The Issue This is a license discipline case in which Respondent is charged with violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by reason of failing to complete required continuing education courses prior to renewal of his license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent David L. Lewis is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 053344 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a salesperson c/o All Keys, Inc., 1720 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, Florida 33040. By renewal notice, Petitioner notified Respondent his real estate salesperson's license would expire September 30, 1996. The renewal notice advised Respondent that "by submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department or the agency, a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal." On or about August 1, 1996, Respondent submitted the required fee to renew his real estate salesperson's license for the period commencing October 1, 1996. As of that date, he had not completed the continuing education requirement. Relying upon Respondent's representation that he had completed all requirements, Petitioner renewed Respondent's salesperson's license. Petitioner discovered the Respondent's status in an audit. In response to Petitioner's request for proof of education for the renewal period commencing October 1, 1996, Respondent submitted a certificate of completion of a continuing education classroom course finished October 2, 1996. By letter dated August 14, 1998, addressed to Petitioner's Investigator Barbara A. Kiphart, Respondent informed Petitioner that the Bert Rodgers School of Real Estate received the correspondence course October 1, 1996. According to the course report, Respondent finished the 14-hour continuing education requirement for the 1996 period on October 2, 1996, two days late. Respondent mailed the correspondence course materials to the Bert Rodgers School of Real Estate sometime during the last few days of September of 1996. At the time he mailed those materials, Respondent believed they would arrive in time to be processed prior to the September 30, 1996, deadline. As a result of some unknown vagary of the mail, the materials arrived on October 1, 1996, and were processed the next day.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that Respondent committed the violation charged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing as the only penalty a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 23rd day of February, 1999.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether and how the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should discipline the Respondent on charges that she submitted another teacher’s work to earn an endorsement to her teacher certificate for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Kimberly Bank, holds Florida educator certificate 993098, which expires on June 30, 2018. She is certified in English and reading. During the 2012-2013 school year, she was employed by the OCPS as a reading teacher at Oakridge High School. In January 2013, the Respondent and a fellow Oakridge reading teacher named Charnetta Starr enrolled in an online course through CaseNEX to earn credit towards an ESOL endorsement to their teaching credentials. ESOL endorsements were required for their jobs. Ms. Starr completed all required course work, including participation in online discussions, journal entries, and workbook submissions, and earned credit for the course. The Respondent began the CaseNEX class, but stopped participating after a few weeks and was told by the course facilitator that she was being withdrawn from the class. The course ended on April 24, 2013. On May 2, 2013, the Respondent emailed Ms. Starr to ask her to provide the Respondent with Ms. Starr’s course work, which Ms. Starr emailed to her. The Respondent enrolled to take the CaseNEX class again during the summer of 2013. She copied Ms. Starr’s journal entries and workbook submissions from the January course and submitted them verbatim as her own work for course credit during the summer course. The submissions struck the course facilitator as being very familiar, and her investigation revealed that they were exact copies of Ms. Starr’s submissions. The facilitator reported this to her supervisor. The Respondent was again withdrawn from the class, this time for violating course prohibitions against plagiarism. The Respondent and Ms. Starr were reported to OCPS, which reprimanded them and suspended them for three days. The Petitioner initiated separate, but virtually identical administrative cases to discipline the educator certificates of both the Respondent and Ms. Starr. The Petitioner agreed to settle Ms. Starr’s case for a reprimand and $750 fine, and the EPC accepted the settlement, because Ms. Starr was not perceived to have used the Respondent’s work product, but only to have allowed her work product to be used by the Respondent. Ms. Starr testified that she agreed to the settlement but actually does not believe her actions were wrong or violations because she did not know the Respondent was going to plagiarize her work and submit it for credit. Because the Respondent was perceived to have used Ms. Starr’s work product and submitted it as her own for CaseNEX course credit, the Respondent’s administrative case proceeded, with the Petitioner seeking to fine her, suspend her educator certificate, and place her on probation. The Respondent contends that she and Ms. Starr collaborated on all of Ms. Starr’s journal entry and workbook submissions with the intention that each would submit the identical work as their own. Initially, the Respondent contended that this was permissible “collaboration” under the CaseNEX honor code and course requirements. Later in the hearing, the Respondent seemed to concede that it was against the honor code and the course’s requirement that each teacher taking the course had to submit his or her own original work. At that point in the proceeding, she seemed to be taking the position that her conduct mirrored Ms. Starr’s and that her discipline should be the same (i.e., that she should not be suspended). In her proposed recommended order, the Respondent again took the position that her conduct was permissible collaboration under the CaseNEX honor code and the course’s requirements and that no discipline should be imposed. The evidence was clear and convincing that the work submitted by the Respondent for credit in the summer 2013 CaseNEX course was not the product of collaboration between her and Ms. Starr. The Respondent testified that she and Ms. Starr collaborated by jointly doing work for the course from the very beginning of the January 2013 course with the intention of each submitting their joint work product for credit. Yet, it is obvious that the Respondent’s work submissions prior to her withdrawal from the January 2013 course were not the same as Ms. Starr’s. The Respondent testified that she collaborated with Ms. Starr throughout the January 2013 CaseNEX course. She testified that they produced joint work for them both to submit for credit in the course. She testified that after she was withdrawn from the January course, she continued to collaborate and produce joint work product with Ms. Starr, and that it was understood that the Respondent would submit the work as her own when she retook the course. The Respondent testified that she misplaced and lost her thumb-drive with a digital copy of the joint work product and asked Ms. Starr to send her a copy as an attachment to an email, which Ms. Starr did on May 2, 2013. Ms. Starr testified that the Respondent emailed her to ask for a copy of Ms. Starr’s work product from the January CaseNEX course and that Ms. Starr complied on May 2, 2013. Ms. Starr testified that this was her own personal work product, not joint work product. She denied knowing that the Respondent intended to plagiarize and submit it as her own. She testified persuasively that there were other legitimate uses the Respondent could have made of the work besides plagiarizing it. Where there is conflict between the Respondent’s testimony and Ms. Starr’s testimony, the Respondent’s is rejected as being false, and Ms. Starr’s is credited as being the truth. The evidence was clear and convincing that Ms. Starr did her own work throughout the January 2013 course. None of the work submitted by Ms. Starr for credit in the January 2013 course was produced jointly with the Respondent. If the Respondent were telling the truth, and she and Ms. Starr collaborated on their work submissions, her early submissions for the January CaseNEX course would have been identical to Ms. Starr’s. They were not. On the other hand, some of her submissions during the course she took during the summer of 2013 were identical to Ms. Starr’s submissions. For this and other reasons, Ms. Starr’s testimony was more credible than the Respondent’s when their testimony was in conflict. The Respondent attempted to attack Ms. Starr’s credibility by use of a screen shot of an incomplete and out-of- context cell phone text message exchange between them on June 13, 2013. At 11:25 a.m. on that date, Ms. Starr texted the Respondent: “OK. Did you sign up for the online modules for the $1000? Let’s start working on them so we can get paid on 7/31.” The Respondent answered: “Girl I have started. The kids do 2 hrs in the computer lab and I do the modules. They are easy but looooooong!” Ms. Starr replied: “OK. Send me any info you have for it please.” The Respondent texted: “You just watch a video and answer 2 multiple choice questions. Skip through the video and go to the questions. You can try as much as you want. There”. There was no evidence as to what preceded or followed the exchange. When Ms. Starr was confronted with the text exchange on cross-examination, she understood that it was being presented to impeach her testimony that the Respondent contacted her about providing the Respondent with their supposedly joint work product from the January CaseNEX course. In her haste to vehemently defend herself, Ms. Starr failed to realize that the text message exchange actually had nothing to do with her providing the Respondent with her work product from the January course, but was about a different course they were taking to earn bonus pay, and she testified incorrectly that it was the Respondent who initiated the text message exchange that was in evidence. The cross-examination failed to impeach the essence of Ms. Starr’s testimony. The evidence was that the Respondent is a good teacher. She performed satisfactorily both at Oakridge before the CaseNEX cheating incident and at Conway Middle School after it. Nonetheless, it is clear that her effectiveness as an employee of the school district was seriously impaired by her plagiarism and cheating on the June 2013 CaseNEX course. For one thing, she was reprimanded and suspended for three days. For another, she did not get the ESOL endorsement that was required for the job she held at Oakridge. Since the Respondent was guilty of plagiarism, and Ms. Starr was less culpable, it is reasonable for the Respondent’s discipline to be harsher than Ms. Starr’s. A period of suspension is reasonable. Based on the EPC records of discipline imposed in similar cases that were officially recognized in this case, it appears that it has been the practice of the EPC to impose a one-year suspension, in addition to a fine, probation, and a requirement to take a college-level course in ethics, for a teacher who admits to plagiarism and cheating in a CaseNEX ESOL endorsement course. In the Respondent’s case, a longer period of suspension is warranted due to the Respondent’s dispute of the charges and her false testimony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the EPC enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged, suspending her educator certificate for 18 months, placing her on probation for two years with conditions to be determined by the EPC, requiring her to take a college-level course in ethics under terms and conditions determined by the EPC, and imposing a fine in the amount of $750. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Eric R. Hartman has been licensed by the State of Florida as a real estate salesperson, having been issued license number 0455304. Mr. Hartman was originally licensed on August 12, 1985. The last status of Mr. Hartman's license was involuntarily inactive. On or about June 26, 1995, Mr. Hartman forwarded his real estate salesperson license renewal notice to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division of Real Estate). His license had expired on March 31, 1995. Mr. Hartman submitted the license renewal notice to the Division of Real Estate for the purpose of renewing his real estate salesperson license. On the license renewal notice, Mr. Hartman signed an affirmation that he had completed all of the requirements for renewal of his license. As a prerequisite for the renewal of his license, Mr. Hartman was required to successfully complete a minimum of 14 hours of real estate continuing education. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hartman knew of this requirement. Prior to submitting his signed license renewal notice, in order to comply with the required continuing education, Mr. Hartman had obtained a correspondence course for 14 hours of continuing education from the Bert Rodgers Schools of Real Estate, Incorporated (Bert Rodgers). The correspondence course included a course book and test booklet. At the end of each chapter in the course book was a progressive quiz, and the answers for the quiz were provided at the end of the course book. Mr. Hartman took the progressive quiz after completing each chapter and, for the total book, had only two incorrect answers. The test for the continuing education course was open book. After completing the test, Mr. Hartman forwarded the test booklet to Bert Rodgers for grading. Based upon his performance on the progressive quiz after each chapter, there was no reason for Mr. Hartman to believe that he had not passed the test and, therefore, successfully completed the course. Confident that he had passed the continuing education course, Mr. Hartman submitted his license renewal notice to the Division of Real Estate. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hartman knew that he was required to maintain and submit to the Division of Real Estate, upon request, a course report certificate for the continuing education. The certificate indicates that he had timely and successfully completed the continuing education course. At the time that Mr. Hartman submitted his signed license renewal notice, he had not received a course report certificate from Bert Rodgers. On July 10, 1995, relying upon Mr. Hartman's representation that he had successfully completed the requirements for renewal of his license, the Division of Real Estate renewed Mr. Hartman's license and issued him a real estate salesperson license. His license had an effective date of June 23, 1995, and an expiration date of March 31, 1997. Subsequently, Mr. Hartman received notification from Bert Rodgers that the course material, including the test booklet, had expired and was no longer valid. Simultaneously, Bert Rodgers provided Mr. Hartman with a new and valid course book and test booklet. He completed the new test booklet and forwarded it to Bert Rodgers for grading. At the time that Mr. Hartman signed his license renewal notice and forwarded it to the Division of Real Estate, he had no intent to deceive or mislead or to make a material misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing the Division of Real Estate to renew his license. On his own initiative, by letter dated August 28, 1995, Mr. Hartman notified the Division of Real Estate of the situation regarding the Bert Rodgers continuing education course. After having forwarded the new and valid test booklet to Bert Rodgers, Mr. Hartman, subsequently, received a course report certificate from Bert Rodgers. The certificate indicated, among other things, that Mr. Hartman had taken a 14-hour continuing education correspondence course, which was completed on August 25, 1995, and that he had received a grade of 93.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate enter a final order imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine against Eric R. Hartman. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1997.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has just cause, within the meaning of Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007),1 to terminate Respondent’s professional service contract as an instructional employee, and, if so, whether termination of the contract is reasonable under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a classroom teacher from some time in 1998 until September 8, 2009, pursuant to a professional service contract. Petitioner relieved Respondent from the duties of her employment without pay on September 8, 2009. On September 21, 2009, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent. Most of the material facts in the Administrative Complaint are undisputed. On December 12, 1999, Respondent was arrested for cocaine possession, a third-degree felony, and narcotic equipment possession, a first-degree misdemeanor. Respondent successfully completed a pretrial diversion program, and the charges were nolle prossed and expunged. Respondent did not report the criminal matter to Petitioner. The failure to report the criminal matter violated the self-reporting requirements in Management Directive A-10, Guidelines on Self-Reporting of Arrest and Convictions by Employees (the self-reporting requirements). On July 10, 2000, Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), which was a first conviction. Respondent pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving and entered and successfully completed a pretrial diversion program. Respondent did not report the DUI matter to Petitioner. The failure to report the DUI matter violated applicable self- reporting requirements. On June 18, 2002, Respondent was arrested on a misdemeanor battery charge. The alleged victim dropped the charge, but Respondent did not report the incident to Petitioner in violation of the applicable self-reporting requirements. On July 6, 2006, Respondent violated Petitioner's Drug Free Workplace Policy by reporting to work at Rolling Hills Elementary School under the influence of alcohol. On July 9, 2006, Respondent entered into an agreement with Petitioner identified in the record as a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement was in effect for the 2006- 2007 and 2007-2008 school years. The Last Chance Agreement provides, in relevant part, that if justifiable grounds of discipline, rising to the level of a written reprimand or dismissal, occur during the school year, Respondent shall forfeit her right to be employed by Petitioner, and the Last Chance Agreement shall constitute a voluntary resignation from employment. The 2007-2008 school year ended on June 6, 2008. On May 30, 2008, Respondent failed to disclose on the renewal application for her Florida Educator's Certificate the expunged criminal record, pretrial diversion program, and plea of nolo contendere previously discussed. Respondent checked "no" to the following question: Have you ever had any record sealed or expunged in which you were convicted, found guilty, had adjudication withheld, entered a pretrial diversion program or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is not a minor traffic violation)? On March 20, 2009, the Education Practices Commission imposed several penalties against Respondent's teaching certificate for the violations that occurred during the 2007- 2008 school year. The Commission issued a written reprimand, imposed administrative fines in undisclosed amounts, and placed Respondent on two years’ probation. The disputed issue is whether Respondent's failure to disclose her criminal history on the renewal application for her Florida Educator's Certificate was intentional. Respondent claims the failure was not intentional, but was induced by post- traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS) caused by two statutory rapes that occurred when Respondent was 13 and 15 years old. When Respondent was 13 years old, a man who was approximately 33 years old "took her virginity." Respondent had an abortion, experienced a great deal of shame and guilt, and began self-medicating with alcohol and drugs. When Respondent was 15 years old, one of Respondent's high school teachers molested her. Respondent again experienced guilt and shame, did not disclose the incident, and continued using alcohol and drugs. Respondent presented expert testimony concerning the effects of PTSS. The expert testimony concludes that PTSS could have caused Respondent to drink excessively and fail to disclose her criminal history on the renewal application for her Florida Educator's Certificate. However, the expert testimony fell short of concluding that PTSS in fact induced Respondent to fail to disclose the criminal history on her application. Respondent's own testimony is that she had five or six glasses of wine the night she completed the application. Respondent completed the application without giving it much thought. On balance, a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that PTSS caused Respondent to fail to disclose her criminal history on the renewal application for her Florida Educator's Certificate. Several mitigating facts support a penalty less than termination of the professional service contract. The non- disclosure of facts was a harmless error to Petitioner. Petitioner had actual prior knowledge of all of the facts that Petitioner complains Respondent omitted from the application. The state licensing authority has knowledge of the non-disclosed facts. Respondent has already been disciplined for non-disclosure to the state licensing authority. When the Last Chance Agreement was entered into in 2006, Respondent was incorrectly diagnosed and treated for bipolar disorder. The treatment for bipolar disorder was ineffective during the term of the Last Chance Agreement. Respondent has been alcohol-free since September 2008, when she placed herself in a residential alcohol treatment program in Clearwater, Florida. Beginning in the early part of 2010, Respondent has been correctly diagnosed and treated for PTSS by Joseph L. Trim, Ed.D, a licensed mental health counselor and addiction specialist. That diagnosis and treatment appears to be effective for Respondent. Based on the testimony of the school principal who testified for Respondent, Respondent is an experienced and competent teacher who has not lost her effectiveness in the classroom. For each school year from 1998-1999 through 2004- 2005, Petitioner evaluated Respondent as effective in the classroom. Respondent has already received a reasonable penalty for violating the Last Chance Agreement, when Respondent was improperly diagnosed and treated for bipolar disorder. Petitioner has suspended Respondent from her employment without pay from September 8, 2009, to the present.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Orange County School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent's employment with her current principal, requiring Respondent to continue her current therapy with Dr. Trim, requiring Respondent to submit to random drug screening, and extending the term of the Last Chance Agreement for another two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Pinellas County Schools because of the misconduct alleged in the School Board's letter dated April 24, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Perry Hollis, was employed as a welding instructor at SPVOTEC, a facility operated by the School Board of Pinellas County. The Pinellas County School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the public schools in the county. Respondent began working for the Pinellas County School Board as a welding instructor approximately 15 years ago. As a part of his job, he was required to take certain college courses in teacher training and now has 15 credit hours beyond his Bachelor's degree. At this time, and at the time of the allegations involved herein, he taught welding to mostly adult students at SPVOTEC where he has been employed for 13 years, satisfactorily, without any prior disciplinary problems. The evening before the incident in question, Respondent had been out gun training his dog. Since it is virtually impossible to hold the dog's chain and fire a rifle at the same time, he was using a pistol, the one involved in this case. Neither Respondent nor his wife have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. After the training session was over, Respondent placed the pistol into the door pocket on the driver's side of his pickup truck, put his dog in the back, and started home. He does not remember putting the gun in the door but can think of no other way it could have gotten there. On the way home, the dog jumped out of the back of the truck while it was moving and injured itself. When Respondent got it, he started to provide care for the dog and forgot the gun was in the door of his truck. Since the truck had been acting up, pursuant to an agreement with Mr. Protomastro, the auto mechanics instructor, the following morning he took the vehicle to school and left it at the auto shop so that students could work on it as a part of their training. This is legitimate. The car was assigned to Robert Mertz and Phat Le to work on. Mr. Protomastro drove the car into the shop but did not see the gun in the door. When Mertz got into the car, he saw the weapon in the door pouch on top of some maps and papers and took it out to show to Mr. Le. Mr. Le took it and tried to fire it but because the safety was on, it would not fire. When Le removed the safety, the weapon discharged one round, injuring no one and causing no damage. When Mr. Protomastro heard the explosion, he thought it was a firecracker and advised Phat Le not to shoot them off at school. Le told showed him the gun and Protomastro told him to put it back in the truck. He then took the truck with the gun back to Respondent at the welding shop and advised Hollis to be sure the truck contained no weapons if he brought it in again. According to Protomastro, when he first mentioned it to Respondent, the latter seemed surprised, and he has no less confidence in Respondent's abilities as a teacher even though in this incident, Respondent showed poor judgement. Protomastro did not report the incident at that time. However, when Mertz got home from school that afternoon, he told his mother what had happened. The following morning, she called the school to express her concern over the fact that someone had brought a gun to school. In her opinion, Respondent was wrong to allow the weapon to remain unattended in his car since it is his responsibility to keep the weapon under control at all times. No action was taken then, however. The incident was subsequently brought to the attention of Pinellas County school officials by Mr. Laux, SPVOTEC Director, several months after the incident. Mr. Crosby, Director of Personnel for the Board, caused a formal investigation to be conducted. Based on the investigation and his own limited inquiry, he recommended Respondent's dismissal. In the conversation he had with him, Respondent frankly admitted the gun had been in his car and explained the circumstances of it's getting there. Crosby recommended dismissal because he concluded Respondent's effectiveness as an instructor in the Pinellas county schools had been diminished by the incident. He takes this position because, (1) the media publicity the incident received, (one article and one editorial), reduced Respondent's effectiveness, and (2) he believed Respondent's supervisors, "must feel his effectiveness was reduced due to his lack of judgement." Mr. Crosby did not, however, check with Respondent's supervisors other than Mr. Laux, the Director of SPVOTEC, who concurred in a disciplinary action far less severe than dismissal. Nonetheless, Crosby recommended dismissal rather than some lesser action which could have been taken because: The severity of the situation - teachers are to provide conditions not harmful to students and here, Respondent created a dangerous situation, Students are expelled for bringing weapons to campus and they can do no less to teachers, and Respondent's lack of judgement. Mr. Crosby admits that in his relationships with Respondent, he always found Respondent to be completely forthright and cooperative and he is aware that Hollis has taught in the public school system for more than 13 years. He is familiar with Respondent's performance ratings which were always good. Considering all this, Crosby ultimately agreed with the Superintendent's position that Respondent be dismissed even though no teachers or students indicated their loss of confidence in Respondent as a result of this incident. Even in response to questioning by the Hearing Officer, Mr. Crosby indicated no opinion as to whether the incident was intentional on the part of Respondent. From a thorough review of the evidence it is clear it was not. Ms. Betty W. Arrigo is an interpreter for the hearing impaired who previously worked with Respondent at SPVOTEC. She is aware of the incident with the gun as a result of seeing the report in the newspaper. As a fellow instructor, she has lost no confidence in him as a result of the incident and knows from her communications with seven or so other faculty members that they feel the same way. None of her contacts have any reservations about working with Respondent and she has heard nothing derogatory about him from any of them. Mr. Phares was a student at SPVOTEC and took a welding course from Respondent before the time in issue. He heard about this incident only though the newspaper and even as a result of his reading, based on his first hand knowledge of Respondent, his faith in him as an instructor has in no way been diminished. He would not be reluctant to have Respondent as an instructor again. Admitting he is not bound by the same restraints and considerations as the school administration, and agreeing that guns should not be allowed on the school grounds, he nonetheless believe that if, as it appears in the instant case, the infraction was inadvertent and was an isolated incident, leniency should be shown. Much the same approach is taken by Mr. Stanjeski, who knew Respondent as an instructor at the time of the incident. He, too, is aware of it only from the newspaper, and has not lost any confidence in Respondent's ability as an instructor. Respondent insured that his students learned to work safely and was very much involved with them from a safety standpoint. Mr. Stanjeski would have no reservations about having his 10 year old son take a class with Respondent. He does not condone children or adults bringing a loaded gun to school, but under the circumstances as they appear here, he feels confident with Respondent and his teaching and supervisory abilities. Dr. Rose, Superintendent of Schools, became aware of the Respondent when he received the complaint from Crosby with the recommendation for dismissal. School Board policies prohibit weapons from being brought onto a campus by students or faculty. The purpose of these policies is to insure, as much as is possible, against accidents, and to promote the safety of both students and staff. Prior to adoption of a policy, several public readings are required, after which it is adopted and placed in a policy book furnished to all teachers. Respondent was aware of the policies. Respondent's bringing a weapon to school constitutes a violation of this policy but, in Dr. Rose's opinion, even worse, Respondent did not demonstrate the care for his students expected of a teacher. This constitutes major carelessness on his part, and in the opinion of Dr. Rose, constitutes a violation of the Florida Teacher's Code of Ethics. Dr. Rose also feels that Respondent's actions herein jeopardizes the safety of students. Respondent's judgement in this situation was poor, and his conduct put a dangerous instrument into the hands of a youth whose judgement had not matured. Dr. Rose feels that a teacher would not, if he valued the worth and dignity of his students, do anything potentially dangerous to their welfare. According to Dr. Rose, Respondent's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in that the work site was compromised. The Board envisions that a work site within the school system will be a safe place and for that reason, guns are not allowed on campus. To bring a gun on campus shows a disregard for the needs of the students. Prior gun incidents have sensitized the public to weapons on campus. As a result, any incident involving a gun on campus is considered critical by the Board, and brings back fears of danger to the students. Whenever a teacher creates a potential hazard to his students, it adversely impacts on his effectiveness, according to Dr. Rose. As Superintendent, he receives feedback from students, parent and teacher organizations, his division heads, and the public, and in this case, though the incident was not widely known until the dismissal was publicized, public demand for action was satisfied by the dismissal. Dr. Rose contends that while the press reaction is considered to be important, school Board decisions, and his in particular, are not dictated by the press. Nonetheless, the issue of guns on campus is very important to the public sector and the Board is sensitive to public reaction. The subject comes up frequently at public meetings and Dr. Rose receives many letters and phone calls about what is being done to keep guns off the campuses. After the articles previously mentioned appeared in the press in this case, Dr. Rose received substantial favorable feedback regarding the dismissal action against the Respondent. The substantial hiatus between the occurrence and the subsequent dismissal action resulted from the fact that the incident was not reported for several months. When the report was received, immediate action was taken to investigate it and to take appropriate corrective action. Local school administrators are supposed to act on their independent judgement within Board set parameters. In this case, Mr. Hollis' actions caused a question as to his ability to make valid judgements on his own and requires him to be more closely supervised. Therefore, his effectiveness, in the opinion of Dr. Rose, has been diminished. Though lesser punishments were available, Dr. Rose recommended the harshest discipline be imposed here because of the severity of the incident. The decision to dismiss Respondent was based on the fact that he had a gun on campus, aggravated by the potential danger to the students. Before taking action, Dr. Rose considered the Respondent's contention that he had forgotten the gun was in the car and, in fact, he believes this is so. In addition, his investigation disclosed no facts which lead him to believe that the incident would be repeated if Respondent were to be allowed to continue to teach. He is satisfied this was an isolated case and he considered that in making his recommendation for dismissal. Dr. Rose admitted that Respondent could probably be properly disciplined by lesser action, but, if that lesser action were taken, there is, in his opinion, a substantial risk that others might not get the important message regarding the policy against guns in the schools. Dr. Rose has not received any letters from parents as a result of this incident demanding that Respondent be dismissed. Nonetheless, he believes that because of the circumstances involved and because of the policy letters of the school Board and their intent that firearms not be brought onto campus at all; and because any time an incident involves bringing a firearm onto a campus, there is the potential for the weapon to be used in a harmful way, either directly or accidentally; it is imperative the strongest possible message be sent out stating that weapons will not, under any circumstances, be tolerated on the campuses of institutions within the jurisdiction of the Pinellas County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the continuing suspension with pay be lifted but that Respondent be reprimanded and suspended without pay for ten (10) days. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2447 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. For the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. 7 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. For the Respondent: Respondent did not number his paragraphs in the Statement of the Facts, so the paragraphs will be addressed in turn as though they had been numbered. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Attorney Post Office Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Mark Herdman, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1724 East 7th Ave. Tampa, Florida 33605 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
