The Issue Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about August 2, 1977, in Duval County, Florida, did expose his sexual organs by masturbation inside a pornographic booth in the presence of a plain clothes city vice detective at a Jacksonville movie theater, and further, whether or not Ossie L. Gardner plead guilty to the lesser charge of "indecent exposure" and was fined 550.00 plus court costs, all in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example to students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. Whether or not Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent, on or about June 29, 1967, in Leon County, Florida, did solicit for a lewd and lascivious act by an offer to commit and engage in lewdness, to wit, fellatio with an employee of the Tallahassee Police Department, in violation of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct which is inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, not a proper example for students, and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's Certificate filed by the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, against Ossie L. Gardner, the Respondent. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into several stipulations. The first of those stipulations was that the statements in the Petition for Revocation of Teacher's, Certificate found under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are agreed to and established as facts in this cause; therefore, with the recitation of those facts in the following quotation, those facts under the title "Jurisdictional Matters" are hereby established. "JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS" "OSSIE L. GARDNER is the holder of Post-Graduate, Rank II Florida teaching certificate number 181441, covering Math, Emotionally Disturbed and Junior College, which is valid until June 30, 1993." "OSSIE L. GARDNER has been employed as a math/science teacher at the Juvenile Shelter in Jacksonville, Florida. He holds a tenure contract in Duval County where he continues to teach at this time. The Professional Practices Council received a report from Buford H. Galloway, Director of Evaluation and Development, indicating that OSSIE L. GARDNER was charged with Exposure of Sexual Organs by Masturbation on August 2, 1977. Pursuant to this report and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, staff of the Department of Education conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on February 13, 1978 made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that OSSIE L. GARDNER is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause on February 13, 1978, and directed the filing of this petition. The Petitioner has authority under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education to file this Petition. The State Board of Education has authority under action 231.28, Florida Statutes to revoke the teaching certificate of OSSIE L. GARDNER." At the commencement of the hearing, the parties further agreed to stipulate to the introduction of certain items of evidence without the necessity for authentication of those documents. Finally, the parties agreed to stipulate to the introduction of the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden, as a late-filed exhibit, to be used by the undersigned in the same way as the testimony offered in the course of the hearing. The facts in the case revealed that on August 2, 1977, between 3:30 and 4:00 P.M., Officer J. W. Lockley of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Duval County, Florida, was making a routine check of the J & K Adult Theater in the 400 block of Main Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This theater contains material of sexual content. Among other features of the theater are certain booths located behind a curtained area, which is separated from the other part of the establishment. Those booths have coin-operated projectors which allow for the display of preselected film clips which have been obtained from the proprietor. The booths are approximately four feet by seven or eight feet in dimension and the patron may stand up or in some cases may sit down in the booths. The booths have a further feature which is a door which has instructions that it must be closed during the course of the film being shown. On the date in question, Officer Lockley went into the area of the theater which contains the booths and observed the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, in Booth No. 8. At that time, the door to the booth was open and Gardner was observed with his sexual organs exposed, and was observed stroking his exposed penis with his hand in an upward and downward motion. A film was playing in the booth, being projected on a small screen. The film depicted sexual activity between male participants, specifically fellatio. Officer Lockley passed up the aisle from where he had observed this activity on the part of the Respondent and then returned to the area of the booth in which Mr. Gardner was located. At that point, Gardner continued to stroke his penis and to look and obtain eye contact with Lockley and then to look down at his penis. Lockley subsequently arrested Gardner for exposure of sexual organs, in violation of Section 80003, Florida Statutes. Gardner later plead guilty to a municipal ordinance violation of indecent exposure, City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. 330.124. For this violation, Gardner was given a judgment and sentence of a $50.00 fine plus $2.00 court costs. In the course of the arrest, the Respondent indicated to Officer Lockley that he had bean arrested for similar conduct before in a matter in Tallahassee, Florida. This incident pertained to a situation which occurred in the Greyhound Bus Station in Tallahassee, Florida, on June 29, 1967. At that time, C. A. McMahan, an employee of the State Prison Camp, Division of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, was working as an agent with the Tallahassee Police Department to assist in the investigation of vice activities. In particular, McMahan was assisting in the investigation of alleged homosexual activities in the men's restroom of the Greyhound Bus Station. On the date in question at around 10:00 P.M., McMahan went into the men's restroom and entered one of the closed-in stalls in which a commode was located; Gardner went to one of the urinals in the bathroom facility. Before entering the stall, McMahan observed Gardner masturbating at the urinal. McMahan then closed the door to the stall and was seated in the area of the commode when Gardner moved into the area next to McMahan's stall and continued to masturbate as observed through a hole in the wall between the stall in which McMahan was located and the area where Gardner was positioned. After a period of three or four minutes, Gardner stuck his penis through a hole in the partition wall into the area where McMahan was located. At that point, McMahan left to tell Captain Burl S. Peacock of the Tallahassee Police Department, Tallahassee, Florida, of his observation. Both of these individuals went back into the restroom, at which point Gardner was arrested. Gardner, after being advised of his constitutional right to remain silent, admitted that he had gone to the restroom with the thought that he could get some "sexual relief", and further admitted putting his penis through the hole in the partition for the purpose of getting that "sexual relief." Gardner also admitted to Peacock that he had been involved in homosexual activities as early as the age of 18 and had performed sodomy on one occasion and had been a passive partner in homosexual activities at other times. Subsequent to the June 29, 1967, arrest, Gardner received psychiatric attention for his problem. For the incidents related in the matters of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, the Respondent has been charged with violations of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 60-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code; in that his conduct is alleged to be inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience; not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Ossie L. Gardner and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. A review of those stated sections of the Florida Statutes and the The Florida Administrative Code reveals that any substantive allegations cognizable through this complaint are found in provision of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, only. Therefore, no further reference will be made to Section 6A- 4.37, 60-1 and 60-5, Florida Administrative Code. Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "(2) EXAMPLE FOR PUPILS.--Labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the principles of truth, honesty and pat- riotism and the practice of every Christian virtue." The conduct which has been established in the facts pertaining to the incidents of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure of the Respondent's sexual organs and the surrounding activities in those incidents, is conduct which shows that the Respondent is not laboring faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their deportment and morals' in violation of Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes. No other violation of that provision has been established. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, together with the preamble to the overall Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, reads as follows: "231.28 Suspension or revocation of certificates. The Department of Education shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying him the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (6); to revoke the teach- ing certificate of any person, thereby denying him the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to provisions of subsection (6); or to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person, provided: (1) It can be shown that such person obtained the teaching certificate by fraudulent means, or has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system, or to teach in or to operate a private school, or has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, or has had his certificate revoked in another state, or has been convicted of a mis- demeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, or upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seri- ously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, or has otherwise violated the provisions of law, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate, or has refused to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education or the school board in the district in which he is employed." Again, the acts of August 2, 1977, and June 29, 1967, involving the exposure by the Respondent of his sexual organs and the facts therein, show that the Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. The only other possible violation under Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, which might be argued is the allegation of possible conduct which seriously reduces the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board. The sole testimony offered in the course of the hearing which would address that substantive accusation would be that testimony found in the deposition of Otha Lee Wooden. A review of that testimony indicates that the opinion of the principal of the school in which the Respondent teaches, to wit, the school No. 182, Juvenile Shelter School, is to the effect that the facts in these cases are not known to other persons in the school. Consequently, there is no testimony to indicate that there would be any loss of effectiveness if Mr. Gardner continued to teach. No other violations were alleged or proven.
Recommendation In the course of the hearing, matters in mitigation and aggravation were considered. In that presentation, it was demonstrated that the Respondent is a teacher with an outstanding background, as revealed by his personnel file, which is the Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It was also established that the Respondent is a man of distinguished service to his country through service in the United States Army, as established in the Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 7. Further, it was established that absent these incidents alluded to in the course of this Recommended Order, the Respondent has not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Petitioner on any other occasion. Nonetheless, in consideration of the nature of his profession, it is recommended that the Respondent, Ossie L. Gardner, have his Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 181441 REVOKED for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Mail: 530 Carlton Building 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida Charles E. Grabill, Jr., Esquire 168 Blanding Boulevard, Suite 2 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Mr. M. Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Richard Witherspoon (Witherspoon), is an employee of the Broward County School Board, holding a professional services contract, and is currently employed as a teacher at Broward Estates Elementary School. On November 30, 1994, the Fort Lauderdale Police Narcotics Unit was conducting an undercover drug operation at 2146 N.W. 7th Court in Fort Lauderdale. As part of the operation, Detective Clay Barrett posed as a drug dealer. Witherspoon approached Detective Barrett and asked him for a dime bag of marijuana. Witherspoon gave the officer money and received a bag of marijuana. Detective Barrett then signaled to other officers, who came and took Witherspoon into custody. Witherspoon was handcuffed and taken to the police department's processing room, where he was photographed. Witherspoon told the police that he was a school teacher. An information was filed against Witherspoon, charging him with the purchase of a controlled substance. In lieu of standing trial, Witherspoon agreed to enter a drug intervention program through the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. As a prerequisite to become eligible for the drug intervention program, Witherspoon admitted to the presence of the drug. There were newspaper articles concerning the arrest of Witherspoon for purchasing marijuana, stating that Witherspoon was a schoolteacher. Witherspoon completed the pretrial intervention drug program. On January 30, 1996, the criminal case involving the purchase of a controlled substance was dismissed. Prior to his arrest, Witherspoon's teaching performance at Broward Estates Elementary School had been satisfactory and there had been no complaints concerning his teaching ability. After the arrest and resulting newspaper articles, there were still no complaints concerning Witherspoon's teaching performance but parents did express their disappointment in him because of his arrest. In 1989, Witherspoon was employed with the Dade County School Board as a teacher at Avocado Elementary School. On May 12, 1989, in Jefferson County, Alabama, he was arrested and charged with five counts of negotiating a worthless instrument. Witherspoon entered a bonding agreement for his release before trial. He failed to appear at trial and defaulted on his bonding agreement. Witherspoon was taken into custody at Avocado Elementary School and transported to Alabama to stand trial. He pled guilty to all five counts and was sentenced to a six month prison term, one year of probation, and charged with court costs and restitution. On October 30, 1989, Witherspoon resigned from employment with the Dade County Schools. In his letter of resignation, Witherspoon requested the Dade County Schools to send any correspondence to him at his sister's address. In July, 1990, the Florida Education Practices Commission filed an administrative complaint against Witherspoon based on the Alabama charges, seeking action against Witherspoon's teacher's certificate. Attempts to serve the complaint by mail and hand delivery were unsuccessful. Notice of the complaint was published in a Dade County newspaper on November 13, 19, 16, and December 3, 1990. A notice of the hearing on the administrative compliant was sent to Witherspoon by restricted delivery on January 14, 1991, but was returned to the Education Practices Commission because Witherspoon had moved and left no forwarding address. On February 1, 1991, the Education Practices Commission reviewed the case record. By Final Order of the Florida Education Practices Commission dated February 27, 1991, Witherspoon was found guilty of gross immorality, moral turpitude, and personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Dade County School Board. Witherspoon's teaching certificate was suspended for a period of six months commencing on March 8, 1991. Witherspoon was issued a written reprimand and was required to serve three years probation, with conditions to be met upon his reemployment as a teacher. Copies of the Final Order were sent to Witherspoon by regular and certified mail, but were returned to the Education Practices Commission, marked "Moved, Not Forwardable." Witherspoon applied for employment as a teacher with the Broward County School Board on June 18, 1991. He answered "no" on his application in response to the following question: "Have you ever had your teaching certificate from any state suspended or revoked?" At the time that he applied for employment, he did not know that his teaching certificate had been suspended. Witherspoon first learned that his certificate had been suspended during a conversation with an employee of the Education Practices Commission on November 7, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, 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 10th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5767 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Sentences 1-7 are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: The first two sentences are accepted. The remainder is accepted in substance to the extent that factually he was suspended but rejected to the extent that it implies that Witherspoon knew he was suspended at the time he made the application and that he knowingly falsified his application. Paragraph 10: Rejected as constituting argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remaining is accepted insubstance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 3: The first sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that there had been no problems with Witherspoon's teaching performance prior to the newspaper articles appearing concerning his arrest. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 4: The first sentence is accepted to the extent that that is what the Petitioner charged. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant since the Final Order came from the Education Practices Commission not from the Dade County School Board. Paragraphs 5-8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire Whitelock Soloff, Rodriguez and Williams, P.A. One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 601 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Richard Witherspoon Post Office Box 1795 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Frank R. Petruzielo, Supertintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(f),(g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2015), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. If it is found that Respondent has committed any of the statute or rule violations alleged, the penalty that should be imposed must also be determined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the documentary evidence admitted and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 823554, covering the area of physical education. His certificate is valid through June 30, 2016. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a physical education (P.E.) teacher at Oakleaf Junior High School (Oakleaf) in the Clay County School District (the District). Mr. Ford also served as a track and field coach in the District and was heavily involved in volunteer activities to encourage youth fitness. In 2008, the Education Practices Commission issued a final order which adopted a settlement stipulation with respect to a prior complaint against Respondent. The settlement stipulation “neither admitted nor denied” the factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint giving rise to the disciplinary proceeding in that case. The Scene Oakleaf is a junior high with sixth through eighth-grade students. During the 2012-2013 school year, there were six P.E. teachers who typically had classes of at least 40 students each class period. These classes made use of the baseball and softball fields, tennis and basketball courts, and the gymnasium for class time. All of the students shared what were described as small girls’ and boys’ locker rooms adjacent to the gymnasium. Students and teachers have approximately ten minutes at the end of each class period to get to their respective locker rooms, change clothes, and get ready to move to the next class period. Usually one male and one female P.E. teacher were assigned to open the gender-specific locker rooms. Until the locker rooms were opened and after students finished dressing, the students congregated in the P.E. building hallway. The space where students waited was cramped at best, and not adequate to accommodate the large numbers of students. During the 2012-2013 school year, students were expected to wait in the hallway near the double doors closest to the P.E. fields for the ringing of the class bell. Students typically stayed as close to the doorway as possible in order to ensure a quick exit. While students were supposed to sit against the wall, they often either stood near the double doors or sat with their legs stretched out into the aisle-way. Traversing the area could be a challenge under the best of circumstances. A typical day could be described as loosely-organized chaos. As described by Bonnie Lawrence, Oakleaf’s physical education department head, “it’s not that the kids are so bad; it’s just that you’ve got a large amount of students that are hot . . . they’re worked up. . . . [A] lot of them are very competitive, so they’re still bringing it into the hallway, and it just . . . is a problem and it still is a problem.” In the first week of April 2013, one of the students attending Oakleaf was a seventh grader named D.O.2/ D.O. was a relatively tall student, described as a big boy between 5’8” to 5’10”. D.O. received exceptional education services for emotional behavioral disorder (EBD). EBD students are placed in EBD special education classrooms because of emotional and/or medical issues that render them unusually disruptive and volatile in a traditional classroom setting. D.O. participated in regular P.E. classes and was assigned to Coach Rountree’s class. D.O. was a difficult student and had been removed from P.E. class the week before spring break because of behavioral issues. D.O. was easily agitated and unpredictable. When angry, he used a lot of profanity and walked very quickly. D.O. had at least three disciplinary referrals processed during the school year for his misbehavior. One P.E. teacher admitted that she had been verbally attacked by him and found him intimidating. Ms. Lawrence stated that while she had never seen D.O. attack another student, she had witnessed him hitting the walls with his fists. Because EBD students can be prone to frequent outbursts and sometimes violent behavior, they are often escorted around campus and directly monitored by a behavioral aide when the students go to lunch, travel to and from bus areas, or participate in any regular education classes. Jessica Strunz was the aide assigned to escort D.O. during the timeframe relevant to this proceeding. Petitioner relies on her testimony almost exclusively concerning what happened with respect to the incident alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. April 2, 2013, was the first school day after spring break. D.O. had been removed from P.E. for misbehavior the week before spring break, but on April 3, he was back in the gym. D.O. was assigned to Coach Rountree’s class. Coaches Ford and Rountree observed paint on D.O.’s shoes, consistent with some paint used in recent vandalism of cars in the area. They asked D.O. about the paint, and talked to him about making better decisions, and the consequences that flow from making poor choices. Coach Ford used his own vehicle as an example, and told D.O. if someone were to spraypaint his wife’s truck, there would be damages that would have to be paid, as an illustration of the consequences of bad decisions. He indicated that a perpetrator’s parents would be responsible for those damages as one of those consequences. Ms. Strunz was present during this discussion. The Incident On April 3, 2013, D.O. was again present for P.E. Ms. Strunz escorted D.O. to P.E. but soon after left the area to assist another aide, believing that D.O. was fine with Coach Rountree. Coach Rountree’s class was going to be playing frisbee on the baseball field. However, Coach Rountree would not allow D.O. to be paired with his partner of choice, because they had previously caused disruptions in the class. When Coach Rountree told him he would have to partner with someone else, D.O. became angry and started using profanity and questioning Coach Rountree’s authority. As a result, Coach Rountree told D.O. to take a seat in a chair that was on the baseball infield as a time-out. Instead, D.O. flung the back of the chair over, and Coach Rountree spoke to him in an attempt to calm him down. Eventually, D.O. sat in the chair and Coach Rountree went back to supervising the rest of his class. Sitting in the chair, however, did nothing to calm D.O. Instead, he became angrier, kicked the chair, and started yelling insults and profanity at the other students in the class. He was apparently trying to provoke a reaction from another student by making statements such as, “you’re gay, and your father’s gay,” in addition to the profanity. At some point, he got up and threw the chair down rather than sit on it. Coach Ford was in the area supervising his students, who were split between the basketball and tennis courts. He approached D.O. and told him that he thought D.O. was supposed be sitting in the chair. Eventually, D.O. sat back down, but continued to spew profanities directed at another student in his class. Ms. Strunz returned to the field at this point and found D.O. sitting in the time-out chair. As she put it, D.O. was angry at the world, upset, yelling, and cursing. Rather than approach him directly, Ms. Strunz stayed on the other side of the fence and tried to calm him down by talking to him, but D.O. ignored her. At hearing, Ms. Strunz did not seem overly concerned about the propriety of D.O.’s behavior, saying, “he just does that.” D.O.’s tirade continued, and he stood and threw the chair down the baseline from first base toward home plate. At that point, he left the infield to sit in the bleachers behind home plate. As he passed the gate near the dugout, he reached up and pulled Coach Rountree’s grade book from where it was wedged between the fence sections and threw it up into the air. D.O. then sat down but continued to curse and yell. Coach Ford came back over to speak to D.O., attempting to calm him down and talking to him about making better choices. He also called Coach Rountree on his radio about D.O. moving from the seat where Coach Rountree had directed him to sit. Coach Rountree came over to the area and spoke with both Coach Ford and Ms. Strunz, who told him that D.O. had stood up out of his seat, kicked the chair, and thrown Coach Rountree’s grade book. At this point, D.O. was sitting in the bleachers and for the moment was calmer, so Coach Rountree went back to the rest of the class, believing Ms. Strunz had the situation under control. Ford, likewise, went to direct his class to line up and go in the building. D.O.’s mood fluctuated between calm and anger. It was, at best, unpredictable. After Coach Rountree went back to the rest of his class, D.O. got up from his seat in the bleachers and started walking quickly to the doors of the P.E. building, with Ms. Strunz following behind.3/ D.O. was yelling, cursing, and saying how much he hated the school. Coach Ford followed him in in an attempt to calm him down, continuing to talk to him about the need to make better choices. D.O. was not interested. Instead, as he approached the building, D.O. told Coach Ford to “shut the f**k up,”4/ slammed his hand against the left side of the double doors, and started to swing open the door to the hallway. At this point, Coach Ford reached out and restrained D.O. from behind to prevent him from going into the hallway. Coach Ford put his right arm around D.O.’s chest and used his own left arm to secure D.O.’s left forearm to keep D.O. from swinging it, and pulled D.O. away from the door. D.O. attempted to pull away from Coach Ford, and Coach Ford had to jerk him up slightly so as to keep him from falling off balance and into the eroded area next to the sidewalk. The momentum of keeping both of them out of the eroded area propelled them over to a railing near the walkway, beside an adjacent portable. The entire maneuver by all accounts lasted a matter of seconds. Coach Ford then told D.O. he was going to release him and that D.O. needed to stay calm and stand next to the building. Coach Ford’s purpose in having D.O. stand next to the building was to minimize the interaction between D.O. and the other students in Coach Rountree’s class, who were approaching from the baseball field in order to enter the hallway. D.O. stood next to the building as instructed. D.O. was not injuring himself and was not attacking any other student before attempting to enter the building. He was, however, about to enter a crowded area full of students in an angry and agitated state soon after kicking and throwing a chair and throwing a teacher’s grade book, and while shouting profanities and what could be interpreted as derogatory comments toward other students. Shortly thereafter, Coach Rountree and his students caught up to Coach Ford, and Coach Rountree, Coach Ford, and D.O. stood at the side of the building while Ms. Strunz was standing at the railing by the walkway. Once Coach Rountree caught up to them, Ms. Strunz went inside to coordinate with another aide, and Coach Rountree directed his other students to go inside. When Coach Rountree approached, both Coach Ford and D.O. appeared to be fairly calm. However, as was the case earlier, D.O.’s mood fluctuated between extremely agitated to calm to agitated again, and he started saying he was going to sue the school. Coach Ford continued to try and calm him, but dismissed D.O.’s threat of litigation by saying something to the effect that D.O. did not know what teachers are allowed to do. Ms. Strunz returned and Coach Ford left the area to attend to his students. D.O.’s mood continued to fluctuate, and he made a statement to the effect of, “you’re all screwed, and this place is going down,” and that the school was in big trouble because he was going to sue the school. When Coach Rountree asked him what he meant, D.O. was not listening to him, but kept repeating that they were all screwed. At some point during this tirade, which lasted about five minutes, D.O. noticed that he had a small scrape on his elbow about the size of a nickel, with a small amount of blood. This observation upset him all over again, and he started walking quickly to the administrative offices, with Coach Rountree and Ms. Strunz following behind. D.O. made his way to Assistant Principal Bridget Payne’s office, with Coach Rountree and Ms. Strunz following behind. D.O. told her, “look at what one of your teachers did to me.” He proceeded to show her his arm and to tell her that Coach Ford had put him in a chokehold and threatened to put him in the hospital. Ms. Payne asked him to pull down his shirt, and he did so, showing that there was some redness below the Adam’s apple. Ms. Payne testified that the red area was about half an inch to three quarters of an inch wide, and that she could not see it until he pulled down his shirt. After D.O. finished telling his story to Ms. Payne, Ms. Strunz was asked to confirm it or say anything about it, and she confirmed D.O.’s story. The Aftermath Both Coach Rountree and Ms. Strunz were asked to write statements, and both did so. Only Ms. Strunz’s statement refers to a chokehold. Ms. Payne called D.O.’s mother and informed her of the incident, and D.O.’s mother, in turn, called the police. Ms. Payne then notified Coach Ford that the police were coming but did not talk to him about the incident. Ms. Payne also sent D.O. to Mary Blazek, the school nurse, who examined his arm and neck. She treated the arm with Bactine and a Band-Aid, which she described as “not major first- aid treatment.” Ms. Blazek also observed some redness on D.O.’s neck. She had been told that he was restrained around his neck so she was looking for redness. She did not inquire as to any other reasons that might have caused his neck to be red, and there was no evidence indicating that Ms. Blazek or anyone else observed scratches, welts, or bruising on his neck, or that the redness extended around to either side of his neck. Ms. Blazek filled out an incident report, but not until eight days after the incident when she was asked to do so. Oakleaf’s principal contacted Toni McCabe, the assistant superintendent for the District, and Ms. McCabe began an investigation into the incident. Coach Ford was suspended with pay on April 4, 2013, pending completion of the investigation. Ms. McCabe did not interview D.O. as part of her investigation and did not review his disciplinary referrals other than the one issued to him regarding his behavior the day of the incident. She only spoke to those staff members who were directly involved in the incident and could provide eyewitness testimony. Based upon her investigation, she recommended to the superintendent that Coach Ford be terminated, and although it is not clear when, Coach Ford eventually resigned. Ms. McCabe testified that when she spoke to Coach Ford, he stated that he had used a Safe Crisis Management (SCM) hold, and that a chokehold is not a SCM hold. SCM training is generally provided to administrators and those teachers working in special education. Coach Ford had taken SCM training but was not currently certified. P.E. teachers at Oakleaf had requested SCM training repeatedly, but it was not provided to them. Coach Ford denied stating that he used SCM in dealing with D.O., and denied using a chokehold. Tracey Butler is the Florida Education Association representative who attended both meetings Respondent had with Ms. McCabe regarding the incident with D.O. Ms. Ware, a District employee, took notes of the meetings, as did Ms. Butler. Ms. Butler did not recall Coach Ford ever telling Ms. McCabe that he used a SCM hold. The only mention of the term in her notes was one indicating Ms. McCabe asked if Coach Ford had SCM training. Her review of Ms. Ware’s notes indicated the same question and response, but no indication that Respondent stated he used a SCM hold. The undersigned finds that Coach Ford did not state to Ms. McCabe that he was using a SCM hold. The Criminal Proceedings As noted previously, the Clay County Sheriff’s Office also investigated the incident. The statements taken by Coach Rountree and Ms. Strunz were also provided to the Sheriff’s Office. On April 8, 2013, Coach Ford was arrested for child abuse/simple battery as a result of the incident. On May 6, 2013, he was officially charged with violating section 827.03(1)(b), Florida Statutes.5/ His case was docketed as Case No. 2013-CF-000686. On June 4, 2013, Respondent entered an agreement to go into a pretrial intervention program (PTI). Consistent with the requirements for entry into the program in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, he signed a document entitled “Plea of Guilty and Negotiated Sentence.” The State Attorney in the circuit required that in order to enter into a pretrial diversion program, defendants were required to sign a guilty plea agreement which would not be entered on the docket of the court. Upon successful completion of the requirements of the PTI, the State Attorney’s Office would dismiss the charges. However, if a defendant failed to complete the PTI requirements, the guilty plea would be filed and the defendant would be sentenced based on the guilty plea. The form that Respondent signed states in part: Specific Terms of Negotiated Sentence: My sentence has been negotiated in this case in that I will be: Adjudicated guilty Adjudication of guilt withheld And I will be sentenced to: (Please print) In the blank space provided, the following agreement is hand-written: Post-plea PTI: upon completion of anger management and no contact with the victim, D.O., the state attorney will dismiss charges. If unsuccessful, plea will be an open plea to the court. The entry into the PTI program was discussed in open court, but the evidence did not establish that the trial judge engaged in a traditional colloquy regarding the voluntary nature of the plea, and the document that Respondent signed was not docketed in the court record. On June 6, 2013, a Diversion Referral Notice was sent to the Clerk of Court by the Assistant State Attorney advising that the case was being referred to the Felony Pre-Trial Intervention Program, and that the State would file a final disposition at the time of successful completion. On July 19, 2015, the Director of the PTI program notified the Clerk of Courts that the case had been accepted into the PTI program. On October 10, 2013, the State Attorney’s Office filed a Diversionary Nolle Prosequi dismissing the charges. The Case Summary for Case No. 2013-CF-000686 indicates that the following documents were filed on the criminal docket: a notice to appear; a notice of cash bond; the affidavit for arrest warrant; warrant returned served; arrest and booking report; notice of appearance, waiver of arraignment, not guilty plea and demand for trial; information; state’s discovery exhibit and demand for reciprocal discovery; victim information form; diversionary program referral notice; diversionary program referral (accepted); cash bond release; and diversionary nolle prosequi. The document entitled Plea of Guilty and Negotiated Sentence was not filed on the docket in the criminal proceedings. The Nature of the Restraint Throughout these proceedings, Petitioner has referred to the restraint of D.O. as a chokehold. The unfortunate use of the term originated with D.O.’s comments to Ms. Payne. D.O. did not testify in this case. The only witnesses to the actual incident that testified in these proceedings are Coach Rountree, Coach Ford, and Ms. Strunz. Coach Rountree candidly stated that he did not see the entire incident. He demonstrated what he observed of the interaction between Coach Ford and D.O. His demonstration indicates that Coach Ford had his arm across D.O.’s upper chest. Jessica Strunz was described as being somewhere between three feet and 30 feet away from Coach Ford and D.O. Given the testimony regarding D.O.’s size and pace as he walked toward the gym, the most plausible conclusion is that she was somewhere between 10 and 15 feet behind him.6/ It is Ms. Strunz’s testimony that places Ford’s arm around D.O.’s neck. That testimony is not credited. First, Ms. Strunz is shorter than D.O. and possibly shorter than Coach Ford. If she was behind Coach Ford, who was behind D.O. when he started to go through the door of the gym, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to see where Coach Ford’s arm was located in front of D.O. Second, the height difference between Coach Ford and D.O. also weighs in favor of a restraint across the chest, as both Coach Ford and Coach Rountree demonstrated. Third, the redness on D.O.’s neck was reported to be just above his collarbone at the front of his neck. He had to pull down his shirt in order for the red mark to be seen. Had Coach Ford had D.O.’s neck in the crook of his arm, as Ms. Strunz testified, it seems that any redness would have extended to at least one side of his neck, and no one testified that was the case. Moreover, D.O. had been outside on a baseball field on a warm day. He was angry, had been yelling, had kicked a chair, and had thrown a chair in the 30 minutes leading up to this event. There is not clear and convincing evidence that the redness on his neck was caused by the restraint at all. The same can be said for the small scrape on his elbow. The more persuasive testimony indicated, and it is found, that Coach Ford restrained D.O. by placing his arm across the upper chest area. He did so not because D.O. had hurt himself or anyone else at that point, but based upon his concern that should this demonstrably angry young man enter the crowded hallway, the normally chaotic atmosphere with close to 100 waiting students would turn into a dangerous one with a real possibility of injury to D.O., to other students in the hallway, or both. Reasonable Use of Force The District has adopted a definition of the reasonable use of force for teachers, as required by section 1006.11, Florida Statutes. The District’s policy states the following: CLAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD POLICY 6GX-10-2.32 2.32 USE OF REASONABLE FORCE As provided by Florida Statute 1006.11, this policy establishes the standards for the use of reasonable force by Clay County school personnel. Such use shall be for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a safe and orderly environment and shall provide guidance to school personnel in dealing with disruptions to that environment. Definition of Terms: The following definitions apply to terms used in this policy: Learning Environment: All events and activities authorized by the School Board requiring an employee to be on duty in/out of the classroom setting. Orderly: Devoid of disruption or violence; peaceful. An orderly environment is one in which learning can take place. Disruption: An interruption of or impediment to the usual course of harmony. Reasonable Force: Appropriate professional conduct including reasonable force as necessary to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment. Safe: Preventing injury or loss of life, a safe environment is one in which persons are protected from injury or threat of injury. School personnel: Employee/individual hired by the School Board. Conditions that may require use of reasonable force: While use of physical force may be needed at times to ensure a safe and orderly learning environment, alternatives to such force should be attempted, time permitting. The use of reasonable force is permitted to protect students from: conditions harmful to learning; conditions harmful to students’ mental health; conditions harmful to students’ physical health; conditions harmful to safety; other conditions which, in the judgment of on-site employee(s), threaten the safety and welfare of students or adults. Guidelines for the determination of “reasonableness” of force: When school personnel employ physical force in order to maintain or restore safety and/or order to a situation, determinants as to the reasonableness of force shall include, but not be limited to: severity of the offense(s); size and physical condition of participant(s); patterns of behavior; potential danger; physical and other; availability of assistance; other circumstances surrounding the offense; and actions taken prior to use of physical force. Other factors: Reasonable force cannot be excessive or cruel or unusual in nature. Physical force being used should cease upon the restoration of a safe and orderly environment. Nothing in this policy should be construed as addressing Clay County School Board polic(ies) on corporal punishment. Use of these guidelines shall provide guidance to school personnel in receiving the limitations on liability specified by Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). There was testimony that under Clay County’s policy on reasonable force, restraint should be used only in the most extreme cases, such as when a student is going to seriously injure himself or someone else. None of those espousing this view indicated that they had ever had 40 students on a P.E. field or had ever taught P.E. Ms. Payne and Ms. Zimmerman both acknowledged that they had never done so. While such an example is certainly covered by the policy, the plain language of the policy is not that restrictive. Coach Ford testified, and maintained consistently throughout the various inquiries related to this incident, that his concern was for the safety of both D.O. and the other students in the hallway, should D.O. enter this crowded area at the level of crisis he was exhibiting in the period immediately prior to his approach to the door. Every P.E. instructor who testified emphasized that student safety is their primary concern. Here, Coach Ford was concerned about anyone getting run over or injured given D.O.’s clearly agitated state. This concern fits squarely within the policy’s directive to “maintain a safe and orderly learning environment,” including an environment which is “devoid of disruption or violence” and where “persons are protected from injury or threat of injury.”7/ It is found that Coach Ford’s actions fell within the confines of, and was not prohibited by, the District’s policy on the use of reasonable force. The Alleged Threat Ms. Strunz testified that Coach Ford threatened D.O. almost immediately prior to the restraint, saying that if he found paint on his car, he would come look for D.O. and would put him in the hospital; and that D.O. did not know what he was capable of. Coach Ford adamantly denied this allegation. These alleged threats were supposedly made just moments after, according to Ms. Strunz, Coach Ford was telling D.O. he needed to make better choices and was trying to calm him down. That anyone, including Coach Ford, would make such a statement immediately after working repeatedly to calm D.O. and after talking to him about better choices, simply strains credulity. It was not clear where Ms. Strunz was when Coach Ford told D.O. that D.O. was not aware what teachers were allowed to do. It may be that she misinterpreted this statement as a threat. In any event, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Coach Ford made any threat to D.O. Diminished Effectiveness Petitioner presented evidence of news accounts of the incident, in support of the allegation that Respondent’s effectiveness had been reduced, along with the opinion of Ms. McCabe (who believed that Respondent had used a chokehold) to that effect. On the other hand, Bonny Lawrence, the department head for the P.E. department at Oakleaf, testified that she would “absolutely not” have a problem with Coach Ford coming back on her staff. Janet Rowe, the athletic director and a P.E. teacher at Oakleaf, considers Ford to be a highly-effective P.E. coach. Edward “Smitty” Huffman, who has taught physical education for most of his 20 years in education, considers Coach Ford to be one of the better teachers he has ever known. It is found that Petitioner did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 28th day of September, 2015.
