the Respondent's teacher certificate applications and that he would fire her or impose conditions on her continued employment at the school that would be intolerable for her. In order to protect her job and livelihood, and ultimately her family, the Respondent rationalized to herself that it was not necessary to disclose those arrests and convictions on her teacher certificate applications. When Mock retired at the end of the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent reported her violations to her new school principal, and on or about March 31, 1993, received a written reprimand, but no suspension or dismissal, for her failure to acknowledge her arrests to the Department of Education. The Respondent has continued to be an effective middle school teacher. The Respondent's arrest and conviction for driving with a revoked driver license may have been "set up." Her ride to school cancelled at the last minute, leaving the Respondent without enough time to walk. She drove herself straight to school, and there was a policeman waiting for her in the school parking lot at the end of the school day. Otherwise, she did not drive with a revoked driver license. The Respondent's driver license is revoked until March, 1997, but she is eligible for a work permit upon completion of a driver education class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged and suspending her teacher certificate for one year, to be served beginning at the end of the current school year. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 (Copies furnished, continued) Karen B. Wilde Executive Director The Florida Education Center, Room 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a teacher certificate despite two convictions for driving under the influence, including one for manslaughter, and the failure to disclose on her application two teenaged offenses--one resulting in a petit theft conviction for shoplifting and one resulting in a dismissed charge for giving false information of an accident.
Findings Of Fact By application dated April 12, 1995, Petitioner applied for an Florida educator’s certificate from Respondent. By Notice of Reasons dated August 7, 1995, Respondent rejected the application. In the Notice of Reasons, Respondent stated that on July 7, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to petit theft in Lee County, for which she was sentenced to six months’ probation and $221.05 in fines and costs; on September 3, 1981, Petitioner pleaded no contest to a charge of giving false information of accident, as to which the court dismissed the charge; on July 16, 1987, Petitioner drove her vehicle while intoxicated and had an accident that killed her passenger, for which she was adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence and manslaughter and sentenced to three years in jail, 12 years’ probation, counseling, 50 hours of community service, limited driving privileges, and $250 in court costs; and Petitioner submitted an application for a Florida educator’s certificate notarized on August 12, 1994, and, in responding to a question as to convictions or no-contest pleas, disclosed the DUI/manslaughter conviction, but not the conviction for petit theft and no contest plea to giving false information of accident. With leave of the administrative law judge, Respondent amended the Notice of Reasons to add the additional reason that, on July 19, 1995, Petitioner operated a motor vehicle while under the influence. On December 13, 1995, she was convicted of her second offense of driving under the influence of alcohol and sentenced to 270 days in jail, a $1000 fine, permanent revocation of her driver’s license, one year’s probation, and $230 in court costs. The Notice of Reasons states that Section 231.17(1)(c)6 requires good moral character of holders of Florida educator’s certificates. Section 231.17(5)(a) authorizes Respondent to deny an application for an educator’s certificate if he possesses evidence that the applicant has committed an act for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke the certificate. The Notice of Reasons asserts that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c); a conviction of a criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(e); a violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Teaching Profession, as set forth in the Department of Education (DOE) rules; failure to maintain honesty in all of her professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a); submission of fraudulent information on documents in connection with professional activities, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h); and making fraudulent statements or failure to disclose a material fact on her application for a professional position, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(i). Petitioner admits all of the factual assertions in the Notice of Reasons through the manslaughter conviction for driving under the influence. As to the 1994 application, Petitioner admits the basic facts, but denies that the omissions constituted the submission of fraudulent information. The question to which Petitioner responded asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? . . . Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. Petitioner also denies all allegations contained in the Notice of Reasons that she acted fraudulently. As to the petit theft, Petitioner was 18 years old at the time and living at her parents’ home, when, in June 1980, she and a friend shoplifted an item at a local department store. Her parents picked her up from the store. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge. The court found her guilty and sentenced her to six months’ probation and $221.05 in fines and costs. Petitioner has never been involved in a similar incident. In September 1981, when 19 years old, Petitioner pleaded no contest to the charge of giving false information of accident, and the court dismissed the charge. The record does not disclose any details concerning this charge. When preparing the 1994 application, Petitioner neglected to mention the charges from when she was in her teens because she was preoccupied with the effect of the disclosure of the much more serious matter of the DUI--manslaughter. The conviction for shoplifting and the dismissal of a charge of giving false information of accident, to which Petitioner nonetheless had pleaded guilty, are not material omissions. The failure to include such items, without evidence of some fraudulent intent, does not establish a lack of integrity on Petitioner’s part. As to the driving under the influence/manslaughter conviction, Petitioner does not contest that she was at fault for causing the death of her passenger, who was her best friend, nor that Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Following the accident, Petitioner became involved in education efforts to prevent drunk driving, especially among younger drivers. She spoke to teenagers at various programs around Lee County and tried to increase public awareness of the devastation caused by drinking and driving. She gave up drinking for about five years. Petitioner successfully completed the Florida Teacher Certification Examination on January 22, 1994, and obtained her bachelor of arts from the University of South Florida College of Education on May 2, 1994. She completed her internship at Cape Elementary School in Lee County on May 2, 1994. From August 1994 to November 1995, Petitioner was employed at Gulf Elementary School as a specific learning disabilities (SLD) teacher under principal Martin Mesch. For the 1994-95 school year and two or three months of the 1995-96 school year, Petitioner demonstrated many of the attributes of a successful teacher. She projected a caring presence in the classroom while still maintaining a professional distance that allowed her to maintain order in the challenging setting of an SLD classroom. She volunteered for the Young Writers’ Program and went out of her way to reach out to children from poorer families. She was an active part of the school, where her two children also attended. Mr. Mesch opined that Petitioner’s past problems have not affected her ability to teach and would recommend to the School Board that she return to teach at his school. Aware of the details that contribute to effective teaching, Mr. Mesch immerses himself in the teaching that takes place at his school and appears to be a keen judge of teaching talent. In his opinion, Petitioner is an extraordinary teacher, whose problems, if known to parents and students, would not impair her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Mesch, who has served as principal or assistant principal at Gulf Elementary School for 15 years, also understands the community that his school serves. He is aware of local community values, and he emphasizes that good moral character and teacher effectiveness are based on the totality of the circumstances, not on isolated facts. Petitioner’s tenure at Mr. Mesch’s school ended when she resigned in November 1995 to begin serving her sentence due to the second DUI charge. She resigned at Mr. Mesch’s sensible suggestion, in order to spare the school, herself, and her children adverse publicity. She served more than 200 days in jail from December 1995 to July 1996. Petitioner disputes the underlying facts of the 1995 arrest and conviction for the second DUI offense. Although the law enforcement officer at the scene may have confused some of the details of the incident, Petitioner has not shown that she was not driving under the influence of alcohol and has not successfully mitigated the effects of the second conviction. Petitioner admits that she had consumed an alcoholic beverage a couple of hours prior to when she was stopped. Petitioner declined a breathalyzer test without a witness present, claiming that she did not trust the arresting officer or presumably the officer who would have administered the breathalyzer test. If she had not been drinking excessively, Petitioner made a bad choice when she declined to take the breathalyzer test. More likely, she made the bad choice a few minutes earlier when she decided to drive her car after drinking more than the single drink to which she admits. Since the 1995 arrest in July, Petitioner has abstained from the use of alcohol and enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous. Petitioner has continued with treatment, last having been treated by a therapist with Southwest Florida Addiction Services in December 1996, when she successfully completed its program. Petitioner suffers from the illnesses of alcohol abuse and bipolar disorder, but, provided she continues to receive counseling as needed, these conditions do not impair her effectiveness as a teacher. In his proposed recommended order, Respondent does not seek permanent denial of the application, but asks that the application be denied for a period of ten years. In her proposed recommended order, Petitioner asks for the immediate issuance of her educator’s certificate subject to restrictions, such as random testing, continued counseling, and probation. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Petitioner abused alcohol during the school day. The evidence conflicts as to whether she can ever regain her driving privileges; Petitioner testified that she believes that she can. The evidence does not suggest that Petitioner has lost her effectiveness in the classroom or that she has been guilty of moral turpitude in the omissions from the 1994 application or the two convictions for driving under the influence, including the first one for manslaughter. The main issue in this case is to determine the effect of two convictions for driving under the influence--eight years apart--where the first one resulted in the death of another person. It is difficult to reconcile Petitioner’s expressions of remorse and edification resulting from the first incident with the occurrence of the second incident, even if the second incident were no more than driving after consuming a single drink--though, more likely, it was more than one drink. On the other hand, Mr. Mesch is a strong witness on Petitioner’s behalf. He works daily in the elementary school setting where Petitioner would likely return to work, if she were to receive her educator’s certificate. And Mr. Mesch displays no reservations about returning Petitioner to the classroom. In effect, by not introducing expert testimony to counter Mr. Mesch’s testimony, Respondent relies solely on the inference that two convictions for driving under the influence--with the former conviction also involving manslaughter--ought to suffice to deny Petitioner her certificate for ten years.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order granting Petitioner an educator’s certificate, effective one year from the date that the final order becomes final and subject to the following restrictions: Petitioner shall never operate a motor vehicle on the campus of a primary or secondary private or public school in Florida, including in transporting her children to school; Petitioner, in her capacity as a teacher, shall never transport any schoolchildren, except her own children, to or from school or on any school trips; Petitioner shall obtain addiction and behavioral counseling, whenever and for as long as or as frequently determined by the counselor to be needed; and another conviction for driving under the influence shall result in the permanent revocation of her certificate. ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 4, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 4, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John J. Chamblee, Jr. Law Offices of John J. Chamblee, Jr. 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Attorney Bruce P. Taylor 501 First Avenue North, Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this case, Respondent, Bruce M. Williams, held Florida teacher certificate number 414669 authorizing him to serve as a substitute teacher. On March 21, 1984, after a trial by bury in the County Court of Alachua County, Florida, on Case No. 83-4274-MM-A , Respondent was found guilty of the offense of trespass after warning. On April 30, 1984, the Judge of the County Court entered a Judgement of Guilt and placed the Respondent on one year's probation with the stipulation that, among other things, he not go onto the University of Florida campus unless his probation officer gave him prior permission. This judicial determination of guilt. It was the culmination of a series of events involving the Respondent and his repeated entrances onto property owned by the University for which he was repeatedly warned and directed not to return. Respondent contends that he had legitimate reasons to be on the University property each of the times in question and contests the use of these reports branding them a violation of his rights. He overlooks the fact that the conviction came after several instances of unauthorized entrance and that the conviction was based on proven violations. Nonetheless, it appears that on December 30, 1982, Respondent was observed by Kenneth E. Solomon, an investigator with the University police department, in the parking lot of Diamond Village, a University married students' housing area not open to the public. Mr. Solomon attempted to identify the Respondent who was at first reluctant to identify himself but who finally agreed and indicated that his wife was inside doing their laundry. Since this is an area reserved for university students and their families, Mr. Solomon issued a warning to Respondent not to trespass on University property and thereafter filled out and filed a report of the incident. Thereafter, on March 15, 1983, Keith B. Reddick, who was at that time an officer with the University police was called to University Hospital (Shands), where he was met by a Mrs. Fugate and a guard who had Respondent in custody. Mrs. Fugate advised at that time that Respondent had previously been at the hospital on March 7 with no legitimate reason for being in the area. On that occasion, when asked why he was there, Respondent indicated he had been given permission to be there by a member of the medical school faculty, Dr. Cruz. Dr. Cruz categorically denies ever having given Respondent permission to be where he was. In fact, she met him only once when he stopped her and asked her about the possibility of a job with the hospital. At that time she told him there were none available except for fellowships for which an applicant had to be a physician already. Nonetheless, he gave her a resume and she believes he indicated he was involved in research. With this one exception, she has had no contact with him and never gave him authority to work with patients in her department or be there for any reason. On this latter occasion, when asked what he was doing there, Respondent replied that he had become lost while looking for a laboratory. He also said he was looking for a doctor friend whose name he could not remember and as a chemistry major, was working on his thesis. On this occasion, Officer Reddick took Respondent to the police station, showed him a map of the campus, told him where he could and could not go on the campus by pointing to the map areas, and told him not to return again to the university unless on official business or for public functions. The following day, on March 16, 1983, Respondent was observed in the Shands Hospital cafeteria by Officer Rogers of the University police. When asked for his identification and reason for being there, Respondent indicated he had paid a bill in the laboratory, so Rogers let him go. When Rogers checked the story out, however, he found that the bill which was alleged to have been for unauthorized use of the hospital copying machine, had in reality been paid three hours before the Respondent was contacted. Rogers again saw Respondent on March 29, 1983 in the hub area of the University book store on campus. Rogers had been notified by Reddick that Respondent was on campus and when he had approached the Respondent, Respondent walked off and into the book store. Rogers and three other officers contacted Respondent in the book store where Respondent indicated he had met with a Mrs. Greene, a University affirmative actions officer and upon receiving that explanation, the officers let him go. Respondent was again identified on July 6, 1983, by officer Edward Miles who observed him in an off-limits gynecological area on the 4th floor of the University hospital. When Miles arrived at the scene, a contract security officer was talking with Respondent. This officer had seen Respondent in the area and had asked for identification in response to which request, Respondent showed a student identification card which was no longer valid since Respondent was no longer a student. Asked what business he had in this particular area, Respondent indicated he was looking for work but when, after 30 minutes, he could not verify this story, Officer Miles placed Respondent under arrest and took him to campus police headquarters. From all of the above, it is clear that though Respondent may have felt he had a legitimate basis for being on the campus and, in fact, may have had when he went to speak with Mrs. Green and went to pay the bill at the hospital, he stretched these occasions into several unauthorized occasions even after he had been warned with full knowledge that his presence on the campus was not authorized. The conviction in County Court was not contested at the time and on the basis of the above evidence, appears to have been warranted. On July 8, 1983, an arrest warrant was issued out of the Circuit Court for the 8th Judicial Circuit in Alachua County alleging sexual battery in violation of Section 794.011, Florida Statutes. This warrant contained allegations that Respondent had committed a sexual battery against his 9-year- old stepdaughter. However, Respondent was tried on a reduced charge of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child and at his trial he entered a plea of no contest. Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years probation the terms of which required him to undergo mental health counseling among other requirements. Respondent continues to deny his commission of the offenses to which he pleaded no contest at the trial. However, in a statement he made at the time of his arrest, he admitted several factors which contradict that. He admitted that he had a very physical relationship with his stepdaughter; that he appeared nude in front of her many times; and that he would be in bed with her laying on top of him while both were nude with the child's mother there as well. He also admitted having French kissed his stepdaughter (she indicates he taught her how to do this) but denies having any sexual intercourse with her. Respondent contends that these charges are all a plot to deprive him of the close relationship with his family, instituted by someone unnamed and unidentified. The fact remains that Respondent is delinquent in his probation and has made little progress in the required mental health counseling because of his continued belief that he has done nothing wrong but is the victim of this conspiratorial plot. Sometime in or around February 1984, Respondent entered the restaurant owned and operated by Mrs. Vlahopous, in Gainesville, and asked to speak with her daughter, Alex, who apparently had come to the blood center at which he worked. At this point Respondent identified himself as "Dr. Bruce. When she asked him for his office address and phone number since Alex was not there, he said he didn't have an office, but he wrote his name and phone number on one of her cards for her. After Mrs. Vlahopous thought about this over night, she went to the blood bank where Respondent had said he worked and asked for Dr. Williams. At this point she was told by blood bank personnel that Williams was not a doctor, had been fired, and would be rejected if he came there again. Be that as it may, Sharron A. Sturdevant, an official of the blood bank where Respondent had been working, does recall that at times Respondent was referred to as Dr. Bruce at the center. This was, however, only a term of affection or friendliness and was not in any way intended to authorize him to hold himself out to the public as a doctor. Respondent did work for the City of Gainesville in a conservation project in May and June of 1984 but he was terminated because he had not listed his full police record on the application form. This termination was a matter of necessity under city personnel policies which required termination of anyone who intentionally falsified an application form. It had nothing to do with Respondent's performance or anything that took place while he was employed by the city. Mr. John Middleton, Principal of Ft. Clarke Middle School, knew Respondent as a paraprofessional at the alternative school when Mr. Middleton was principal there and Respondent was employed for approximately a month and a half. While Respondent was working at the alternative school he was working as aide to another teacher. He was apparently unable to accept the fact, however, that when a teacher and a paraprofessional (aide) are in the same classroom, it is the teacher who always is in charge. Respondent was discharged from his employment at the alternative school because of an incident where it was alleged he had usurped the authority of and changed the orders of the teacher for whom he was working, in front of the class. The investigation report, which Mr. Middleton received from the teacher and students who observed the incident indicated that the Respondent was loud and boisterous at the time of the incident. Since these students at the alternative school were emotionally handicapped to start with, a fact which Respondent knew, his misconduct was even more serious than it would have been in a normal situation. These students need calm more than noise. In the situation here, Respondent's actions served only to upset them. Mr. Middleton had observed that prior to this incident, Respondent's dealings with the students aggravated rather than helped them. As a result, this incident was only one factor in the decision to terminate Respondent from employment and after the incident took place, Mr. Middleton wrote an unsatisfactory performance report on the Respondent. Based on his personal observation of the Respondent, and what he now knows of Respondent's criminal record, Mr. Middleton is convinced that a teacher with this record could not be effective in the classroom. His effectiveness would be definitely reduced by his misconduct and his conduct would not set a positive example for students. In his opinion, students should not be exposed to anyone with criminal convictions. These sentiments are reinforced by Mr. Wilford A. Griffin, a career service specialist with the Alachua County School Board, who first met Respondent when Respondent left Newberry High School seeking a place in the Alachua County system. Respondent had been terminated at Newberry High School because of some problem with his certification which had nothing to do with performance or misconduct. After the alternative school termination referenced above, Respondent was placed at Eastside High School but was terminated there because of his difficulties with teachers similar to those he had at the alternative school. As an aide, he disagreed openly with teachers in the classroom and in this case, the teacher complained that he would not follow directions and would not do what the teacher wanted done. In all cases, Mr. Griffin counseled with the Respondent about the problem. Respondent obviously felt that the complaining teacher was demeaning him. He felt that he was being helpful and had been rebuffed. Based on his experience with this Respondent, Mr. Griffin would never again try to place him within the school system. Considering Respondent's record in and out of the classroom, Mr. Griffin could not recommend Respondent for employment in the school system. He believes Respondent could not be an effective teacher because of his inability to understand the ramifications of his actions. This does not even consider the convictions which merely aggravate the situation even more. There is no evidence to counter these professional opinions of Respondent's fitness to teach and they are accepted and adopted as fact.
