The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Raymond M. Dunn, date of birth January 29, 1951, currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 346978, covering the areas of social studies and administration and supervision, which is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is currently employed by the Dade County Public School System, and was so employed at all times pertinent to these proceedings. During the school years of 1977 through 1984, respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Palmetto Junior High School, and during such time met and cultivated an intimate affair with a student, Marcey Altman (Marcey), date of birth March 19, 1965. 1/ The relationship that was to develop between respondent and Marcey had its genesis during the 1978-79 school year, when Marcey was an eighth grade student at Palmetto Junior High School. 2/ During the first semester of that year, Marcey, then thirteen years of age, was assigned to respondent's social studies class. She likewise participated in student government over the course of that year which was sponsored by respondent, and spent much time after regular school hours working with respondent and other students in this endeavor. In Marcey's words, he was her "favorite teacher," and she shared the opinion of other minor coeds that respondent, then twenty-seven years of age, was a "real cute teacher." During the course of her after school activities that school year, Marcey was introduced to respondent's wife Genie and his daughter Ginger, then one year old. As a consequence of these meetings, and the affection and maturity Marcey exhibited in caring for Ginger, she was ultimately invited to baby-sit Ginger, and accepted. This baby-sitting arrangement was to endure, with increasing degrees of frequency, during the course of her junior and high school career, as well as the intervening summers. The 1979-80 school year found Marcey, then fourteen years old, in the ninth grade at Palmetto Junior High School. She continued to participate in student government, and was regularly in respondent's company after normal school hours with regard to such endeavors, and was assigned to respondent's social studies class during her second semester. As a consequence of such frequent contact, as well as her baby-sitting at respondent's household, she began to develop a familiar relationship with respondent and his family, which was reflected by a feeling of fondness and admiration for respondent. As Marcey's relationship with respondent's family began to develop that year, respondent began, by word and deed, to express a more personal interest in her development. Respondent began paying special attention to Marcey at school, and commented on how pretty, well-endowed and what a nice figure she had. Such comments both flattered and made Marcey uncomfortable, considering the relationship existent with respondent and his family. As the school year progressed, respondent continued to lavish personal attention on Marcey, and ultimately expressed his love for her. 3/ In turn, Marcey slowly became emotionally dependent upon respondent, and his physical contact with her slowly progressed from touching her face and hands to kissing her, and partially unbuttoning her shirt and touching her breast. Throughout the ensuing summer, and the 1980-81 school year, which found Marcey, then 15 and in the tenth grade at Palmetto Senior High School, their intimate relationship continued to flourish. Marcey, although now in senior high school, continued to visit respondent almost daily in his classroom after the school day, and he often drove her home as he did when she finished baby- sitting for his daughter. 4/ During this period, and the following summer, their physical relationship evolved from the respondent routinely kissing Marcey and foundling her breasts and genital area to Marcey fondling the respondent, and ultimately Marcey performing oral sex upon the respondent in his automobile, as well as his classroom. The 1981-82 school year again found Marcey at Palmetto Senior High School, and, at the age of sixteen, in the eleventh grade. During the course of that school year and the following summer, their intimacies continued, and progressed to the point of sexual intercourse. These intimacies occurred in numerous places, including the respondent's home, and continued through Marcey's senior year at Palmetto Senior High School, and into the following summer where, on July 11, 1983, while respondent's wife was hospitalized with the birth of his son, the respondent and Marcey again engaged in sexual intercourse at respondent's home. In the fall of 1983, Marcey left Miami to attend Elan College in North Carolina, which she attended until the end of 1984, when she returned to Miami to again reside with her parents. During this period, respondent maintained contact with Marcey through a post office box he had rented to receive her letters, and through frequent telephone conversations. Additionally, during the year of 1984, respondent invited Marcey to join him in Tampa, Fernandina Beach and Washington, D.C., while he was involved in education-related activities, and there they continued their intimacies. Following Marcey's return to Miami, respondent again invited her out of town while he was engaged in education-related activities. The first occurred in January 1985, when respondent again went to Washington, D.C., and the last occurred in February 1986, when respondent went to Orlando, Florida. Marcey joined respondent on both trips, and their sexual intimacies continued. Thereafter, Marcey, becoming emotionally stressed by the duplicity of their affair, terminated their physical relationship in the summer of 1986. She continued, however, to maintain contact with respondent and his family. At the commencement of the 1986-87 school year, respondent was appointed assistant principal of North Miami Junior High School, and in the fall of that year informed Marcey of a position open at that school as a Project Hope Coordinator. In part, due to respondent's influence, Marcey was hired to fill such position. While employed at North Miami Junior High School, respondent would question Marcey regarding her current relationships, discuss their prior relationship, and express his interest in reviving their relationship. Such pressures, coupled with the emotional stress occasioned by their long, enduring relationship, were apparently too debilitating for Marcey for in April 1987 she suffered a nervous breakdown, quit her employment and commenced long-term psychotherapy. Concerning Marcey's psychotherapy, the proof demonstrates that she started psychotherapy on April 28, 1987, and that such treatment was both extensive and beneficial. As of the date of hearing she was well-functioning in the opinion of her psychotherapist, which is credited, although still somewhat dysfunctional and developmentally delayed as a consequence of her intimate relationship with respondent. Currently, Marcey is a full-time student at Barry University, and her visits to her psychotherapist have been reduced to once a month. Such improvement does not, however, diminish the impropriety of respondent's conduct or the devastating impact such systematic seduction and clandestine relationship had on Marcey's life. In the opinion of Marcey's treating psychologist, which is credited, Marcey suffered from Dysthymia (depression) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a consequence of the systematic seduction respondent perpetrated upon her while she was a student in the Dade County Public School System and the clandestine sexual relationship that ensured. Such actions on respondent's part breached the fiduciary relationship which existed between teacher and student in that he, as an educator, stood in loco parentis with the child, and was obligated to protect, educate and dedicate his best interest to the growth and development of the younger and more vulnerable person. Here, Marcey, considering the teacher-student relationship that existed, as well as the dichotomy in age, experience, knowledge, social power, credibility and prerogatives that existed between the two, could not have freely consented to the sexual relationship that developed between them any more than a child could with a parent or a patient could with a physician. In sum, respondent's act of seducing Marcey while she was a student in the public school system was a base and ignoble act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered which permanently revokes respondent's teaching certificate. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of March 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 March 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(f), (1)(g), and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. 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. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1128573, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, which is valid through June 30, 2021. During the 2013-2014 school year, until her voluntary resignation effective June 3, 2015, Respondent was employed as a language arts teacher at Gulf Breeze High School. Since that time, Respondent has been employed as a third-grade teacher at a private Christian academy in Pensacola, Florida. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the alleged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: On or about July 19, 2008, Respondent illegally operated a boat while under the influence of alcohol. As a result of conduct, she was arrested and charged with Boating Under the Influence. On or about February 18, 2009, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Boating Under the Influence. In or around January 2015 through March 2015, Respondent provided a forum where underage students illegally consumed alcohol and/or consumed alcohol in the presence of students. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, instances: in or around February 2015, wherein Respondent provided alcohol to underage students; and on or about March 20, 2015, when Respondent drove to J.H.'s, a student's, home, while under the influence of alcohol, and thereafter, attempted to drive J.H. while so inebriated. On or about April 24, 2015, Respondent illegally operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On or about May 26, 2015, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, Respondent was arrested and charged with DUI-Second Conviction More Than Five (5) Years After Prior Conviction. On or about April 7, 2016, Respondent pled nolo contendere to an amended charge of Reckless Driving; adjudication was withheld. Count 1 Count 1 alleged a violation based upon Respondent having “been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation.” The Count was based on the two incidents described in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint as follows: Boating Under the Influence -- 2008 On or about July 19, 2008, Respondent was maneuvering a boat onto a trailer at the Navarre Beach boat ramp. Her husband was driving their vehicle, and had backed their trailer into the water. As a result of actions at that time, Respondent was placed under arrest for Boating Under the Influence (BUI), a misdemeanor (her husband was arrested for Driving Under the Influence). Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the BUI offense and, on February 18, 2008, was adjudicated guilty. Subsequent to the final hearing, counsel for Petitioner researched the issue and discovered that the incident occurred prior to Respondent’s initial certification as a teacher. As a result, Petitioner correctly concluded and stipulated “that no disciplinary action should be taken as a result of this conviction.” Driving Under the Influence -- 2015 On April 24, 2015, Respondent and a friend drove, in the friend’s car, to Pensacola Beach for drinks. Respondent left her car in a Publix parking lot. Upon their return, Respondent correctly perceived that she was not fit to drive home. Her phone was dead, so she got into her car and started it in order to charge the phone. She called her son and asked that he come pick her up. At some point after calling her son, Respondent called her soon-to-be ex-husband, from whom she was in the process of a bitter divorce, and engaged in a heated and animated discussion with him. A complaint was called in, and Officer Kidd was dispatched to the scene. Upon his arrival, Officer Kidd observed Respondent in her car, with the engine running, “yelling at someone on the phone.” He noticed a bottle of Crown Royal in the center console. Respondent refused to perform field sobriety tasks. Office Kidd’s observations of Respondent while she was in the car and upon her exiting the car led him to believe that she was impaired. Respondent had been in the car, with the engine running, and was clearly in control of the vehicle regardless of her intent to drive. Although Respondent’s son arrived on the scene to take her home, Respondent was arrested and transported to jail.2/ Respondent was charged with DUI. The charges were reduced, and she entered a nolo plea to reckless driving. The trial judge withheld adjudication. Count 2 Count 2 alleged a violation based upon Respondent having “been found guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces that person’s effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.” The Count was based on the incidents described in paragraph 4 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. March 20, 2015 -- The Garage On or about March 20, 2015, over spring break, Joshua Hartley was at Pensacola Beach with friends, including Respondent’s son. He had his father’s car. Apparently, Joshua’s father, Jon Hartley had been trying for some time to reach Joshua and have him return the car. Joshua and his group of friends had plans to stay at the beach into the evening. Respondent’s son suggested that Respondent, who he knew to be at the beach, could follow Joshua home, and then return him to his friends at the beach. Respondent was called, and she followed Joshua from the beach to his house, a drive of perhaps 15 minutes. When Joshua and Respondent arrived at the house, Mr. Hartley, Ms. Barrett, and a third man were sitting and drinking in the open garage. Other than agreement that Respondent and Joshua showed up at the house at the same time, the description of the events by Joshua Hartley, Mr. Hartley, and Ms. Barrett were so divergent that the three might well have been in different places. Ms. Barnett described the incident as occurring between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m., when it was dark. She testified that Joshua and Respondent pulled up in separate vehicles, and that Mr. Hartley initially approved of Joshua returning to the beach with Respondent as a good deed, since Joshua purportedly indicated that “she’s really drunk.” She indicated that Joshua got into the passenger seat of Respondent’s vehicle, whereupon Respondent put the vehicle in gear, and lurched forward, almost hitting Mr. Hartley’s vehicle. At that time, Ms. Barrett indicated that Mr. Hartley ran down, startled by the driving error, told Joshua that he could not go with her, and offered to let Respondent stay with them until she sobered up. Ms. Barrett further described Respondent as essentially falling out of her bathing suit, barefoot, staggering, with slurred and vulgar speech, and highly intoxicated. After about an hour, and as Respondent was preparing to leave, Ms. Barnett testified that Joshua, who had remained with the adults in the garage since his arrival, went to his room. Ms. Barnett testified that Respondent then excused herself to use the restroom. Ms. Barnett testified that after 15 minutes or so, she went inside, and found Respondent “exiting Joshua’s bedroom.” Her description of the event is not accepted, and her veiled insinuation that something improper occurred -- for which no evidence exists -- did not go unnoticed. Mr. Hartley described the incident as occurring between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. He testified that Joshua and Respondent arrived at the house in Respondent’s car with Joshua as the passenger. He was “positive” that Joshua was not driving because he was 15 years old and did not have a driver’s license. When they pulled into the driveway, Mr. Hartley testified that he walked down to the vehicle and that Joshua got out of the car. Mr. Hartley was unsure if Joshua stayed in the garage at all, but at most went to his room after a matter of minutes. Respondent joined the adults in the garage. Mr. Hartley indicated that Respondent “looked like she had been at the beach” and, though her speech was not slurred, he could tell she had been drinking because he could smell alcohol and by “the way she was speaking.” His description of Respondent was far from the florid state of intoxication as described by Ms. Barnett. Mr. Hartley offered no description of Respondent’s vehicle lurching forward, Respondent staggering, or of Joshua asserting that Respondent was really drunk. Finally, his concern that “the grown, intoxicated woman [as described by counsel in his question] was in your 15 year old son’s bedroom” was based solely on Ms. Barnett’s description of what she claimed to have seen. Joshua testified that he drove to his house in his father’s black Lincoln Aviator, and that Respondent followed in her white Ford Expedition. It was daylight, around 4:00 in the afternoon. Upon their arrival, Respondent pulled onto the grass next to the driveway. Mr. Hartley was mad, possibly about Joshua having the car, would not let him return to the beach, and sent him to his room within a minute of his arrival. Joshua testified that Respondent was in typical beach attire. He had no complaint as to Respondent’s actions either at the beach or at his house, and did not see her drinking. He did, however, indicate that “they” told him that “she might have been drunk or something.” He testified that after Respondent spent some time with the adults in the garage, she then went inside to use the restroom. Joshua’s door was open, and Respondent stood at the door and apologized if she had gotten him into trouble. She then left. Given the dramatic divergence in the stories of the witnesses, the evidence is not clear and convincing that anything untoward occurred when Respondent agreed to give Joshua a ride to his house to return his father’s car, and offered to return him to his friends at the beach. Though credible evidence suggests that Respondent had alcohol on her breath, there was no evidence that she was “under the influence of alcohol,” that she was not able to lawfully drive a vehicle, or that Joshua suspected that she had been drinking. Ms. Barrett’s more dramatic testimony that Respondent was drunk and staggering, falling out of her clothes, with her speech slurred and profane, and the intimation that she was in Joshua’s bedroom in that condition, is not accepted. The evidence adduced at the hearing was not clear and convincing that, on March 20, 2017, Respondent engaged in personal conduct that seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board. February 15, 2015 -- Mardi Gras There was a good bit of evidence and testimony taken that Petitioner was seen drunk and staggering down the street at the 2015 Pensacola Mardi Gras, and was seen and assisted by students in that condition. However, the basis for the Amended Administrative Complaint was not that Respondent was publically intoxicated, but that she “provided alcohol to underage students.” Pensacola has a Mardi Gras event with a parade and floats. In 2015, “Fat Tuesday” was on February 17. The big 2015 Mardi Gras parade was on Sunday, February 15. Respondent had a group of friends that were in a Mardi Gras Krewe and she had been helping them with the float. She apparently drank a good bit. By the time her friends were ready to join the parade, around noon to 1:00 p.m., Respondent determined that she was drunk enough that she should go to the hotel room the group had rented. Unlike the evidence for the “Garage” incident, the evidence was convincing that Respondent was very intoxicated. Ms. Smith testified that Respondent joined a group of alumni and students at a Subway parking lot where they had gathered to watch the parade. The evidence is persuasive that Respondent came upon the scene by happenstance, and that the parking lot was not her destination. While there, Respondent very likely consumed one or more “Jello-shots.” However, the suggestion that Respondent was in any condition to have brought the Jello-shots with her to the parking lot is rejected. Rather, the evidence supports that the shots were there, and that she partook. It would not have been out of character for Respondent to have taken them and handed them around. Furthermore, the testimony that Respondent was distributing beers to students is, for the same reason, simply not plausible. After a while, Ms. Smith, followed but not assisted by Mr. Brayton, assisted Respondent to her hotel. Respondent was, by this time, in a state colloquially known as “falling-down drunk.” She could not walk unassisted, and at one point laid down on a picnic table. It was at this time that Respondent and Ms. Smith were photographed, a picture that received some circulation. Ms. Smith finally delivered Respondent to her hotel, where Respondent’s son saw them and relieved Ms. Smith of any further duties. Mr. Brayton’s testimony that he thereafter entered Respondent’s hotel room was not supported by Ms. Smith or others. His testimony regarding Respondent’s son and his friends at the hotel was not clear and convincing. January 2015 -- The House Party Amelia Smith testified to an alleged incident in the fall of 2014 in which she was at Respondent’s house and students were having a party in the garage at which students were drinking. There was no allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint as to any event in the fall of 2014. Ms. Klisart testified to an incident involving students drinking at Respondent’s house around the Martin Luther King holiday, which in 2015 was on January 19. That corresponds to Petitioner’s statement that she returned to her house after an evening celebrating her birthday,3/ to find her son and his friends having a party in the garage at which students were drinking. The allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent provided a forum where underage students illegally consumed alcohol in January 2015 was adequately pled. The evidence supports a finding that Respondent had been drinking when she arrived at her house. The evidence is not clear and convincing that she joined the students in the garage, but she clearly knew the party was ongoing, that it involved high school students, that the students were drinking, and that she made no effort to put a halt to the party. Notoriety of the Incidents The evidence is clear and convincing that the incidents described herein were widely known by students at Gulf Breeze High School, by other teachers, and by the school administration. Counts 3 and 4 Count 3 alleges that “Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.” Count 4 alleges “that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety.” Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student’s] health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, by allowing, if not condoning, student drinking at her home in January 2015, failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from harm.
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 sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), and rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of five years, and be required to obtain treatment through the Recovery Network Program at a frequency and for a duration deemed appropriate by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 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 7th day of June, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's teaching contract for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a science teacher since 1974. After six and one-half years of service in the military, which included service in Vietnam, Respondent attended college and graduated from St. Louis University with bachelor's and master's degrees in chemistry. After a short career in private industry, Respondent entered the teaching profession in Pennsylvania. In 1983, Respondent moved to Miami to continue teaching. For the first year, Respondent obtained a temporary position, filling in for a teacher out on pregnancy leave, teaching honors physics and biology at Palmetto Senior High School. For the next three years, Respondent taught earth science and physical science at Palm Springs Junior High School, both as a permanent substitute and regular teacher. Starting in August 1987, Respondent taught unspecified science courses at North Dade Junior High School for a year. Respondent's first extended assignment at one school was at Southwood Middle School, where he taught from August 1988 through June 1993. At Southwood Middle School, Respondent was a problem employee from the start; he was explosive, defiant, temperamental, and a bundle of nerves. From March 1989 through October 1991, different Southwood principals had to summon Respondent to the office for six conferences-for-the-record (CFR). In October 1990, the principal at Southwood Middle School directed his assistant principal to schedule an observation of Respondent, who repeatedly deflected her request to schedule a mutually convenient time for an observation. On one occasion, Respondent lacked a lesson plan, but the principal, rather than placing Respondent on probation for that deficiency, instead conducted a CFR on October 31, 1990, at which he reminded Respondent of the requirement of lesson plans. Eventually, the regional coordinator of the science department conducted the observation on November 26, 1990. The science coordinator assessed Respondent as deficient in preparation and planning, subject-matter knowledge, and instructional techniques. At a CFR on December 14, 1990, the principal prescribed appropriate remedies for these deficiencies. The CFR notes that Respondent claimed that the science coordinator had not judged him fairly. Next, Respondent taught at North Miami Senior High School from August 1993 to June 1997. Having obtained certification in physics, Respondent taught physics to advanced placement, international baccalaureate, honors, and regular classes, as well as earth-space science. During the 1997-98 school year and start of the 1998-99 school year, Respondent taught at Killian Senior High School. At Killian, he taught three physics and two chemistry classes. In the late summer and early fall of 1998, district office personnel began painting the interior of Killian Senior High School. The smell of paint was oppressive to students and staff. Based on numerous complaints, as well as his own experience, the principal contacted the district office and asked that they monitor the odor. Respondent was among the persons complaining about the paint, but he was far from alone. On October 5, 1998, unrelated to the paint situation, the principal conducted an observation of Respondent. The resulting evaluation notes numerous deficiencies in preparation (including the lack of a lesson plan), the delivery of instruction, and the management of the classroom. At the hearing, Respondent rejected the validity of this observation largely due to the principal's lack of background in science. In the ensuing days, the principal tried without success to arrange a CFR to discuss the observation and evaluation, although the scheduling problems were not shown to have been due to Respondent. Finally, on October 16, 1998--a teacher workday--the principal directed his assistant principal to get with Respondent and schedule the CFR. The assistant principal summoned Respondent to her office and asked Respondent to sign a notice of CFR setting a date for the conference. Respondent became very angry and called the principal, who is black, a "nigger." Respondent said the entire matter was a "bunch of bullshit." He then promised that he would see that the assistant principal "was taken care of" and "she would be sorry." The assistant principal replied that she only wanted him to sign the notice, but Respondent would not be mollified. In her 38 years in Petitioner's school system, the assistant principal has never seen an outburst like this from a teacher. Shaken, the assistant principal immediately telephoned the principal, who was downtown at a school meeting. She relayed to him what had happened and all that Respondent had said. The principal responded by telling her that he would call Petitioner's police and return to the school immediately. Arriving at the school, the principal met with several school police officers in his office. The officers wanted to arrest Respondent without delay, but the principal said that he wanted to speak to him first. The principal then walked up to the teacher's workroom where Respondent, alone, was working. The accounts of what happened next do not overlap very much. The principal, a sizeable man, claims that Respondent hit him. Respondent, a small man with a sizeable temper, claims that the principal hit him. It is impossible to credit either story. The principal's testimony is inconsistent, and he was an evasive witness. As reflected throughout these findings, Respondent's distorted perceptions, disordered thinking, poor insight, and lack of candor deprive him of credibility. Likely, neither man struck the other, although they may have grabbed or jostled a little. Wisely, Petitioner did not pursue the matter in a manner consistent with a teacher battery upon a principal, nor does Petitioner allege in the present case that Respondent struck the principal. Clearly, though, the two men quarreled loudly, and, when the confrontation escalated into an altercation, the school police entered the room and removed Respondent from the building. Petitioner reassigned Respondent to a region office. On October 21, 1998, Petitioner conducted a CFR for the October 5 observation. This CFR listed various prescribed remedies, but recognized that Respondent's nonacademic placement prevented the accomplishment of most of them. On December 10, 1998, Petitioner conducted a CFR for the October 16 incident. Petitioner presented Respondent with a list of physicians from whom he could choose, so that he could obtain a medical evaluation of his fitness to return to work. The letter memorializing the CFR directs Respondent not to visit the campus of Killian High School or contact any student or staff at the school by any means. Undoubtedly, Respondent had reached a breaking point by the time of the October 16 incident. The primary source of his increasing anxiety seems to have been the paint situation. Eventually, the district office had to have its personnel remove the paint due to toxic substances contained in the paint, and it is not unlikely that Respondent played an important role in the process that led to the eventual removal of the unhealthy paint. However, it is impossible to determine exactly when Respondent obtained evidence of the paint's toxicity. At some point, although not immediately, Respondent obtained the material safety data sheets for the paint and learned that the paint was unsuitable for a school. It is difficult to determine exactly when this occurred, and it is therefore difficult to assess Respondent's behavior. It appears likely, though, that, for a time at least, Respondent, fashioning himself a whistleblower beleaguered by the principal, bypassed normal administrative channels, proclaimed to his class that he would protect them from this toxic paint, and encouraged his students to have their parents complain about the paint. The evidence is sketchy as to whether Respondent violated the directive not to contact students or staff. Respondent probably contacted teachers and possibly contacted students in violation of the directive, but, absent detailed evidence of the conversations, it is impossible to find that these conversations constituted material violations of the directive. After some difficulties in selecting a psychiatrist acceptable to Respondent, he chose Dr. Anastasio Castiello from the names provided to him by Petitioner. Dr. Castiello conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Respondent on January 25, 1999. Based on a 50-minute interview and history largely supplied by Petitioner, Dr. Castiello diagnosed Respondent as suffering from a ”moderately severe psychiatric disorder warranting a recommendation for relatively intensive psychiatric treatment. The condition would also warrant the diagnosis of an involutional disorder with intertwined elements of paranoid and the affective disorders." Dr. Castiello conducted another 50-minute evaluation session with Respondent on August 16, 1999, and reached the same conclusions as he had in the previous session. On January 24, 2000, Dr. Castiello conducted a third and final evaluation session and concluded that Respondent was better and could return to teaching. The two-and-one-quarter, single-spaced report of Dr. Castiello covering the last session casts little light on the means by which Respondent journeyed from a moderately severe psychiatric disorder warranting relatively intensive psychiatric treatment to sufficiently better to return to teaching. It is odd that, after Dr. Castiello opined that Respondent would need relatively intensive psychiatric treatment, Dr. Castiello never obtained the records of other psychiatric treatment, to which Respondent alluded, or discussed Respondent's assertion that the course of that treatment never required medication. For the most part, judging from Dr. Castiello's final report, he seems to have been impressed by Respondent's politeness and lack of pressured, frenzied speech, as well as vague assurances that Respondent had learned his lesson. Unless the lesson was not to pick up another moderately severe psychiatric disorder requiring relatively intensive psychiatric treatment, Dr. Castiello's reasoning remains elusive. Although it almost goes without saying that Dr. Castiello's diagnoses of severe illness and substantial recovery are entitled to no weight, he legitimately observed that his focus was on how Respondent responded to the paint problem, not on whether, eventually, Respondent was proved correct in his claims of toxicity. In February 2000, Petitioner assigned Respondent to teach at Palmetto Middle School. Respondent enjoyed his new assignment, at least for awhile. However, on November 3, 2001, the assistant principal, who had been a science teacher, conducted an observation of Respondent in his classroom. On December 5, 2001, the assistant principal met with Respondent and told him that she had found several deficiencies during the observation and offered him a professional growth team, which he declined. When she offered Respondent help, he told the assistant principal, who is black, that he had been beaten by a black administrator, and the matter was still in litigation. From the start, the observation had been an unofficial observation, meaning that the results would not go into Respondent's personnel file. When the assistant principal informed Respondent of this fact and that she would return for an official observation later, he angrily replied that, if he did not pass the next observation, the assistant principal would have a problem. He told her that he had been a Green Beret in the military and had a considerable background in science. Surprised by Respondent's response to a "freebie" observation, as she called it, and stunned by his threatening behavior, the assistant principal reasonably feared for her personal safety. During November 2001, probably between the observation and meeting with the assistant principal described above, Respondent also had a confrontation with students and a teacher. A teacher across the hall from Respondent had been late returning from lunch, so the students for her next class were milling about in the hallway, waiting for her. Respondent confronted the students and, thinking they were exceptional student education (ESE) students, called them a "bunch of L[earning] D[isabled] students" and said that "LD students were always in trouble." When the students yelled back that they were not LD students, Respondent said, "You're all a bunch of LD losers." As this exchange took place, the teacher who was the ESE department head was approaching the students and Respondent. Her first response was to turn to the students and tell them that LD students are not losers. As she did so, Respondent stood behind her, laughing. The ESE department head then followed Respondent into his room and demanded to know why he was saying such things about ESE students and saying them to other students. Respondent denied saying anything and added that the matter was not any of her business. After a couple of inconsequential exchanges between the two teachers, Respondent warned the ESE department head that she should not be "messing" with him and that he has sued people. The ESE department head told him to do what he wanted to do and that she was going to file a grievance. Twelve years ago, a science coordinator observed Respondent and found him deficient in preparation and planning, subject-matter knowledge, and instructional technique. Respondent's response was to say the science coordinator was unfair. Four years ago, a principal without a science background observed Respondent and found him deficient in preparing a lesson plan, classroom management, and instructional technique--two of the same areas identified in the assessment eight years earlier. Respondent's response was to fault the principal's lack of science background and, to his assistant principal, call the man a "nigger" and the observation "bullshit." Not satisfied, Respondent then threatened the assistant principal, who was merely trying to schedule a CFR. Still not satisfied, Respondent engaged in an altercation with the principal. Three years ago, an assistant principal with a background in science observed Respondent and found several deficiencies. Even though he had been out of work for one year as medically unfit and even though the assistant principal had told him that the observation and evaluation would not go into his personnel file, Respondent's response was to tell her that, if he failed the next observation, she would have a problem. In the same month, Respondent gratuitously confronted students whom he thought to be in the ESE program, demeaned such students, laughed as a teacher tried to repair the damage that he had caused, and, when confronted privately by the teacher, told her to mind her own business and threatened her. This is misconduct in office, and this misconduct is so serious as to impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent and terminating his contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merrett R. Stierheim, Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Number 912 Miami, Florida 33130-1394 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Melinda L. McNichols Legal Counsel Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of allegations that the Respondent engaged in inappropriate physical touching of a female student.
Findings Of Fact M. A. is a thirteen year old student at West Miami Middle School. At the time of the alleged incident, she was twelve years of age, was approximately five feet, three inches, tall, and weighed about one hundred sixty pounds. She had gained about twenty or thirty pounds more as of the time of the formal hearing in this case. The School Trust Counselor, Diana De Cardenas, had been seeing M. A. and M. A.'s sister for eating disorder problems because both girls were somewhat overweight. The counsellor had seen M. A. on several occasions because of allegations that M. A.'s mother and M. A.'s brother were hitting her at home. Her brother did not want her to eat and when he saw her eating he would beat her. M. A. saw the counsellor because of these facts and was often upset and crying. The Respondent, Millard Lightburn, is forty-two years old and has been a teacher for over fifteen years. The Respondent is Hispanic. He previously taught school in Nicaragua and speaks both English and Spanish. The accusing child, M. A., is also Hispanic. The Respondent taught a computer application course and from time to time he would use students to help file papers and keep records. Shortly before the time of the alleged incident, the Respondent asked two students, M. A. and a male student named L. D., to help him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. The student named L. D. did not come to help the Respondent on the day in question because L. D. was asked by another teacher to help with a problem in the cafeteria. On the day in question, the Respondent was having lunch while working in his classroom. M. A. was in the class alone with him helping him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. This was the second day that M. A. had assisted the Respondent with the paperwork. As the work was finished, the Respondent said to M. A., "Thank you very much; thank you for your help." He put his hand on her shoulder and put his cheek next to hers and gave her a peck on the cheek in a manner that is customary and traditional among Hispanics in Dade County, Florida. The Respondent demonstrated this gesture at the hearing. This same gesture was also demonstrated by two other witnesses, Shirley B. Johnson and Assistant Principal Eldon Padgett. West Miami Middle School is about 93 percent or 94 percent Hispanic. In that school and in the Hispanic community served by the school, it is customary for people to hug and to touch one another on the cheek or to give one another a peck on the cheek. Such conduct is common at all Hispanic schools in Dade County, Florida. The gesture demonstrated by the Respondent and by two other witnesses is a customary Hispanic gesture in Dade County, Florida, and is not considered to be offensive or inappropriate by other members of the Hispanic community. The Respondent, Millard E. Lightburn, did not at any time touch the student, M. A., in an inappropriate or offensive way.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 11th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-06174 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, but with the additional findings to the effect that another student had been invited to be present at the same time as the student, M. A. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details, or as irrelevant. Paragraph 9: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 13: First line rejected for reasons stated immediately above. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 32: The first three full lines and the first four words of the fourth line are accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 33: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and as also irrelevant. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether an education paraprofessional made salacious and vulgar comments to a female student and, if so, (2) whether such conduct gives the district school board just cause to suspend this member of its instructional staff for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Alfredo Regueira ("Regueira") was an employee of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), for which he worked full time as a physical education paraprofessional. At the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, Regueira was assigned to Miami Senior High School ("Miami High"), where he led exercise and fitness classes in the gymnasium. As of the final hearing, A. M., aged 17, was a senior at Miami High. She had met Regueira in the spring of her sophomore year at the school, in 2005, outside the gym. Thereafter, although never a student of Regueira's, A. M. would chat with "Fred"——as she (and other students) called him——about once or twice per week, on the gymnasium steps, during school hours. As a result of these encounters, A. M. and Regueira developed a friendly relationship. At some point, their relationship became closer than it prudently should have, moving from merely friendly to (the undersigned infers) nearly flirty. A. M. gave Regueira a picture of herself inscribed on the back with an affectionate note addressed to "the prettiest teacher" at Miami High. Regueira, in turn, spoke to A. M. about sexual matters, disclosing "what he did with women" and admitting a proclivity for lesbians. Notwithstanding this flirtatious banter, there is no allegation (nor any evidence) that the relationship between Regueira and A. M. was ever physically or emotionally intimate. As time passed, however, it became increasingly indiscreet and (for Regueira at least) dangerous. At around eight o'clock one morning in late February or early March 2006, A. M. and her friend E. S. went to the gym to buy snacks, which were sold there. Regueira approached the pair and, within earshot of E. S., made some suggestive comments to A. M., inviting her to get into his car for a trip to the beach. Later, when E. S. was farther away, Regueira spoke to A. M. alone, using vulgar language to communicate his desire to have sexual relations with her. In A. M.'s words, "Mr. Fred me dijo en English 'I want to fuck you.'" (Mr. Fred told me in English "I want to fuck you.")1 At lunch that day, while conversing with E. S., A. M. repeated Regueira's coarse comment. A. M. did not, however, report the incident contemporaneously either to her parents, being unsure about how they would react, or to anyone else in authority, for fear that she would be disbelieved. After the incident, A. M. stopped going to the gym because she was afraid and embarrassed. A few weeks later, A. M. disclosed to her homeroom teacher, whom she trusted, what Regueira had said to her. The teacher promptly reported the incident to an assistant principal, triggering an investigation that led ultimately to the School Board's decision to suspend Regueira. Thus had the candle singed the moth.2 That this incident has diminished Regueira's effectiveness in the school system is manifest from a revealing sentence that Regueira himself wrote, in his proposed recommended order: "Since this situation has been made public[,] . . . my peers have lost all respect for me." An employee who no longer commands any respect from his colleagues is unlikely to be as effective as he once was, when his peers held him in higher regard. Ultimate Factual Determinations Regueira's sexually inappropriate comments to A. M. violated several rules and policies that establish standards of conduct for teachers and other instructional personnel, namely, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e)(prohibiting intentional exposure of student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement), Rule 6B-1.006(3)(g)(forbidding sexual harassment of student), Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h)(disallowing the exploitation of a student relationship for personal advantage), School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (banning unseemly conduct); and Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.09 (proscribing unacceptable relationships or communications with students). Regueira's misconduct, which violated several principles of professional conduct as noted above, also violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001(3)(employee shall strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct). This ethics code violation, it should be mentioned, is secondary to the previously described misdeeds, inasmuch as sexually inappropriate behavior in the presence of, or directed toward, a student necessarily demonstrates a failure to sustain the "highest degree of ethical conduct." Regueira's violations of the ethics code and the principles of professional conduct were serious and caused his effectiveness in the school system to be impaired. In this regard, Regueira's admission that his colleagues have lost all respect for him was powerful proof that, after the incident, he could no longer be as effective as he previously had been. Based on the above findings, it is determined that Regueira is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order suspending Regueira from his duties as a physical education paraprofessional for a period of 30 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of April, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michael B. Smith (Smith), has been continuously employed as a teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1977. During the 1985-86 school year, Smith was employed under a continuing contract as a work experience teacher at Miami Norland Senior High School. The Assault and Loan Among the students in Smith's second period work experience class was Colleen Ann Dougherty (Colleen); a 15 year old female and 10th grade student. Colleen had been a student of Smith's since September 1985, and they enjoyed a good student- teacher relationship until the events which gave rise to these proceedings. 1/ On February 10, 1986, Smith asked Colleen to remain after class. Once the other students had left the classroom, and Colleen and he were alone, Smith engaged Colleen in a brief conversation concerning the progress of her outside employment. Gauging the conversation at an end, Colleen picked up her purse and book bag preparatory to moving to her next class, but was distracted when Smith asked her what was in her purse. As Colleen looked into her purse, which was hanging from her right shoulder, Smith placed his left hand on her right hip and his right hand on her left shoulder. When Colleen looked up, Smith pulled her toward him, and kissed her on the lips. Smith's conduct was uninvited and unexpected; Colleen, disconcerted, left the classroom. On February 11, 1986, Smith was covering Colleen's first period class for her regular teacher. After the class had started, Smith asked Colleen into the hall and, exhibiting his divorce papers and a sense of urgency, asked to borrow $50.00 by the end of third period. Colleen informed Smith that she did not know if she could get the money by then since she would need to go to her boy friend's house for the bank book. Thereupon, Smith gave Colleen a pass to visit her friend Jessica to see about transportation. After arranging for transportation with Jessica, Colleen returned to Smith, who was still standing in the hall outside the classroom, and informed him that Jessica and she could get the money. At this time, Smith told Colleen that he liked her and suggested that they meet at school one night so he could repay the money. When Colleen expressed a lack of understanding concerning Smith's comments, he told her to look down and said, "even standing next to you excites me." On looking down, Colleen observed that Smith had an erection. Colleen quickly changed the subject and left with Jessica to get the requested $50.00 from the bank, which she later gave to Smith. Colleen was troubled by what had transpired and was afraid that if she reported the incident the administration would not credit her statements over those of a teacher. However, on Wednesday, February 12, 1986, Colleen told her boss what had transpired between Smith and her, and on the evening of February 12, 1986, she informed her grandmother. On February 13, 1986 Colleen, together with her boss and grandmother, informed the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School concerning the events of February 10-11, 1986. Smith was subsequently suspended from his teaching position, and this administrative proceeding duly followed. In choosing to credit Colleen's recollection of the events of February 10-11, 1986, as opposed to Smith's, I am not unmindful of minor discrepancies in the proof. However, the candor and demeanor of Colleen, coupled with the corroborating proof, compels the conclusion that Smith did commit, without invitation or provocation, the acts set forth in paragraphs 3-5, supra. Smith's conduct was inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious to bring himself and his profession into public disgrace or disrespect. Due to the notoriety of his conduct, Smith's service in the community, as well as his effectiveness in the school system, has been severely impaired. The Excessive Absences The proof establishes that Smith was absent from his employment on 26 days during the 1985-86 school year. Five of those days, and possibly six, were for personal reasons, rather than illness. While teachers are generally allowed only 4 personal days each school year, the School Board offered no evidence to rebut the proof that the additional 1-2 days were authorized by Smith's supervisor, or that all time off was duly approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent, Michael B. Smith, from his employment, and dismissing Respondent, Michael B. Smith, from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent's professional services contract with the Petitioner should be terminated for just cause as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher since 1988. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent held a professional services contract with Petitioner. After he graduated from college in 1970, Respondent played professional football for the San Diego Chargers for one year. Thereafter, he taught and coached in Polk County, Florida, at Albany State College in Georgia, and at Florida A & M University. Miami Edison Senior High School (Miami Edison), Norland Middle School (Norland), and Riviera Middle School (Riviera), are all public schools in Dade County, Florida. In 1988, Craig Sturgeon, the principal of Miami Edison, hired Respondent as a teacher and the head football coach at Miami Edison. SUMMER SCHOOL 1988 During the summer of 1988, Respondent was assigned to teach a weight training class. Among the students in Respondent's weight training class were two females, Nelta Georges and Latoya Stewart. During the summer of 1988, Nelta and Latoya usually went to Respondent's office to watch television after class. Respondent usually kept snacks in his office and had a refrigerator in which he kept milk. Latoya asked Respondent if she could have some milk to drink with the cookies she had taken from the table. In response to this question, Respondent put his leg up on a table, leaned back in his chair, licked his lips, and told Latoya that he had some "Elsie's milk" that she could have. This was a sexually suggestive statement that was inappropriate for a teacher to make to a student. After Respondent made this inappropriate comment to Latoya, he gave Nelta permission to leave school to go to a store across the street from Miami Edison. Respondent violated school policy by allowing the student to leave school campus for that purpose while school was in session. Mr. Sturgeon received complaints that Respondent had made sexually inappropriate comments to female students, including the incident involving Nelta and Latoya, and that he was granting students permission to leave school. An investigation by the special investigation unit of the Dade County Public Schools Police Department, identified as S.I.U. Case #s-0854, confirmed the complaints pertaining to the sexually inappropriate comments. Respondent admitted giving students permission to leave campus. On November 9, 1988, a conference for the record was held involving Mr. Sturgeon, Respondent, and Respondent's union representative. Respondent was reprimanded and rated as unacceptable on Category VII (Professional Responsibilities) of the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) on the following grounds: Substantiated Findings S.I.U. Case #s-0854. Conduct Unbecoming a School Board Employee. Permitting students to leave the school campus to go to the store while school was in session. SCHOOL YEAR 1991-92 Respondent taught a wood-shop class at Norland Middle School during a portion of the 1991-92 school year. Danielle Williams is a sixteen year old female who was a student in Respondent's wood-shop class at Norland during the 1991-92 school year. On one occasion, Respondent asked Danielle to come to his lectern and to show him her work. Danielle testified that when she did as she was requested, Respondent put his arm around her shoulder so that he touched her right breast with his hand. Danielle testified that she pushed Respondent's hand away and told him "you don't have to touch me to talk to me." This incident occurred in front of the other students in Respondent's class. Respondent admitted that he put his arm around the student, but asserted that it was a friendly gesture like he used to do with players when he coached. He denied touching the student's breast. The Special Investigation Unit of the school board's police department investigated the incident, but was unable to substantiate that Respondent touched Danielle's breast. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Respondent inappropriately draped his arm around Danielle's shoulders, but that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he touched Danielle's breast. 1/ Respondent made inappropriate comments to Danielle, asking if she had a father and stating that he wanted to "get with" her mother. Danielle also testified that Respondent stared at her inappropriately as if he could rape her with his eyes. Jonelle Hogan, another female student in Respondent's wood-shop class, testified that Respondent also stared at her in a manner she believed to be inappropriate and that he liked to touch students. John Gilbert was the principal of Norland during the time Respondent taught at that school. In September 1991, Mr. Gilbert received complaints from the parents of two students that Respondent had made sexually suggestive remarks to female students and that he inappropriately stared at and improperly touched students. Respondent was transferred to another school as a result of these complaints. 1993-94 School Year Respondent taught a wood-shop class at Riviera Middle School for a portion of the 1993-94 school year. George Gomez is a fourteen year old male who was a student in Respondent's wood-shop class at Riviera. On October 12, 1993, George was playing with another student by poking the other student in the rear with a wooden spoon. Respondent told George to stop what he was doing, but George did not obey that instruction. Respondent approached George, grabbed him by the shoulder, and told the other student to hit George. When the other student refused to hit George, Respondent punched George in the chest with his closed fist and told him to sit down. The punch hurt George, and he started crying. George was also embarrassed by this incident because the other students in the class were laughing at him. After George sat down on a stool, he got up and started to leave the classroom. Respondent grabbed George by the back of his pants, picked him off the ground, and pulled him back into the classroom. While George was being held in the air by the Respondent, George picked up a plastic garbage can and tried to hit Respondent with it. When Respondent released him, George fell on the other plastic garbage cans. George got up and Respondent told him to sit down and asked why he was crying. George said he was crying because the punch had hurt him. George picked up a baseball bat and said if Respondent wanted to see how much it hurt that he should let George hit him with the bat. Respondent told George that he would break his neck if George hit him with the bat. George tossed the bat aside, but Respondent picked up another bat and encouraged George to hit him. Respondent then picked up a rasp and asked George if he wanted to stab him. George replied "why don't you get me a gun?" Respondent asked George whether he wanted a .22 caliber pistol or a shotgun and said he would get it from his car. George believed Respondent was serious when he made the statement about the gun and he stayed silent in response to Respondent's question. At his request, George was transferred out of Respondent's class following this incident. Some of the students in the Respondent's wood-shop class were special education students. Following the incident between George and the Respondent, these special education students returned to the class of their regular teacher, Faith Feurst. These students were scared and did not want to go back to Respondent's classroom. This incident impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher at Riviera. At various times while at Riviera Respondent used profane language in front of students in the classroom, using such terms as "fuck," "bitch," and "ass." At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Dr. Pauline A. Young was an assistant principal at Riviera. On October 12, 1993, Dr. Young was notified of the incident involving George. On December 6, 1993, a Conference for the Record (CFR) was held with the Respondent to discuss his employment history and the possibility of further disciplinary action against him. Respondent was reprimanded for the incident and returned to the classroom pending further review of his employment. A written summary of the CFR, dated January 10, 1994, advised Respondent that the School Board was considering whether it should terminate his professional services contract for cause. On January 4, 1994, Officer Horace Morgan, a police officer with the City of Miami Police Department was on duty and engaged in narcotics surveillance. Officer Morgan observed Respondent purchase an object Officer Morgan believed to be a plastic bag of cocaine from an unidentified individual. Officer Morgan instructed two other police officers, one of whom was Jose Moure, to arrest Respondent. Officer Moure inspected the inside of Respondent's car at the time of the arrest and found a clear plastic bag with a short red straw. There was a white powder in the bag. The contents of this bag was sent by Officer Moure to a lab for analysis. There was no evidence to establish the chain of custody or the manner in which the laboratory tests were conducted. The results of the testing were reflected by a lab report. The report Officer Moure received following the testing reflected that the white powder in the plastic bag was cocaine. This lab report is hearsay that cannot be the basis of a finding of fact. See, Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner failed to establish by competent, substantial evidence, that the plastic bag taken from Respondent's vehicle contained cocaine. Also discovered in Respondent's car at the time of the arrest was a military hand grenade training simulator referred to as a M116A. Officer D. C. Diaz, an investigative bomb technician with the City of Miami Police Department's Special Investigation Section, was summoned to examine the M116A. The device was "live" and would have exploded if detonated. This device had the potential to cause bodily harm and property damage. It is a third degree felony for an unauthorized individual to have possession of a device such as a M116A. Respondent had no authorization to be in possession of this device. Although it is illegal to sell such a device in the State of Florida, Respondent's testimony that he bought the device in South Carolina is found to be credible. Criminal charges were filed against Respondent for possession of cocaine and possession of a destructive device. On January 18, 1994, the Petitioner learned of the criminal charges against Respondent and removed him from the classroom. On May 2, 1994, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendre to these charges. The presiding judge accepted this plea, withheld adjudication of guilt, and sentenced Respondent to time served. On February 16, 1994, the School Board took action to terminate Respondent's professional services contract for just cause, immorality, misconduct in office, and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, upon such conviction. The Petitioner subsequently filed a Notice of Specific Charges in this proceeding that alleged it has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds of immorality and misconduct in office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein, that upholds the suspension of Respondent's employment, and that terminates his professional services contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2nd day of February 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert L. Collins has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida as a teacher for the last twenty-four years and is on continuing contract. For approximately the last seven of those years, Respondent has been teaching Industrial Arts at Miami Killian Senior High School. Between late September 1983, and November 23, 1983, Jonathan Wright was a student in Respondent's Plastics class. On November 23, 1983, Wright came into Respondent's Plastics class wearing a hat, which is against school rules. Respondent directed Wright to remove his hat which he did. Later in that same class Respondent saw Wright sitting by the engraver again wearing that hat. Respondent removed the hat from Wright's head and advised Wright that if he put the hat on another time Respondent would send him to the principal's office. At approximately 5 minutes before the end of the class period, Respondent instructed the students that it was time to clean up the shop area. Wright and some of the other students began gathering at the door. Respondent motioned to those students to come back into the classroom and away from the door, which some of them did. Wright, however, did not. Respondent then specifically directed Wright to get away from the door. Instead of obeying, Wright put up a hand and a foot in a karate type posture but clearly in a playful manner. As a normal reaction in the context of the situation, Respondent did likewise. Respondent then turned back toward the class at which time Wright grabbed him by the legs and pulled him down to the floor. Respondent and Wright were rolling around on the floor in a small alcove area, and Respondent was unable to get loose from Wright's grip. Respondent was afraid that he, Wright, or the other students might be severely injured in the small alcove by the door or on some of the machinery located in the Plastics shop classroom. Unable to free himself, Respondent bit Wright on the back. Wright released Respondent and got up off the floor. After the bell rang, Wright left the classroom. Wright was transferred to the Plastics class of teacher Gerald Krotenberg where he remained for the rest of the school year. On several occasions Krotenberg was required to admonish Wright because Wright often resorted to "horse play" with other students. On occasion Wright would come into the classroom and would "bear hug" the girls, "jostle" the boys, and be disruptive so that Krotenberg could not take attendance or conduct the class. Although Krotenberg followed his normal technique of chastising the student in public, and then chastising the student in private, those techniques did not work and Krotenberg was required to exclude Wright from class on probably two occasions, for two days each, due to Wright's inappropriate behavior with other students. During the two months that Wright was in Respondent's class, Wright had come up behind Respondent on one or two occasions and lightly put his arms around Respondent in the nature of a bear hug. Respondent counseled Wright that that was not appropriate behavior. The only touching of Wright that was initiated by Respondent himself occurred in the form of Respondent placing his hand on Wright's shoulder while discussing a project being worked on at the moment or perhaps a light slap on the back in the nature of encouragement or praise for a job well done. Not all teachers, however, agree that it is appropriate to occasionally give a student an encouraging pat on the back. Although Wright had on one or two occasions given Respondent a playful hug and although Respondent had on several occasions given Wright an encouraging pat on the back or touch on his shoulder, no physical combat ever occurred between them. Although Wright often engaged in "horse play" with other students, no "horse play" occurred between Wright and Respondent. None of Respondent's annual evaluations during the years he has been teaching in the Dade County public School, including the annual evaluation for the the 1983-1984 school year, indicates that Respondent has had any problems with either maintaining good discipline in his classes or that Respondent is anything other than acceptable in the area of classroom management.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reversing Respondent's suspension, reinstating him if necessary, and reimbursing him for back pay-if he was suspended without pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire 111 SW Third Street Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Michael D. Ray, Esquire 7630 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33138 Phyllis 0. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
