Findings Of Fact Doris Zimmer held the position of Secretary II, Community Services Department, Ybor Campus, Hillsborough Community College Tampa, Florida, during the pendency of the accusations set forth in the Petition for Discipline. In addition, she was employed within that time period in the position of part-time instructor at the Community College. On November 14, 1978, the Respondent had received a letter from Sybil Barnes, Director, Community Services, Ybor Campus, Hillsborough Community College, stating that the Respondent had been recommended as a Community Services instructor for the Winter II Term of the 1978-1979 school year, subject to the final approval of the Hillsborough Community College Board of Trustees and subject to the possible withdrawal of this opportunity to act as instructor if the classes in question were canceled due to insufficient enrollment. A copy of this tentative letter of appointment may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The letter of recommendation indicated that if the offer was withdrawn for lack of sufficient enrollment, the withdrawal would be without compensation to the Respondent. The classes to be taught by the Respondent were non-credit classes to be held at the Ybor Campus running January 10, 1979, through February 28, 1979. The classes were STS 003-G25, also referred to as Shorthand I, and STS 004-G25, also referred to as Shorthand II. The minimum number of students necessary for enrollment to conduct the above-referenced courses was fifteen (15). The Respondent was cognizant of the minimum requirement for student enrollment if cancellation of the class was to be avoided. The only exception to this requirement was the possibility that the courses could be taught if an enrollment of thirteen (13) or fourteen (14) students was achieved, provided permission was given from the Provost at the Hillsborough Community College to hold short enrollment classes. This permission would be requested by Sybil Barnes by a written communication, to be responded to by the Provost. (An example of this form of request to allow the classes to proceed with less than the normal enrollment may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence.) Zimmer was acquainted with the procedures for enrolling students for courses with less than the prescribed number and had this awareness at the time she undertook to teach the two courses in question. When the term began for the course, STS 003-G25, twelve (12) students were enrolled, less than the prescribed number. Sybil Barnes never requested permission from the Provost to proceed with a lesser number of students and the Provost necessarily did not grant the permission. The number of students enrolled in the Respondent's STS 004-G25 course exceeded the number fifteen (15). Three (3) of the students who were enrolled in the course, STS 004-G25, were Diane Wiesman, Joan Roberts and Polly Pettus. There were approximately twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) in attendance at the first session of the course, STS 004-G25. Subsequent to the commencement of the course, STS 003-G25, Zimmer caused the names of Polly Pettus, Joan Roberts and Diane Wiesman to be placed on her class roll for that course, bringing the number of students enrolled to the prescribed number fifteen (15). This roll may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. While making these arrangements to have the three (3) students placed on the roll in the course, STS 003-G25, the Respondent completed an adjustment form which showed that Diane Wiesman had dropped course STS 004-G25 and adjusted to the course, STS 003-G25. A copy of this adjustment form may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. On the form Zimmer signed Diane Wiesman's signature with a parenthetical remark, "per dz" and stated that the reason for the adjustment was due to class cancellation. Wiesman had already received the course instruction in STS 003-G25 and she was unaware that the Respondent had completed the adjustment form, Petitioner's Exhibit 2. It was Wiesman's desire to drop STS 004-G25 and be reimbursed the $9.00 charge for the course and this is shown by the Petitioner's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. Wiesman did not want to retake STS 003-G25 and she never attended that second term 1979 course taught by the Respondent after the first night. Wiesman was also unaware that her name was carried on the class roll for STS 003-G25 in that session. Wiesman never spoke to the Respondent about the subject of dropping course STS 004-G25 and adjusting to course STS 003-G25. (The policy for dropping courses and adjusting the students' enrollment status into another course was to have the student complete the adjustment form or, in the alternative, contact the student and receive the permission of the student to make those adjustments and the Respondent understood this policy. Joan Roberts had signed for the second term 1979 course, STS 004-G25, but never attended the course. She had already taken the course, STS 003-G25, and did not wish to retake that course. Zimmer, in making the arrangement to carry Joan Roberts on the roll of her second term STS 003-G25 course, took the additional action of completing an adjustment form indicating that Roberts had dropped course STS 004-G25 and adjusted to course STS 003-G25. A copy of this adjustment form may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence and reflects the signature of Joan Roberts with the parenthetical entry, "per dz". It carries Doris Zimmer's signature as advisor and states as a reason for this change that the class had been canceled. Roberts was unaware of the fact that Zimmer had caused Roberts's name to be placed on the class roll for the course, STS 003-G25, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and was unaware of the completion of the adjustment form, Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Roberts had never authorized anyone to sign her name or to complete the adjustment form. She did not wish to retake the course, STS 003-G25, and she did not attend the second term course STS 003-G25. Roberts received a refund of $9.00 which represented the cost for course STS 004-G25. Polly Pettus never attended the second term 1979 course, STS 003-G25, taught by Doris Zimmer. Although none of the three (3) students who have been mentioned attended the second term 1979 course, STS 003-G25, taught by Doris Zimmer, other than one session by Wiesman; Polly Pettus was marked present eight (8) times and Diane Wiesman was marked present twice as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, the official class roll which was signed by the Respondent after she had marked these students present. Subsequent to the time that the matter of the students' non-attendance had been brought to the attention of the Respondent, she caused a line to be drawn through the indication of attendance. The Respondent received $192.00 in payment for instruction given in the second term 1979 course, STS 003-G25, which was short three (3) students. By way of explanation, the Respondent has indicated that she understood that she should have received their permission to transfer the students in question from course STS 004-G25 to course STS 003-G25, and that it was a mistake not to do it this time. She stated that she signed the adjustment forms thinking that the necessary authority would be given to conduct the course, STS 003-G25, in the second term 1979 with less than fifteen (15) students, but there is no indication in the record that she asked Sybil Barnes to request this authority from the Provost.
Recommendation Based upon the finding that the Respondent did violate the provisions of Section 6A-14.411(C), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Charges One (1), Two (2) and Three (3), it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Doris Zimmer, be dismissed as an employee of Hillsborough Community College, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1980.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an equivalency-of-training exemption from law enforcement officer basic recruit training.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is presently employed as a transit security officer on the Miami Metro-Rail. Respondent certified Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on August 23, 1981. However, his last day of certified employment, which was with the Dania Police Department, was July 27, 1987. Petitioner has taken no law enforcement classes since 1987. As part of the process by which he could obtain re- certification as a law enforcement officer, Petitioner tried to enroll in a 92-hour class in May 2003 at the Institute of Public Safety at Broward Community College. The 92-hour classes offered at Broward Community College fill up almost immediately after they are announced. Petitioner eventually was able to enroll for a 92-hour class at Broward Community College that started November 9, 2003. Enrollment in the 92-hour class requires Petitioner to complete basic-recruit training or obtain an exemption from such a requirement due to the completion of comparable training in another jurisdiction. Petitioner thus submitted an equivalency- of-training form (Form CJSTC 76), by which he sought an exemption from the requirement of basic-recruit training. By letter dated October 28, 2003, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was not eligible for the equivalency-of- training exemption because of a break of more than eight years in relevant employment. The letter advises that recent legislation, which had been signed into law on July 11, 2003, prohibited the recognition of an exemption after an eight-year break in employment. Petitioner has failed to establish any basis for estoppel. No one ever provided him with any misinformation whatsoever, nor, of course, did Petitioner rely on any such misinformation. Nothing precluded Petitioner from taking the 92-hour course at a location other than Broward Community College; evidently, for personal convenience, Petitioner tried to enroll for the course offered only at Broward Community College. Nothing in the record indicates if the 92-hour courses offered at other locations were as difficult to obtain. And, of course, nothing prevented Petitioner from trying to enroll in the 92-hour course more than a couple of months before the new legislation became effective.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Law Enforcement enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's request for an equivalency- of-training exemption from basic-recruit training due to the break in relevant employment of more than eight years. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S _____ 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 10th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Bo 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Debi George-Alten Post Office Box 771105 Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Brian Hirsch 5156 Northeast 6th Avenue #216 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 Grace A. Jaye Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1011542, covering the areas of Elementary Education and Social Science. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent taught sixth-grade social studies at Bob Graham Education Center (Bob Graham) in the Miami-Dade County School District (the School District). Respondent was employed by the School District for approximately eight years. This case involves events that happened while a substitute teacher was in charge of Respondent's class, and Respondent's reaction to those events upon her return to school. Respondent was absent from school on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, and left lesson plans for the substitute teacher handling her classes. The substitute teacher assigned to her classroom was a young male teacher. The substitute teacher gave the students an assignment to complete, and told them that once all of the students in the class completed their work, they could have free time. During the free time, students engaged in a variety of activities typical of sixth graders. Some played games on the computers in the room, some watched prank videos played by the substitute, some danced, some sat or stood on desks, some wrote on the smart board, and some played with the cheerleading pom poms stored in the room. At least one student used her phone to take pictures and gave her phone to another student to take a picture of girls standing on the desks. Apparently one of the girls, who did not testify, posted one or more of the pictures on social media. The social media posts were seen by Respondent. The students who testified recognized that their behavior that day was not in keeping with the strict behavioral standards maintained at Bob Graham. One student described the prank videos as not appropriate for school, and another acknowledged that use of cell phones during the day was prohibited. No one maintained that it would be appropriate to stand on a desk. As affirmed by one student, the substitute lost control of the classroom. When Respondent returned to school the following day, she became aware of what had happened in her classroom that Tuesday. The more credible evidence supports the conclusion that she saw the pictures posted on social media. While Respondent claimed that her room was in disarray when she returned, each of the students who testified denied that they left the room in that condition. Only three students testified, C.C., S.G., and N.C., and these students were all students in Respondent's second period class. It is possible that the room was in disarray based on the behavior of students in other class periods. Respondent was unhappy with the condition of her room and with the reported behavior of her students during her absence. N.C. testified that on Wednesday morning, before the second period class, word had circulated around school that Ms. Rosa knew what they had done in class the day before, so the students believed that they were going to get in trouble. When class began, Ms. Rosa told the students that she was upset with their behavior from the day before. Descriptions from the students varied, one describing her as acting like she was happy they were all going to get in trouble, and threatening them all with detentions or in-school suspensions, while another student described her as yelling at the class as a whole, but not yelling at individual students. Whether she actually raised her voice at them or whether the students were reacting to the message she was delivering is not clear. In any event, the more persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent called each child's name and asked what they had done the day before. After hearing from each student, she had some of the students line up and go to the principal's office. How many students actually went to the office is also unclear: the description ranged from all but three to only a few. At the office, the students met with Assistant Principal Jesus Mesa, who apparently issued in-school suspensions to some and detentions to others.1/ These were students who had never been in significant trouble before. Getting an in-school suspension meant that they would not be permitted to participate in clubs or remain in the National Junior Honor Society. It appeared that this consequence of the punishment they received is what upset the students the most. There were reports that Ms. Rosa used the words "stupid," and "ratched," as well as "shit" while she was talking to the students. N.C. testified that she told the class as a whole that they were stupid for thinking she would not find out what happened. There was no testimony that she described any one student as stupid. All three students testified that she used the term "ratched," although one of them acknowledged that his written statement to that effect was based upon what others told him, as opposed to hearing the term himself. None of the students knew what the term meant, other than it had a negative connotation, and none identified the context in which the word was used. The principal, Yecenia Martinez-Lopez, described the term as meaning someone was "low class" or trash. Urbandictionary.com, referred to by Ms. Rosa in Respondent's Exhibit 1, defines the word as being slang for "wretched." With respect to the use of the word "shit," C.C. did not testify that the word was used. S.G. stated that he had heard Respondent use the term, but did not testify that she used it on the day in question, and said it had never been directed toward him. He did not identify when or to whom the word was used. Similarly, N.C. testified that Respondent had used the term, but also did not give any context for its use and her written statements did not reference the term. N.C. claimed that she just remembered the use of the term while reading her statements during the hearing. Given that the incident occurred more than four years before her testimony, this claim is not plausible or persuasive. No student testified that they were embarrassed or humiliated by Respondent's behavior that day. One student described Respondent's behavior as "rude and unacceptable," and another indicated that she was scared about explaining to her parents the possibility that she would not be able to participate in clubs. The more persuasive testimony was that students felt the punishment they received (ironically, from Mr. Mesa as opposed to Respondent) was out of proportion for what happened, and were concerned with the effect an in-school suspension would have on their ability to participate in extracurricular activities. Several students went home and complained to their parents about what happened that day. Whether they were complaining about Ms. Rosa's treatment of them, about the punishment they received, or about being reported to the front office is not clear. Likewise, the reaction of the various parents is also somewhat unclear. N.C. testified that she knew the parents were talking amongst themselves, and that the parents thought that there should be consequences for the students' behavior, but that an in-school suspension was a whole other step. From N.C.'s view, the parents' concern went from concern about the level of punishment to a complaint about Ms. Rosa. What any of the parents actually thought or said remains a mystery, because no parent testified at hearing. However, on Monday, December 2, 2013, following the Thanksgiving weekend, approximately 20 parents of students in Respondent's class went to the school and met with the principal, Ms. Martinez-Lopez, demanding that their students be removed from Ms. Rosa's class. As a result of their complaints, which are identified only by hearsay in this proceeding, the punishment for some, if not all, of the students affected was downgraded to a detention. Ms. Martinez-Lopez contacted the School District's north region office to report the incident. Ms. Martinez-Lopez was directed that the matter should be handled as an administrative review, meaning she should investigate it as opposed to having it investigated by the School District, and forward her findings to the School District. Ms. Martinez-Lopez collected statements from the students in Respondent's class and prepared a report of her findings. As a result of her investigation, Respondent was issued a reprimand, and moved from teaching sixth grade to teaching second grade. No other discipline was imposed. There are two sets of statements related to this incident: one set collected by Ms. Martinez-Lopez from December 4, 2013, through December 11, 2013, and a second set collected by the Department of Education on October 10, 2014. There was no evidence presented regarding the method Ms. Martinez-Lopez used to collect the first set of statements. With respect to the second set of statements, S.G. testified that multiple students were in the same room filling out the statement at the same time. N.C. testified that she, C.C., and S.G. were called out of their English class and went to the office together, but were not in the room together when they made the statements, and did not talk to each other about what was happening. S.G.'s description of the events was the more credible of the two. Respondent is no longer teaching in the School District. She took a leave of absence after the 2013-2014 school year, and then left the School District to take a position with United Teachers of Dade. She denies that she used profanity toward the students in her class, and contends that the events as described by the students did not happen. She does acknowledge asking each student what they had done the day before and having many of the students go to the principal's office.2/ Respondent was clearly upset by the events that took place in her classroom and expressed her displeasure to her students. There is persuasive evidence that she told them in no uncertain terms that there would be punishment imposed for their behavior. There is not clear convincing evidence that Respondent embarrassed, mocked, and disparaged students, or directed profanity toward them. Likewise, it was not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's conduct reduced her effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2018, 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 30th day of March, 2018.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent Albert Forrest Taylor holds Florida teacher's certificate number 356846, issued on December 16, 1983, covering the areas of drafting and administrative supervision, and the evidence so showed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. As the parties also stipulated, respondent was at all times pertinent employed as a teacher of drafting and welding at Florida School for the Deaf and Blind in St. Augustine. He began in that job in the fall of 1979 and continued until his dismissal in January of 1985. Throughout the time Forrest Taylor taught at the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, the school's administration, in particular Raymond Butler, then supervisor in the vocational education program for the deaf, received numerous complaints from numerous students, male and female, about Mr. Taylor's "physically touching and punching, and squeezing, and coming into physical contact with" (T.91) students. Two or three times a week female students complained "about Mr. Taylor's attitude towards them; how he looked at them." (T.62). His students usually complained "about his manhandling them, or pushing them, or twisting their arm, or things of that nature" (T.95), although they also complained about his sleeping in class and his "[t]alking to them all the time," (T.92) instead of communicating with them in sign language. In general, he had no "rapport with the students." (T.92) He ordinarily taught high school students, but he began the 1984-1985 school year also teaching drafting to younger students, including six or seven mainly eighth graders, during the period that began at one o'clock in the afternoon. Nubia Argenal, who testified she was in the seventh grade at the time, was in the class, as were Sandra, Michele and Scotty Alford. Together in another of Mr. Taylor's drafting classes that year were Kim Benefield, John Sharpton, Theresa Smith and perhaps eight more students. (T.47) ALFORD On January 18, 1985, Scott Alford finished his assignment, about halfway through respondent's one o'clock class. Respondent Taylor was at another student's desk at the time. With papers in one hand and a ruled T- square in the other, Scott left his seat and began hitting an air-conditioning vent with the T-square, which made a loud noise. He "was sort of bored, didn't have anything to do, so ... [he] was tapping the air- conditioning." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, pp. 21-22. He persisted even after Mr. Taylor told him to stop and came over to him. With playful intention, Scott hit his teacher with his fist, striking his arm just below the shoulder, "what we used to call a frog," petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, p. 32, although it was just [a] light punch." Id., p. 33. Unamused, Mr. Taylor grabbed Scott by the throat and pushed him backward against some shelves. When he got loose, Scott made for the classroom door, and Mr. Taylor sent him to Brad Thompson's office. Scott recounted events in Brad Thompson's office, where Mr. Thompson, the school's coordinator of vocational services, noticed red marks on both sides of Scott's neck. After he had spoken to Scott, Mr. Thompson left to speak to Mr. Taylor, who admitted "that he did grab Scott ... [but said] that he did it in self defense ... (T.60) In the course of this conversation, certain rules were mentioned, and Mr. Taylor replied "that the rules were full of shit." (T.60) Afterwards, Mr. Thompson went into Mr. Butler's office and brought Mr. Butler into his office where Scott had been waiting. According to Mr. Butler, Scott was very upset, although he was not crying. He "was flushed in the face and [his] hair was tousled ..." (T.83), and had "red welt-type finger marks on his neck ... at least two on one side and one on the other side." Id. He admitted hitting his teacher, but indicated that this type of horseplay was common, with Mr. Taylor frequently doing the hitting. Mr. Butler telephoned Danny Hutto, Assistant Principal, who asked that the matter be investigated further. By the time other students had been interviewed, the school day, a Friday, was over. After school on Monday, Messrs. Taylor, Thompson, Butler and Hutto gathered in Mr. Hutto's office to discuss the incident. Arrogant and profane, Mr. Taylor denied touching Scott Alford's neck, saying "he more or less grabbed him on the shoulder." (T.86) Whether the confrontation one of Scott's classmates, Nubia Argenal, adverted to when she testified that respondent "tried to strangle Scotty," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 4, is the same as the imbroglio of January 18, 1985, is not clear from the evidence. SHARPTON John Sharpton, who was born December 11, 1969, (T.46) was in another of Mr. Taylor's drafting classes in 1984 and early 1985. On one occasion, Mr. Taylor grabbed John's throat, too, "or in there." (T.51) "It was a little bit red and then went away ... [with] some ice on it." (T.52) John would not voluntarily take another class from respondent for fear Mr. Taylor would hit him again. (T.52) BENEFIELD Kim Benefield erased something she had written on a piece of paper while in Mr. Taylor's drafting class one day in the fall of 1984 or January of 1985. Bits of the pink eraser (T.34) rubbed off by the erasure (T.23) fell into her lap. When she began brushing them off her dress, Mr. Taylor joined in. He touched her dress and she felt his touch "around the knee." (T.23) Kim said, "No, I will do it myself." (T.35) "Don't touch me, because it makes me feel weird." (T.22) "But he stayed just a little bit more. And he [his hand] went down ... [her] leg." (T. 35-36). On another occasion, a day after a night on which Kim had painted her fingernails, Mr. Taylor, whose son was visiting the class that day, summoned her to where he stood with his son, took her hand, and showed it to his son. (T. 23, 24) Kim found this embarrassing. On still another occasion, Mr. Taylor stood behind Kim and placed his hand on her shoulder, then in the general area of her armpit. She feared further forward movement of his hand, and, thinking "he tried to . . touch [her] breast, ... [she] put [her] arms down," (T.24) to prevent it. At the time, she was talking to a student who sat next to her, and Mr. Taylor "sort of got in between" (T.24) the two students. In a separate incident, after class one day, Kim started to leave even though Mr. Taylor was speaking to her, telling her he was going to give her detention hall. He grabbed her arm hard enough to leave three marks. (T.28-29) Kim, who was born on December 13, 1968 (T.21), would be afraid to return to a class respondent taught. SMITH One day in this same drafting class, Kim thought she saw Mr. Taylor look down the dress of another student, Theresa Smith. (T.26) John Sharpton recalled seven or eight times that respondent "flirted" with Theresa Smith, including one occasion on which he touched her just below her breast. MICHELLE Respondent once poked the end of a T-square "to Michelle's breast ... and said, `You have dirt inside your blouse ...'" Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 10. ARGENAL From time to time, respondent asked Nubia Argenal, "What is inside your blouse?" Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 29. He also asked this question of Nubia's classmate Sandra. He said to Nubia, "I like you. You're pretty. You have a pretty body. You're a pretty girl." Mr. Taylor once placed a T-square against Nubia so that it touched her breast, although his hand came in contact only with her chest at a point above her bosom. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 66. At least once, Mr. Taylor stood behind Nubia, who was seated at a drafting table, and massaged her shoulders, until her protests dissuaded him. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, pp. 55- 56. On one occasion, when she was leaning on her table, he shook the table, with the result that her breasts moved. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, pp. 52-55. Other times he took her hands and shook her arms with the same result. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, pp. 48-51. On these occasions, respondent laughed. HUGHES Jill Hughes was a junior at the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind during the 1984-1985 school year. She took drafting from Mr. Taylor, but not in either of the classes made up of junior high students. Mr. Taylor rubbed her back on several occasions. Standing behind her in class, "he kind of did his hand, lightly, over the center of . . . [her] back. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 23. Ms. Hughes explained: He was walking around the class, and he would walk over to me. Sometimes, when I asked him for help he would walk over to me and put his hand on my shoulder, and I thought at first, the first time that he touched me, I thought nothing was wrong, because I thought it was nice. And then after that, when he started moving his hand, I thought it was funny. So I didn't say anything. And then afterwards I asked for help [with schoolwork], when I was through with that, and then again I asked for help [with schoolwork], and the same thing, he moved his hand and my other friend, he did the same thing to her, touched her, the same way. And I began to notice, and I heard stories and so that was when I told him, "If you touch me again, if you touch me again, I'll tell my mother." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 21. On cross-examination, in response to the question, "Isn't it possible that Mr. Taylor was just being fatherly, paternal?", Jill answered, "I don't know." (T.24) Further cross-examination elicited the following: Q. Wasn't it possible that he was merely trying to be supportive? A. It didn't seem that way to me, not the way he touched me. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 31. Over a period of "[m]aybe two months," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 9, Mr. Taylor complimented her on her legs (great, beautiful, nice), hair (pretty, beautiful blonde), eyes (beautiful), make-up (pretty) and muscles (good). Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, pp. 7, 9, 17, 18. EFFECTIVENESS REDUCED Respondent's "actions were totally inappropriate. Because of his actions, ... he lost his effectiveness, as far as the students were concerned." (T.114) The students ... were fearful of him. And the students particularly did not want to be in his classroom. (T.114). The assistant principal at the Florida School for the Deaf "would not recommend that he teach anywhere in the State of Florida, or anywhere, period." (T.114) It is not a question of his technique in teaching deaf children (T.95-99). It is more a question of "inborn qualities, personal qualities that a person has, feeling[s] toward other people." (T.99)
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Dade County as a classroom teacher. During the 1980-1981 school year, Respondent was assigned to Southwood Junior High School as a science teacher. During that school year, Dr. E. L. Burck was the principal at Southwood. In August, 1980, Respondent applied for a part-time position teaching photography during the evenings at Robert Morgan Vocational Technical Institute. When Dr. John D. White, the vice principal at Robert Morgan, hired Respondent, he explained to Respondent that it would be necessary for Respondent to qualify for a teaching certificate in the area of photography. Respondent told White that he believed he was certifiable based upon his work experience and indicated to White that he would pursue the necessary steps to obtain his certification. At the time that White hired Respondent to teach part-time during the fall 1950 semester, White knew that Respondent was employed full-time at Southwood. During the fall 1980 semester, the administrators at Robert Morgan determined they wished a full-time program at Robert Morgan and decided that if enough students would be generated, they would need a full-time photography teacher in January, 1981. The possibility of a full-time position was discussed with Respondent. Respondent decided that if he could obtain a full-time position at Robert Morgan in January, he would pursue obtaining certification; however, if he could not obtain a full-time position, he would not pursue obtaining certification since it was difficult to teach full-time at Southwood in addition to part-time at Robert Morgan. During December, 1980, while enrollment was underway at Robert Morgan and it appeared probable that a full-time photography position would become available, Respondent spoke with Dr. Burck at Southwood regarding the possibility of transferring to Robert Morgan on a full-time basis beginning January 5, 1981, the first day of classes following the Christmas, 1980, vacation. Burck explained to Respondent the procedures relating to such a transfer of assignment and further explained that he needed to have definite information as soon as a final decision had been made so that he could initiate procedures for obtaining a teacher to replace Respondent. Just prior to Christmas vacation, Dr. White (as the potential "receiving principal") and Dr. Burck (as the potential "sending principal") discussed the possibility of the full-time photography class and the possibility of Respondent's transfer to Robert Morgan to teach that class. White explained that he did not yet know if the full-time class would materialize but that he would give Burck two weeks' notice in order that Burck could find a replacement teacher. Burck conveyed to Respondent the content of this conversation and advised Respondent that until such time as the class materialized and Respondent was replaced at Southwood, Respondent was still a staff member at Southwood and Burck expected to see him on January 5, 1981. Respondent did not report for work at Southwood on Monday, January 5, 1981, and failed to advise anyone at Southwood that he did not intend to return to teach his classes. Burck and another employee of Southwood attempted to locate Respondent. On January 6, 1981, White ascertained that there was sufficient enrollment for the full-time photography teacher's position at Robert Morgan. He instructed an employee at Robert Morgan to process the necessary paperwork to hire Respondent full-time. It was discovered that Respondent did not have, nor had he applied for, his vocational certificate covering the field of photography. Since White had told Respondent in August, 1980, to obtain certification and Respondent had apparently done nothing to do so, White gave to Respondent a deadline of Friday, January 9, 1981, to obtain verification of his ability to secure the proper teaching certificate. Also on January 6, 1981, White and Burck discussed Respondent's employment. White advised Burck that Respondent was teaching part-time at Robert Morgan and that there appeared to be a problem with Respondent's certification. Burck then talked with Respondent, and Respondent told Burck that he was teaching at Robert Morgan as a full-time instructor and that the certification problem would be resolved shortly. Burck told Respondent he needed an immediate resolution because Respondent's students at Southwood were without a regular teacher. Burck reminded Respondent that Respondent's assignment was at Southwood and that no transfer had been officially requested or granted. Burck contacted Dr. Thomas Peeler, South Area Director, and requested Dr. Peeler's assistance in resolving Respondent's status. On January 7, 1981, Dr. Peeler contacted White at Robert Morgan and advised White that Respondent was not reporting to work at Southwood. White had assumed that Respondent was reporting to his assigned school. Peeler instructed White to advise Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood the following day. On January 7, White told Respondent to report to Southwood the following day. On January 8, White again advised Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood. On January 9, White released Respondent from his part-time teaching assignment at Robert Morgan since Respondent had not achieved either obtaining the required certification or obtaining verification that he was in fact certifiable. Also on January 9, Burck contacted Respondent and advised Respondent that he had not been transferred and was still assigned to Southwood. On Monday, January 12, 1981, Dr. Peeler, the South Area Director, ordered Respondent to report to his teaching position at Southwood on Tuesday, January 13. Later that same day, Dr. Burck ordered Respondent to return to work on the 13th. Respondent told Dr. Burck that he would not return to work. On January 13, Dr. Peeler wrote Respondent, ordering him again to immediately report to his teaching assignment at Southwood. Peeler advised Respondent that his failure to report could result in suspension. In view of Respondent's continued refusal to obey orders, and in view of Respondent's advice to Burck the evening of January 12 that he would not report to Southwood to fulfill his teaching duties, a replacement teacher was located to fill Respondent's position as a science teacher at Southwood. Between January 5, 1981, and January 30, 1981, Respondent did not report to his assigned teaching position despite repeated orders from his superiors, Respondent knew that his place of employment had not been changed, and Respondent was absent from his teaching duties without leave. On January 30, 1981, a conference was held among Mr. Eldridge Williams, the Executive Director of the Office of Personnel for the Dade County Public Schools, Dr. Thomas Peeler, the South Area Director, and Respondent to discuss Respondent's repeated failure to report to work and Respondent's employment status. At that meeting, Respondent offered to return to work at Southwood on February 2, 1981; however, his position had been filled. Insofar as payroll status, Respondent was classified as absent without leave. No alternate position was available for placement of Respondent through the remainder of the 1980-1981 school year. On March 9, 1981, Patrick Gray, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Personnel, wrote Respondent regarding the south area supervisor's recommendation that Respondent be suspended or dismissed from employment. Gray's letter ordered Respondent to immediately return to Southwood or to resign or to retire in order that his employment status could be resolved. At the time he wrote that letter, Gray was not aware that Respondent's position at Southwood had been filled. In response to his letter of March 9, Gray received a letter from Respondent dated March 16, 1981, requesting another conference. A second conference between Respondent and Eldridge Williams was scheduled for April 2, but Respondent refused to meet with only Williams. Accordingly, a conference was scheduled for April 17, 1981, with Patrick Gray, Eldridge Williams, Dr. Peeler and Respondent. As a result of that conference, Respondent submitted a leave request dated April 22, 1981, requesting leave for the period of April 27, 1981, through the end of the school year in June, 1981. This request for leave was approved by Gray on August 7, 1981, retroactive for the period requested. A formal letter of reprimand dated October 13, 1981, was issued to Respondent as a result of his insubordination in refusing to report as ordered to Southwood Junior High School. During the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent was assigned to Redland Junior High School as a science teacher. Utilizing proper procedures, Respondent was absent on September 16, September 28, October 6, October 22, October 23, October 26, October 27, October 28, October 29, October 30, November 2, November 3, November 4 and November 5, 1981. On September 28 and October 6, Respondent utilized personal leave. On the other 12 days, he utilized sick leave. On November 5, 1981, Respondent advised Judy Cobb, Assistant Principal at Redland Junior High School, that he was looking for another job. Cobb advised Norman Lindeblad, Principal of Redland Junior High School, of this conversation with Respondent. On Friday, November 6, 1981, Respondent advised Lindeblad that he would not be returning to his teaching assignment at Redland Junior High School. Respondent told Lindeblad to fill Respondent's teaching position, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that he could not do so without receiving such directive in writing. Lindeblad advised Respondent that he expected Respondent to report to his teaching position on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, absent some other resolution of the problem such as approved personal leave or resignation. Late in the evening on November 9, 1981, Respondent telephoned Lindeblad at home and advised Lindeblad that he would not report on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, to teach his classes. On Tuesday, November 10, 1981, Respondent once again advised Lindeblad that he would not return to his teaching position at Redland. Respondent scheduled an appointment with Lindeblad on November 11 to finally resolve his status, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that unless verification of illness was provided, Lindeblad would commence recording Respondent's leave as leave without pay beginning on Friday, November 6, 1981. On November 11, 1981, Respondent appeared at Redland Junior High School and gave to Lindeblad a memorandum authorizing Lindeblad to replace Respondent in his science teaching position as of Wednesday, November 11, 1981. On November 16, 1981, the personnel office received an application for leave without pay from Respondent, which application was dated November 11, 1981, and which application requested leave effective November 11, 1981, due to Respondent's ill health. The portion of the application for leave requiring the signature and recommendation of the principal was not completed. Although the application required a statement from a physician justifying the request if the request were based upon ill health, Respondent provided only a short letter signed by a therapist possessing a degree in education stating that Respondent felt stress and frustration. No information regarding any physical symptoms, diagnosis or prognosis was volunteered. Since proper procedures require the principal's recommendation for extended leave, Lindeblad was asked to provide his recommendation to the personnel office. On November 18, 1981, Lindeblad sent a memorandum to the Office of Personnel stating that he did not recommend approval of leave for Respondent since no statement from a physician had been provided to verify Respondent's alleged ill health and because Lindeblad felt that the Respondent had begun unauthorized leave before he even requested leave. On November 19, 1981, Patrick Gray advised Respondent that Respondent's request for leave was not approved. Respondent was further advised that since he refused to carry out his teaching assignments for the second year in a row and since Respondent was simply attempting to obtain a teaching position in an area for which he was not certified and could not be certified, then Respondent's options were limited to either resignation or suffering suspension and dismissal proceedings. Respondent did not resign, and dismissal proceedings were initiated. Respondent was absent in accordance with proper procedures for the 14 days ending on November 5, 1981, as set forth in Paragraph numbered 24. Commencing on November 6, 1981, Respondent was absent without leave. Although Respondent eventually obtained verification of his work experience for the addition of photography to his teaching certificate, as of October 1, 1981, Respondent was still not certifiable for the reason that he still needed three full years of teaching experience and 14 semester hours of credit in vocational education courses. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Respondent had still not obtained a teaching certificate enabling him to teach photography.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, incompetency, willful neglect of duty and absence without leave; dismissing Respondent from employment by the School Board of Dade County; and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 21st day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Robert F. McKee, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Lindsay Hopkins Building 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, William B. Bailey, was a certified teacher in Florida employed by the Broward County School System (BCSS). He has been a teacher for 22 years and has taught at Markham Elementary School, (Markham) for 18 or 19 years. Respondent has generally had a good rapport with young boys. He has an adopted 26 year old son who was recently promoted to Captain in the U.S. Air Force. Allean Jones has known Respondent and his parents for many years. Several years ago she became the guardian of her grandson, Earl Edwards, who, for a long time, had disciplinary and behavior problems at home and at school due, at least in part, to his difficult home life with his natural mother who bore him at age 14. For some time, several years ago, Earl Edwards was a student at Markham of Respondent who developed a good relationship with him. While the student-teacher relationship existed, on numerous occasions, Earl went to Respondent's home where he swam, ate, played, and spent nights, always with Mrs. Jones's permission. She feels Respondent, who bought Earl clothes and paid his dental bills, is a good influence on him and she has offered to let Earl stay with him on a permanent basis. At no time did she object to Respondent's relationship with her grandson, and felt it to be beneficial rather than detrimental to his best interests. Unfortunately, Earl has left school since he graduated from Markham and she does not know where he is now. Mr. William Bell, who was principal at Markham at the time, heard about Respondent's relationship with Earl from two staff members and, without any investigation of the situation and without checking with Earl or his grandmother, concluded that since Respondent was an unmarried male, his off- campus contacts with a young male student were inappropriate and he asked Respondent to cease contact with his student off-campus or before or after school and on weekends. Had Respondent been married, Mr. Bell's reaction might well have been different. Mr. Bell believes that the Teacher Code of Ethics conflicts with off-campus contacts in such a manner as would interfere with teacher effectiveness, and parental approval would make no difference. This request to cease contact with Earl Edwards, in 1980 or 1981, somehow became a part of Respondent's record in the BCSS. No copy of any written request was produced by Petitioner, however, nor was any record reflecting it. Both Bell and Dr. Thomas Johnson, Associate Superintendent for Human Resources in the system, recall the incident, though. When requested to cease off-campus contacts with Earl, Respondent complied. In the Spring of 1986, the new principal, Ms. Dorothy Wooten, was approached by a teacher, Ms. Denise Wright, and the school counselor, who requested that she tell Respondent to leave some of her students alone and stop socializing with them when they should be in Ms. Wright's class. The students in question were Sedaniel Allen and Willie McCloud, who, apparently, would leave her class without permission and, she believed, go to visit with Respondent in his planning area. She believed this is where they went because, though she did not check on them to see where they were going, they told her that's where they were going when they asked her for permission to leave. She periodically gave it and therefore assumed that they would visit Respondent when they left without permission. Ms. Wooten did not investigate the situation herself, but, as a result of Ms. Wright's request, called Respondent in and spoke with him about the situation in the presence of the students in question and both complainants. Respondent seemed as though he would comply and she took no formal action. It appears, however, that the situation continued and a short while late, she talked with Respondent again about the same students and again he seemed to agree. It was after the second meeting that she wrote a memo summarizing the situation. After this second conference, she spoke with Ms. Linda Gaines, Sedaniel's mother, who indicated that Sedaniel had spent the night at Respondent's home without her permission or knowledge, and neither Sedaniel nor Respondent had called her to let her know he was there. When Sedaniel went to Respondent's home a second time without her permission, Sedaniel's step-father went to Respondent's home and got him. Further discussion of these incidents is found in paragraph 15 et seq. infra. After Ms. Wooten received this information from Sedaniel's mother, she wrote Respondent a letter on May 1, 1986 recounting the substance of the interview with Ms. Gaines and advised him she was referring the matter to the Internal Affairs Division, (IA), of BCSS. A week later, she wrote another letter to Respondent requesting that he restrict his contact with Sedaniel and Willie to the scheduled class time and "strongly advised" him to have no other contact with them. In a subsequent meeting held with Ms. Wooten, the students' parents, and Mr. Joseph Viens, an investigator with IA, at the investigator's suggestion, at least some of the parents indicated they did not want the Respondent to have any off-campus or extra-class contact with their children. At this point, Respondent indicated he would talk with his attorney before discussing the matter any further. Respondent took that position only after the investigator accusatorily pointed his finger at him and called him a faggot. Respondent strongly denies being a homosexual and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. By the same token, Respondent's recounting of the investigator's public accusation was not contested either and is found to have occurred. Having done all she felt was required by reporting the matter to IA and by advising Respondent in writing to refrain from further off-campus contact, Ms. Wooten felt she was out of the matter until one day in October, 1986 when she noticed Sedaniel and Willie loitering after school and not going home. When she looked into it, she found Willie sitting in Respondent's classroom with Respondent and another person. She called both Respondent and Willie to her office where she recalled her instructions to Respondent to avoid extra-class period contacts with these boys and again stated her requests. In response, Respondent stated Willie had been injured and he was going to take him home. Willie confirmed he had been injured one day around this time in an afternoon ball game and the following day, aggravated the injury at recess. When he reported this to his teacher, Mr. Collins, this individual did not consider it serious and refused to let Willie do anything about it. It got worse during the day and swelled up and after school, Willie went to Respondent's room where he saw Mrs. Ruise, Respondent's team teacher. Respondent was at a meeting away from the area. Mrs. Ruise saw that Willie's ankle was injured, but did nothing for him and when staff departure time came, left the school locking the classroom door and leaving Willie out in the hall. When Respondent came back to his classroom somewhat later, he found Willie curled up on the hall floor outside the room crying. Willie's ankle looked bad but Respondent nonetheless questioned him in a forceful tone to find out what had happened. Willie said he needed a ride home. After some serious questioning and initial refusals, Respondent ultimately relented and agreed to take Willie home even though he knew he was not supposed to have contact with him. He saw Willie at school the next day and attempted to talk with him about his ankle in the cafeteria, but was unable to do so. After school, during a conversation with Mrs. Ruise, he again saw Willie who once more asked for a ride home. When, upon questioning, Willie told him he had gotten a ride to school that morning because of his ankle, Respondent gave him a tongue lashing and told him to get someone else to take him home. As Willie told him there was no one else around to do it, Respondent reluctantly agreed and did take him home, but that was the last contact he had with Willie. It must be noted here that Respondent, on both occasions, agreed to give Willie a ride without checking around the school to see if someone else was available to do so. There was some question whether Willie was actually injured at this time and needed a ride. Ms. Wooten heard from other staff members that Willie did not seem to be nor did he complain of being hurt. By far the better evidence, however, clearly indicates that Willie was hurt on this occasion and needed transport and it is so found. Respondent used poor judgment in not looking for someone else to take Willie in light of the injunction he was under and in not reporting the contact after the fact. There is also some issue that Willie may have hidden in the car at Respondent's direction when Respondent drove him home. This is not established. Even according to Willie, it was his idea to hide to keep from being seen because of the fact that Respondent had been instructed not to be with him away from class. There is no evidence that Respondent attempted to conceal any of his actions with regard to Willie. As a result of all the above, on October 7, 1986, Ms. Wooten again sent Respondent a memo to advise him that all future incidents of unauthorized contact would be reported to IA. She was informed by IA that Respondent had had off-campus contacts with other students in addition to Sedaniel and Willie. These included Reggie Nixon, Andre Murray, and Trenton Glover among others. It was reported to her that Respondent would instruct them to meet him at a shopping center from which he would take them to his home where they would do chores for him there and at his nightclub. She felt this reported behavior, which she did not disbelieve, was inappropriate because (1) it was an abuse of his position as a teacher, and (2) a nightclub is no place for children. Ms. Wooten believes Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been adversely affected because she has heard the students are questioning his ability to control his students and are making moral judgments about his behavior in regard to Willie and Sedaniel. She has heard no specific comment by any student, however. During the period she has worked with Respondent, she does not feel there have been any conflicts which would create animosity on either his or her part. In fact, she has recommended him for several special projects which would be to his benefit. Ms. Wooten is convinced that Respondent has an ability to relate to troubled children who tend to seek him out. In fact, former students often come back to school to see him. This is both good and bad. Initially, she favorably commented on this in an evaluation of Respondent but after some of these students began making trouble, and after, at a course she took, she learned that this conduct may indicate inappropriate luring of children for improper purposes, she began to look at it differently and tried to put a stop to it. With regard to Sedaniel Allen, Ms. Gaines' dissatisfaction with Respondent arose out of an incident in April, 1986, when Sedaniel had spent the night at Respondent's home without either Respondent or Sedaniel calling to let her know he was going to do that. Prior to the weekend in question, Respondent, acquiescing in Sedaniel's request to be allowed to come over with some other boys, wrote her a note requesting permission for Sedaniel to come to his house to work for him for pay. She agreed to this and signed the permission slip but never returned it to the Respondent. Had Sedaniel returned home on Saturday night, she would not have been upset. In fact, however, Sedaniel did not come home until Sunday evening when Respondent dropped him off. Ms. Gaines and her husband were angry over this and told Sedaniel they didn't want him to go back to Respondent's house ever again. They did not pass this information on to the Respondent, however. Nonetheless, two weeks later, on a Saturday morning, Sedaniel disappeared again. When she checked around, she found that Respondent had picked him up again at the "Gate" of the housing project in which they lived. That evening, Mr. Gaines went to Respondent's house in Deerfield Beach where he found Sedaniel watching television. On this occasion, Respondent had not sent home a permission slip, but subsequent inquiry showed it was Sedaniel who initiated the visit and who had told Respondent that he had permission to be there. He had also told Respondent he had permission to spend the night on the first visit. On these visits the boys would swim, watch television, wrestle (with, on occasion, Respondent) and generally have a good time. Sedaniel indicates that he met with Respondent in his classroom after class on several occasions to discuss what would be done when he was at the Respondent's house. Some other teacher was always there when this happened. On most other occasions, Sedaniel would go to Respondent's classroom with Willie McCloud and wait while Willie would ask Respondent for a ride home. Ms. Sandra Ruise, who knew Sedaniel as one of her own students, and who was Respondent's team teacher, was frequently in the area of the room. She never saw Sedaniel in Respondent's room outside of class hours nor did she ever see any student come to have lunch in Respondent's classroom while she was there and she ate in the room with the Respondent almost every day. She knows Sedaniel's reputation for telling the truth, gleaned from discussions with other teachers and his mother, and it is not good. He has even lied about her, filing a false report about her which he subsequently recanted. Consequently, while it is clear Sedaniel did go to Respondent's home on two occasions, once without permission and once with permission for only a day visit, he was not a frequent visitor to Respondent's room outside of class hours and Respondent's relationship with him at school was not improper. As to the unauthorized visits by Sedaniel to Respondent's home, it is also clear that Sedaniel initiated the visits, begged to stay over night, and lied about having permission to be there. None of this excuses Respondent's failure to verify and have presented to him some concrete evidence of parental authorization for the visit and the length thereof, however. Sedaniel and some other boys, Willie McCloud, Andre Murray, and Trenton Glover, were with Respondent one time when he was on an errand and stopped by Club Bailey for a moment to drop something off. On that occasion, they picked up beer cans from a vacant lot and cleaned ashtrays outside the building. It well may be that the club was open at the time, a Sunday morning, (Respondent was inconsistent in his stories as to whether the club was open), but aside from Sedaniel's uncorroborated allegation that he cleaned the ashtrays inside the club, all the other testimony, including that of the other boys, indicates, and it is so found, that they did not go inside. Respondent alleges that one of the male visitors to Respondent's home on one of the occasions when the boys were there swimming made a remark to the effect that Reggie Nixon was "fine meat" or words to that effect and that Respondent immediately told this individual to keep quiet. Neither comment was heard by Reggie, though Willie and Andre allegedly did. Even if the comments were made, however, the evidence is clear that there were no approaches made to any of the boys, they were not touched or bothered in any way, and in fact, were not spoken to at all by any of the men in question, all of whom deny such comments being made. There is also no support for the allegation that one of the men asked if the boys had ever had sex with a man. What is certain, however, is that Sedaniel has a reputation for being untruthful and his report, as well as his characterization of Respondent's visitors as "faggots", is lacking in credibility. Each of the visitors identified by Sedaniel and the other boys testified at the hearing. The boys' descriptions of one or more of the men as "faggots" were based on their opinions of their hair styles, laughs, and voice patterns. This evidence is not enough to support a finding that there was anything untoward about Respondent's guests, especially in light of the youth and lack of sophistication of these boys and the unequivocal denials of Respondent and the other men. The investigation into Respondent's conduct, conducted by the school system's internal affairs division at the request of Ms. Wooten, resulted in a report incorporating much of the above information which was referred to Dr. Thomas P. Johnson, Associate Superintendent for Human Resources. Dr. Johnson referred it to a committee for evaluation which resulted in a recommendation to bring charges against the Respondent. The action here was based upon the allegations that respondent had taken students to his home without parental permission; that some of the students involved had indicated Respondent's friends were "faggots"; that there was an allegation by one of the children that they had been worked in Respondent's night club; and that Respondent had disregarded a direction from his principal to cease this activity. This all was aggravated by allegations that Respondent had been the subject of a report of similar activity several years previously which, while not resulting in disciplinary action against him, had resulted in a "Cease and Desist Order" being issued. This prior order was not offered into evidence. School officials considered that Respondent's failure to abide by the orders given him by his principal showed a lack of judgment and integrity and his invitation of the students to his home violated the ethical requirements of the Teacher's Code of Ethics. It must be noted that off-campus contacts are not, per se, improper if done with parental consent. With regard to the issue of parental consent, Respondent always sent a note home requesting permission. Sedaniel lied about having permission to spend the night on the first visit and about having permission on the second visit. If Respondent is at fault, it is in failing to insure by a phone call or by seeing the permission slip itself, that what he was told by Sedaniel was true. As to Respondent's alleged disregard of Ms. Wooten's direction to stay away from Sedaniel and Willie, the evidence is clear that Respondent attempted to do just that; that the two occasions on which he gave Willie a ride home, (the only contacts he had with Willie after the direction from the Principal), were as a direct result of Willie's initiation and Respondent's unwillingness to allow an injured boy to fend for himself. Respondent showed poor judgment here but the evidence does not support a finding of misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent be reinstated to a teaching position with the BCSS and that that he be awarded full back pay and benefits. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4727 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The witness's testimony related to Earl Edwards and was offset by Edwards' grandmother. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a FOF. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as it refers to any male in female garb which does not appear in the record as represented. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. Misleading. Respondent did take students to his home and paid them to perform chores in the yard. He did go to his lounge with some students on one occasion, but did not take them inside. 21-22. Accepted as the witness' opinion. Misleading. Sedaniel Allen, a reported liar, told Respondent not to pick him up at home. This was due more to Sedaniel's manipulation than to Respondent's actions. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent sent home a permission slip. The child reported he could stay. Respondent did not know he could not. Proposed FOF is incomplete and misleading. Accepted but phrased in a misleading way. Accepted as to the 1st and 2nd sentences. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31&32. Accepted and incorporated herein. This PFOF is misleading. The students went to the club once where Sedaniel cleaned some ashtrays outside while Respondent was doing something inside. The bar was closed to the public at the time and no alcohol was being served. The Respondent1s associates were at his home not at the club and there is substantial doubt as to the alleged comments. That the students were left at home unsupervised is contradicted by the Respondent who says his mother would come over and sit. In any case, this element is not in issue as to the charges. Accepted as to the facts, not the inferences. This PFOF does not make sense. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected in that the transcript says he went to Respondent's home on 5 to 10 occasions but did not spend the night each time. Accepted as to what the witness testified to. Use of word feminine is improper. The cousins were male but were described as feminine in demeanor. Accepted. 42&43. Accepted. Accepted (See 33, supra). Accepted. Accepted. Misleading in that this student is the one who initiated all contact after the principal's directive. Accepted as the witness's opinions--the issue of comments was not established. Accepted but irrelevant. Rejected as an improper conclusion drawn from the evidence. This PFOF is incompetent in that it is impossible to determine who is being described. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence admitted at hearing. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54&55. Accepted. 56&57. Accepted. By the Respondent 1-3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4-10. Accepted. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted. 13-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-21. Accepted. 22&23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted. 25&26. Accepted. 27-31. Accepted. 32-35. Accepted. 36-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45&46. Accepted. 47. Accepted. 48. Accepted. 49. Accepted and incorporated herein. 50-55. Accepted. 56-58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59. Accepted. 60-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. 67-76. Accepted and incorporated herein. 77. Accepted. 78-80. Accepted and incorporated herein. 81-83. Accepted. 84-90. Accepted and incorporated herein. 91-93. Accepted. 94-96. Accepted. 97-100. Accepted. 101-104. Accepted. 105&106. Accepted and incorporated herein. 107&108. Accepted and incorporated herein. 109. Accepted. 110-115. Accepted. 116. Immaterial. 117-119. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 124-125. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Leary, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 S.W. 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock and Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Leslie Holland, Esquire Staff Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent commenced the 1985-86 school year as a student in the eighth grade at Palms Springs Junior High School. By letter dated November 22, 1985, Petitioner advised Respondent's parents that Respondent "as being administratively assigned, effective immediately, to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. That letter further advised of a right of review of Respondent's placement into the opportunity school program until Respondent had made sufficient progress to be returned to the regular school program. Respondent's mother requested a hearing on that placement. On December 5 1985, a "withdrawal card" from the Dade County public schools was executed. At the hearing in this cause on March 17, 1986, Respondent testified that he has never attended the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North while waiting for review of that placement and in fact has been attending no school since he was administratively assigned. In response to questioning as to what he has been doing since his administrative reassignment of November 22, 1985, Respondent replied, "Nothing." Although Respondent's mother agreed during the formal hearing in this cause that she would place her son back into the school system and would send him to the opportunity school while awaiting the outcome of this proceeding, she has not done so. Pursuant to instructions from the undersigned, on March 31, 1986, Petitioner filed a Certification advising that as of March 27, 1986, Respondent was still not in attendance within the Dade County school system. Respondent was born on August 14, 1970.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Respondent's request for an administrative review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of May, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 486-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder Esquire 2780 Galloway Road Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami Florida 33165 James M. Ratliff Esquire Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami Florida 33147-4796 Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent Mary Ann Phillips should be assigned to an alternative school placement. At the final hearing Kenneth Rogers, Assistant Principal, Homestead Junior High School, and Angela McCrenna, Assistant Principal at Campbell Drive Middle School, testified for the Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2 and Respondent's Exhibit 1 were offered and admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact During the 1982-83 school year, the Respondent Mary Ann Phillips was enrolled as a seventh grade student at Homestead Junior High School. On or about October 7, 1982, the Respondent Phillips was referred to Kenneth Rogers, Assistant Principal, by a Home Economics teacher as part of an investigation into the theft of another student's sewing supplies. The Respondent was found to be in possession of the stolen articles which included patterns, scissors and fabrics. A letter was sent to the Respondent's mother which requested a conference concerning this incident; however, no response was received from Mrs. Phillips. On November 30, 1982, six dollars was stolen from a purse during a class when the purse was placed unattended on a table. The students who had access to the purse were questioned by Rogers, who was told that the Respondent Phillips went into the purse while it was on the table. Rogers searched the Respondent and found six dollars in one of her books. As a result of this incident the Respondent was suspended from school for ten days. On February 7, 1983, the Respondent Phillips was again suspended for ten days for the theft of $27 from the purse of a substitute teacher. As a result of this incident, Rogers recommended an alternative placement for the Respondent Phillips. Following her difficulties at Homestead Junior High School, the Respondent Phillips received permission from the Petitioner to transfer schools and enroll as a regular student at Campbell Drive Middle School, but on a probationary status. The Respondent's mother was informed that the Respondent's continued placement at Campbell Drive was contingent on no further discipline problems arising. In May of 1983, Joanna Linardi, a teacher at Campbell Drive, discovered that her wallet was stolen during one of her classes. Linardi was missing cash and a large sum of money in the form of travelers checks. The next day a purse was found which was inadvertently left in a Home Economics class. The purse belonged to the Respondent, and among its contents were Linardi's wallet and travelers checks. Based on the Respondent's possession of the checks, an alternative placement was again recommended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning Mary Ann Phillips to its opportunity school. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 17th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Handfield, Esquire McCRARY AND VALENTINE, P.A. Suite 800 - Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mitchell A. Horwich, Esquire Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools School Board of Dade County Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent, a noninstructional employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent in December 2002 to provide clerical services at Sunset Elementary School, where she worked until she was suspended, as described below. Sunset Elementary School is a magnet school that receives more applications than it can accept. At all material times, Respondent was the sole magnet clerk, who handled the vast amount of paperwork through the recruitment/application process that runs annually from October 1 through January. These duties included ensuring that the paperwork was accurate and scheduling interviews with candidates. Under her 12-month contract, Respondent was required to perform her duties from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily. A new principal arrived at Sunset Elementary School for the 2003-04 school year. Immediately, Respondent began having problems with attendance, arriving late or not at all. At first, the principal spoke with Respondent informally, reminding her of her duties and the importance that she arrive at work on time every day. When informal discussions failed to result in any improvement, the principal sent Respondent a memorandum dated September 24, 2003, identifying seven absences for various reasons and six tardies. The memorandum requires Respondent to provide advance notice of absences and a physician's note for absences due to illness. This intervention was ineffective. By memorandum dated April 16, 2004, the principal detailed 21 additional absences or tardies during the same school year since the prior memorandum. These absences included seven consecutive school days in April. As the principal testified, the main purpose of this memorandum was to learn if Respondent had quit. By memorandum dated July 21, 2004, the principal reprimanded Respondent for her excessive absences and tardies during the preceding school year. Respondent's attendance was not satisfactory the following school year. By memorandum dated April 14, 2005, the principal again reprimanded Respondent for repeated absences and tardies and failure to comply with the directives from the preceding school year. Since the memorandum of July 21, 2004, Respondent had been absent, tardy, or left early 43 times. In the six weeks since the April 14, 2005, reprimand, Respondent missed all or part of six days of work. By memorandum dated May 25, 2005, the principal reprimanded Respondent for gross insubordination due to the six absences or tardies since the April 14 memorandum. Again, Respondent failed to respond to these interventions. During the 2005-06 school year, she was absent 45 times, as advised by memorandum to her from the principal dated June 12, 2006. By memorandum dated June 13, 2006, from the principal, Respondent was again reprimanded for her absences and tardies during the preceding school year. On October 13 and 19, 2006, Respondent failed to appear at work without prior (or subsequent) authorization. Petitioner conducted a conference for the record on November 7, 2006, at which its representatives discussed with Respondent her noncompliance with attendance rules. By memorandum dated November 21, 2006, from the principal to an assistant superintendent, the principal recommended dismissal of Respondent for gross insubordination and unsatisfactory attendance. By letter dated December 20, 2006, the assistant superintendent informed Respondent of her intention to ask Petitioner, at its January 17, 2007, meeting, to suspend Respondent without pay and initiate dismissal proceedings against her, unless Respondent requested a hearing within 20 days. Respondent timely requested a hearing. Article XXI, Section 3.D of the applicable collective bargaining agreement applies to "educational support employees" and provides: Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employees' employment status shall continue from year to year, unless the number of employees is reduced on a district-wide basis for financial reasons, or the employee is terminated for just cause. Just cause includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 22nd day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire Janeen R. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Amy Marie Utrera 1201 Southwest 124th Court, Unit C Miami, Florida 33184
