Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
CHARLIE CRIST, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs LEBYYRRONN DOOMSTORM, 00-003066PL (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Jul. 27, 2000 Number: 00-003066PL Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2002

The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 6, 2000, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.

Findings Of Fact This case arises out of an incident which occurred on June 17, 1999, (June 17), the last day of the school year at Indian Ridge Middle School (Indian Ridge). The incident triggered the filing of a criminal battery complaint against Respondent, a decision by Indian Ridge’s principal that Respondent was no longer welcome to serve at that school, and, finally, these proceedings, in which the Commissioner seeks sanctions against Respondent’s teaching certificate. All of these problems are of Respondent’s own making, for the evidence establishes that he had no legitimate business on school grounds that day. In the 1998-1999 school year, Doomstorm was one of the assistant principals at Indian Ridge. In that capacity, he had responsibility for, among other things, the eighth grade class which was graduating that June. Doomstorm had proprietary feelings toward this class, referring to the members as “his kids.” He had looked forward to being with them for their graduation related activities. Unfortunately, at the end of the school year when graduation dances and assemblies were taking place, Doomstorm was on crutches and on "no-work" status due to a work-related injury. This was not the first time in the school year that Doomstorm had been on medical leave. On each such occasion, his job was performed by Katherine Sullivan (Sullivan). As an assistant principal, Doomstorm had the use of a small private office. Sullivan was properly provided full access to that office during the weeks in which she substituted for Doomstorm. Of course, public school offices and work spaces are not private property; rather, they are provided at public expense for the use of the individual who is performing a specific job. Although Doomstorm had not voiced any complaints prior to June 17 regarding Sullivan's use of this space, he viewed it as "his" office--a place he was entitled to enter at his discretion. Doomstorm harbored some resentment toward Sullivan because he believed she had "disrespected [his] pictures" when she had filled in for him on at least one occasion prior to the June 17 incident. Doomstorm, like any other school employee on "no- work" status, has no professional responsibility except to stay home, follow doctors' orders, and get well so he could return to work as soon as possible. In addition, a person on "no-work" status is prohibited from being on campus for employment-related as well as for social and personal reasons, lest his employer, the School Board of Broward County, be held liable if he were to exacerbate his injury. If an exception is to be made, it would be made by the school principal, the person who is ultimately accountable for what occurs on school grounds. Doomstorm had difficulty accepting that his injury would separate him from year-end activities and decided to come to a Saturday night eighth grade dance. School administrators or teachers who attend and/or chaperone a school dance are considered to be working, a fact that Doomstorm, as a high level administrator, was reasonably presumed to know. Thus, Indian Ridge principal Douglas Iscovitz (Iscovitz) was understandably surprised and concerned when he saw Doomstorm at the dance. Because it was a social occasion and because Doomstorm stayed only briefly, Iscovitz did not chide him for being there, but instead made small talk with him at the event. Iscovitz did, however, subsequently contact Doomstorm by telephone and instructed him not to come to campus for any reason until he was off no-work status. Iscovitz told Doomstorm that in the event he felt it necessary to be on campus, he must first contact Iscovitz and obtain permission. Doomstorm does not claim that persons on no-work status are allowed to come to campus. Nor did he challenge the Petitioner’s evidence that exceptions to this rule may be granted only by the principal. Neither did Doomstorm suggest that these facts are not within the purview of what an administrator is reasonably expected to know. Rather, Doomstorm claims much more narrowly that Petitioner’s evidence that Doomstorm had actual knowledge that he should not come to school without advance permission is fiction. This claim is specifically rejected. In defiance of the reasonable conditions to which he was subject due to his no-work status, Doomstorm drove himself to Indian Ridge on the morning of June 17. He claims he needed to pick up some insurance forms. When he arrived, Sullivan was conferring with a parent in the office formerly occupied by Doomstorm. Doomstorm entered the office, and was asked by Sullivan to give her a minute while she finished her conversation. Doomstorm accommodated that request. After Sullivan completed her conversation, Doomstorm came around to the opening of the desk and told her, "You disrespected my pictures" and "I told you not to mess with my pictures." Sullivan admits that during the time frames in which she was filling in for Doomstorm, she had moved his pictures, which had been spread out across the front of the desk so as to obstruct needed work space. Sullivan put the pictures on the credenza, but refrained from getting them out of the way entirely in deference to the fact that Doomstorm had previously requested that the pictures not be put away. Doomstorm conducted himself in a manner toward Sullivan which reasonably caused her to conclude that he was agitated and angry. He did not respond to her explanation that she moved the pictures because she needed a place to work. Doomstorm began to go through office furniture saying he was looking for insurance papers. Sullivan told Doomstorm that she had placed any mail or personal papers addressed to him inside the credenza. She got these papers from where she had been storing them and handed them to Doomstorm. The incident continued to escalate. Doomstorm turned to Sullivan and told her, "Get out of that chair, it's not yours." Doomstorm’s demeanor, choice of words, the fact that he had positioned himself so as to block the one entrance/exit to the desk area where Sullivan sat, along with the fact that Doomstorm is much larger than Sullivan, combined to make her feel frightened and intimidated. When Doomstorm next moved to the side of the entrance to pick up the phone, Sullivan squeezed through the entrance and left the office. Sullivan proceeded from the assistant principal's office to the nearby office of guidance counselor Janet Raether (Raether). Sullivan was shaken, and asked Raether to contact Iscovitz for assistance with the unfolding events. Raether reached Iscovitz' secretary Cindy Fankhauser, (Fankhauser), who in turn paged Iscovitz at his dentist's office. Raether also contacted assistant principal Paul Micensky (Micensky), who proceeded to Raether's office. Iscovitz promptly returned Fankhauser's page. Upon learning that Doomstorm was on campus and that at least some school personnel were upset by his actions, Iscovitz instructed Fankhauser to secure the assistant principal's office and to arrange to have Doomstorm escorted off campus by the school resource officer. Meanwhile, Doomstorm left the office area. Sullivan re-entered and found that the papers she had been working on had been shuffled into a big pile on the desk. She had previously organized the papers into stacks by subject matter. Doomstorm’s pictures were also spread back out on the front of the desk. Sullivan gathered her things and returned to the guidance counselor's office. As Micensky headed toward the eighth grade office, he encountered Doomstorm walking in the opposite direction. Doomstorm stopped and told Micensky that he was upset because items in his office were "messed up," and that he was looking to get a box in which to put them so he could take them home. He told Micensky that when he was previously out on medical leave, his pictures were thrown in the corner and were not taken care of. Doomstorm was sincere in this belief, telling Micensky, "I would never do that to your stuff." Doomstorm also told Micensky that he was upset with Micensky, whom he blamed for the fact that Doomstorm had not been included in a picture taken at the eighth grade dance. Micensky accompanied Doomstorm to the bookkeeper's office and waited while he had a discussion with the bookkeeper. After Doomstorm completed his business with the bookkeeper, the two began to walk toward Doomstorm's old office to enable him to collect his things. Doomstorm stopped to speak to someone in the hallway, so Micensky arrived at the office before Doomstorm. There, Micensky encountered Sullivan and Fankhauser, and another school secretary. Sullivan was visibly upset and appeared to have been crying. Sullivan was beginning to tell Micensky her version of events, but had gotten only as far as expressing how afraid she had been of Doomstorm moments ago in her office. At that point, Doomstorm entered the area, approached the closed front door of Sullivan's office, and was informed by Fankhauser of the principal's instruction that he was not permitted to enter the office and must leave the campus at once. This was the first Micensky learned of the principal's order, as well. As an assistant principal, Micensky knew, and Doomstorm knew or should have known, that all of the school’s staff are obliged to follow any lawful directive from the principal. Thus, Micensky reasonably assumed that Doomstorm would follow this instruction; the moment it became clear that Doomstorm was not cooperative, Micensky properly turned his full attention to securing Doomstorm’s removal without exacerbating the situation. Doomstorm neither complied with the order to leave campus nor questioned its bona fides. Instead, he twice stated his intention to enter the office. Attempting to follow her boss’ orders that Doomstorm not be allowed into the office, Fankhauser kept her hand on the door and her body in front of the door. In the ensuing commotion, Doomstorm states that he “accidentally stepped on Ms. Fankhauser’s toe with my crutch.” Fankhauser is convinced that Doomstorm acted intentionally to cause injury to her left foot. This is entirely possible, given the other childish behaviors in which Doomstorm indulged on June 17, but the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that Fankhauser was injured due to an intentional battery by Doomstorm. It is equally likely that the injury was accidentally inflicted by Doomstorm during the course of the scuffle over access to the office. The evidence is clear and convincing that Fankhauser's injury was the result of Doomstorm's inappropriate insistence upon immediate access to the office, with or without Fankhauser’s cooperation, and not, as Doomstorm suggests, Fankhauser's appropriate efforts to follow the principal's directive. Fankhauser’s left foot was injured severely enough to require medical attention. Attempting to defuse the situation, Micensky asked Doomstorm to go to another room to talk privately. Although neither Micensky nor anyone else in the area had proposed bringing Fankhauser with them for this conversation, Doomstorm was so upset with Fankhauser -- a woman less than half his size whom he had just injured -- that he continued to escalate the situation by pointing at Fankhauser and saying, “Not with her.” At the time of the incident and at the time of the hearing, Doomstorm was plainly offended that a secretary had stood between him and the office he perceives to be “his.” Doomstorm is of the view that there is a class distinction between "mere" secretaries, who may be ignored even when they bear instructions from the principal, and peers, such as fellow assistant principals or others who hold administrative positions. Having indicated his contempt for Fankhauser, Doomstorm was ready to confer privately with his “peer,” Micensky. Micensky and Doomstorm entered a nearby conference room. An awkward conversation followed. A frustrated Micensky raised his voice to Doomstorm, but lowered it when asked to do so by Doomstorm. Doomstorm’s demeanor alternated between being quiet and being angry. Finally, the men left the conference room and went to the office. Micensky entered and collected Doomstorm’s belongings and pictures and put them into a box. Meanwhile, the school resource officer, Diane Arndt, joined Micensky and assisted with packing and with escorting Doomstorm to his car. Upon his return to the campus, Iscovitz was briefed on his staff's collective recollection of Doomstorm's time on campus that day. Iscovitz also made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Doomstorm to obtain his side of the story. Doomstorm did not return these messages, which Iscovitz had emphasized were urgent. Following his own investigation, Iscovitz decided he would not allow Doomstorm to return to his position at Indian River. However, subsequent to his return from disability leave, Doomstorm was re-employed as an assistant principal at another middle school in Broward County. Doomstorm was also prosecuted for battery on Fankhauser. The criminal case was resolved when Doomstorm agreed to sign a letter of apology prepared by his attorney, and to complete an anger management course. Doomstorm's conduct toward Sullivan and Fankhauser created within them a reasonable belief and fear that Doomstorm is capable of repeating and possibly escalating intimidating behaviors toward them if given the opportunity to do so. Because of the events of June 17, Iscovitz reasonably lost all confidence in Doomstorm's fitness to hold a position of trust in the school in general, and in his fitness to hold a position of authority over professional and clerical personnel in general, and Sullivan and Fankhauser in particular. Iscovitz testified, "The job of an administrator is to resolve conflict, not create conflict. . . . When I returned back to school all I saw was frightened people who were totally upset, devalued, put in a position where they had to defend themselves and I just feel that is not the appropriate means that a person should employ as an administrator. So my answer would be absolutely not (be willing to work with him again)." The totality of the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the conclusions drawn by Iscovitz. The testimony of each of the Petitioner's witnesses was internally consistent, and consistent from witness to witness. It was appropriately detailed given the length of time between the date of the incident and the time of the hearing. The undersigned carefully observed the demeanor of all witnesses under direct and cross examination, and further finds that the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses was straightforward and accurate in all significant respects. Respondent did not persuasively suggest that any or all of the witnesses had any motive to shade their testimony, or that they did in fact do so. Doomstorm, by contrast, was evasive or unresponsive at various significant places in his testimony. Worse, after three years to think about it, Doomstorm took no responsibility for the distress of his colleagues, portraying himself as a bewildered victim who can't understand why all these people are imagining or making things up. Whether the injury to Fankhauser's foot was intentional, as Fankhauser believes, or accidental, as Doomstorm insists, it would not have happened had Doomstorm not ignored Fankhauser when she delivered Iscovitz' order to leave the premises at once. The clearest and most convincing evidence against Doomstorm comes from Doomstorm himself. He acknowledged that Sullivan and Fankhauser became upset when they were required, through no desire or fault of their own, to deal with him on the last day of school, but claimed to have no idea why they became upset. He dismisses the injury to Fankhauser as accidental and unintentional, never acknowledging that his decision to go to the school while on no-work status, and his refusal to leave after being ordered to do so by individuals authorized to communicate that order, inexorably led to her injury. With respect to his interaction with Sullivan, Doomstorm suggests that ". . . the conversation . . . was no more acrimonious than might reasonably be expected under the circumstances in which one employee's workplace and personal effects are disturbed by another or when one's access to the workplace is restricted without notice or reason being provided." Even if his access had been restricted without notice or reason being provided, a contention which the undersigned rejects, it would not excuse Doomstorm's behavior. The record is silent as to whether Doomstorm in fact completed the anger management class upon which his plea bargain was conditioned. If he did, the benefits were not long lasting. At the time of the hearing, Doomstorm had no apparent insight into the fact that, through his own conduct, he has destroyed the working relationship he had with three staff members at Indian Ridge, including the principal of the school, and he is not cognizant of the effect his anger has on others.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order finding Doomstorm guilty of Count V of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Doomstorm be given the following discipline by the Education Practices Commission: A letter of reprimand, a copy of which should be placed in Respondent's certification file with the Department of Education; and Probation for a period of one year, subject to reasonable conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. Such conditions might include a requirement for peer mentoring, for counseling, and additional training in anger management, as well as in conflict resolution. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 30th day of July, 2002 COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly S. Daise, Esquire 1236 Southeast 4th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Brenda D. McCaslin, Esquire 5950 West Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 William R. Scherer, III, Esquire Conrad & Scherer 633 South Federal Highway Post Office Box 14723 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

# 1
HORACE A. JONES vs ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 97-003763 (1997)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Pensacola, Florida Aug. 11, 1997 Number: 97-003763 Latest Update: Oct. 15, 1998

The Issue The issues are whether Respondent had good cause to reject the Escambia County School Superintendent's nomination of Petitioner to be principal of Woodham High School, and, if not, what relief should be granted to Petitioner.

Findings Of Fact Pensacola High School (PHS) is located in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. It is an inner city school of approximately 2000 students with a diverse population. Petitioner was appointed principal at PHS for the 1994- 1995 school year by Dr. Bill Malloy, the former Superintendent of Escambia County Schools. Petitioner served in that capacity until Superintendent Malloy transferred him in March of 1996 to the position of Director of Student Transfers. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy requiring principals to report incidents of suspected child abuse immediately to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)(currently the Department of Children and Families.) Another policy required principals to immediately report bomb threats to the district office and to proceed with the evacuation of the school property as instructed. Before school began in the fall of 1995, Petitioner assigned Kevin Sanders to be the teacher in charge of the In School Suspension (ISS) class. Petitioner made this assignment because Mr. Sanders previously had developed and successfully operated a similar class at PHS. The school district approved the plan at PHS for an ISS unit as designed by Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders also served as a weight training coach at PHS. He was not the only teacher/coach to run an ISS program for Respondent during the 1995-1996 school year. At least three other schools had coaches running their respective ISS programs in the fall of 1995. There is no persuasive evidence that the assignment of a coach to be in charge of an ISS class was in direct contravention of the Superintendent's instructions. No one ever told Petitioner that the Superintendent did not want a coach-like person in charge of the ISS class. Mr. Sanders wanted to work in the weight room at the stadium during the last period of the school day. Petitioner told Mr. Sanders that he could work in the weight room, provided he found someone to supervise his ISS class during that period. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Sanders had permission from Petitioner to take his ISS students to the stadium and leave them unattended in the bleachers. On October 16, 1995, a fifteen-year-old female student skipped school. The police returned the female student to PHS. As a consequence of her actions, the female student was temporarily assigned to the ISS class taught by Mr. Sanders. Normally, the female student attended a class for special students in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. She functioned academically on a third or fourth grade level. On October 17, 1995, Ms. Sanders took his ISS class to the stadium and told them to sit in the bleachers. He then went to the weight room leaving the class unsupervised. The female student went into one of the restrooms in the stadium. She performed fellatio on a number of male students, primarily football players, in the presence of many other students. In the fall of 1995, PHS had several deans who served the general student population. Richard Sousa was the dean of students for ESE participants. He also served as the crisis teacher for the total student population at PHS. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa saw a group of students outside the dean's office. When he investigated, Mr. Sousa found the female student sitting in a chair with her hands on her head. After Mr. Sousa closed the door to the deans' office, the female student stated that other students were falsely accusing her of performing oral sex with some boys. Mr. Sousa then took the female student to an ESE self-contained classroom so that she would not be harassed. Next, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother and reported the facts as he understood them. The mother told Mr. Sousa that her daughter was not sexually active. Mr. Sousa asked the mother to pick up her daughter from school because the child was visibly upset. Later that day, Mr. Sousa reported to Petitioner that he had heard a rumor about sexual activity occurring in the stadium, on the fifty-yard line, or on the practice field. Mr. Sousa told Petitioner that other students were teasing the female student who denied being involved in any sexual behavior. After receiving this report, Petitioner directed Assistant Principal Leo Carvalis to contact Coach David Wilson, the head football coach. Petitioner instructed Coach Wilson and Mr. Sousa to investigate the rumor regarding the sexual activity. Coach Wilson talked to the football team that afternoon. The team assured him that they knew nothing of any sexual incident in the stadium, the football field, or the practice field. Coach Wilson and Petitioner discussed the situation again later that day. Petitioner told Coach Wilson to continue to listen to what was going on among the students, to ask questions, and to make his findings known. Petitioner gave other members of his staff and faculty the same instructions. Petitioner wanted to determine whether there was any truth to the rumor about the sexual incident. He wanted to discipline any students involved, including football players. However, Petitioner did not want to accuse any student, including the alleged victim, of inappropriate behavior until he had more facts. At the end of the day on October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa did not believe that the sexual incident had occurred. He knew that special education students are often harassed, ostracized and picked on. Mr. Sousa thought the teasing would blow over and the female student could be returned to her regular classroom. Mr. Sousa expressed this opinion to Petitioner. For the rest of the week, Mr. Sousa took lunch to the female student in the ESE self-contained classroom because other students teased and pointed fingers at her. Mr. Sousa had to walk to the bus with the female student for the same reason. Nevertheless, Mr. Sousa continued to believe the rumor was false. His disbelief was based in part on the female student's persistent denials. Additionally, it was not uncommon for a rumor such as the one at issue here to prove to be unfounded. The next week, the female student requested that she be permitted to return to her regular ESE classes because she believed the teasing was over. Mr. Sousa granted the female student's request; however, after a couple of class periods, Mr. Sousa returned her to the self-contained classroom because even the special education students were saying things about her. Amanda Williams and Naomi Ferguson were guidance counselors at PHS during the fall of 1995. On October 26, 1995, Ms. Ferguson indicated to PHS Assistant Principal Sarah Armstrong that Petitioner knew about the sexual incident involving some of the football players. According to Ms. Ferguson, Petitioner was trying to cover up the situation because the football team was doing well. Later that day, Petitioner held a meeting in his office with Ms. Ferguson, Ms. Williams, Mr. Sousa, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Carvalis. During the meeting, Ms. Armstrong advised Petitioner that Ms. Williams had information from a male student (an informant) confirming the sexual incident but would not reveal her source because of confidentiality concerns. Petitioner asked Ms. Williams to speak with him in private. During their private conversation Ms. Williams revealed that an informant had given her information about a second male student who was involved in the sexual incident at the stadium. Ms. Williams gave Petitioner the names of both students. When he and Ms. Williams returned to the meeting, Petitioner stated, "I believe something must have happened. This is a credible witness." He also stated, "To hell with the football team. If these players can get away with this now, what will they think they can get away with in the future?" For the first time, Petitioner began to suspect that the sexual incident was factual and not an unfounded rumor. Ms. Ferguson revealed additional information about the female student at the meeting on October 26, 1995. Ms. Ferguson stated that the female student's mother intended to send her daughter to live with an uncle in Tampa, Florida. The female student did not want to make this move. The female student told Ms. Ferguson that the uncle had sexually molested her in the past. Ms. Armstrong stated that someone needed to call HRS to report the suspected sexual abuse by a family member. The group decided that HRS should also look into the allegations of sexual activity at the school. Petitioner instructed Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. He asked her to wait just long enough for someone to advise the female student's mother that an investigation was pending. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner ever intended to cover up the sexual incident. Likewise, he did not unreasonably delay his staff from reporting their suspicions to HRS. On October 26, 1995, Petitioner mistakenly understood that cases of suspected child abuse had to be reported to HRS within 24 hours instead of immediately. The last instructions he gave in the meeting on October 26, 1995, was to remind Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. She made that call on October 27, 1995. The female student was isolated from the general student population in the self-contained ESE classroom at PHS. Therefore, Mr. Sousa recommended at the meeting on October 26, 1995, that the school conduct an Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting to review the female student's placement. He believed that the female student should be transferred to another school so that she could attend classes with the general population. After receiving Petitioner's authorization, Mr. Sousa contacted the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) district staff to arrange for an IEP meeting. Mr. Sousa also called the female student's mother on October 27, 1995, to advise her of his recommendation. On October 27, 1995, Petitioner talked to the male student who, according to Ms. Williams' informant, participated in the sexual incident at the stadium. The male student confirmed that the sexual incident occurred in the stadium. However, there is no evidence that the student admitted his personal involvement in the sexual activity to Petitioner at that time. The police investigation later revealed that the male student was one of the students who had participated in the sexual incident. At the IEP meeting on October 31, 1995, the entire IEP team, including ESE teachers from PHS and Woodham High School (WHS), ESE district staff, and the female student and her mother, discussed the reasons for changing the student's placement to WHS. Everyone on the IEP team, except the female student, believed that she should be transferred to a new school environment with peers who did not know her. The female student begged her mother not to permit the transfer. However, the parent agreed that the transfer was in her daughter's best interest and offered to provide transportation. On November 1, 1995 or November 2, 1995, the female student was supposed to enroll at WHS. Instead, she returned to PHS. Mr. Sousa called the mother to pick up her daughter and take her to WHS. On November 3, 1995, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother. She stated that everything was all right with her daughter at WHS. On Monday, November 6, 1995, the female student's mother called Mr. Sousa because her daughter had run away from home. The mother wanted Mr. Sousa to be on the lookout for her daughter. During the conversation, the mother stated for the first time that the rumors about the sexual incident might be true because, despite her daughter's denials, it had been confirmed by one of her daughter's friends. Mr. Sousa informed Petitioner about the suspicions of the female student's mother. Petitioner then directed Coach Wilson to talk with the football team again. No one on the team would admit their involvement in the sexual incident. Petitioner also told the deans and the assistant principals to see if they could determine what had happened and who was involved. The efforts of the faculty and staff to verify the rumors were unsuccessful. On November 9, 1995, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Ferguson suggesting that he was responsible for trying to cover up the sexual incident. He also received a call from Special Assistant to the School Superintendent Jerry Watson, stating that he had heard "bad things" were going on at PHS. Petitioner called a meeting with the appropriate PHS staff to discuss information about the alleged sexual incident. They reviewed information furnished by the male students and the female student's mother. During this meeting, Petitioner expressed his concern that someone in the group was acting unprofessionally by leaking confidential information about students to persons outside of PHS. Petitioner advised the group that he would try to transfer anyone who breached the students' confidentially. Petitioner did not make these comments to threaten or intimidate his staff and faculty or to cover up the sexual episode. After the meeting on November 9, 1995, Petitioner took Ms. Ferguson's letter to the district office where he met with Sherman Robinson, Deputy School Superintendent. Petitioner told Mr. Robinson about the facts leading up to the receipt of the letter. Mr. Robinson told Petitioner to contact Joe Hammons, the Superintendent's attorney, for advice as to the appropriate action. Petitioner then made an appointment with Mr. Hammons for Monday, November 13, 1995, because Friday, November 10, 1995, was a holiday. On November 13, 1995, Mr. Hammons met with Petitioner. At this meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Hammons what he knew concerning the sexual incident. Mr. Hammons then scheduled a meeting for November 14, 1995, with Petitioner, Mr. Robinson, and two members from the school district's risk management department. At the meeting on November 14, 1995, the group determined that information available from the male students and the female student's mother, justified contacting the Pensacola Police Department. Upon leaving that meeting, Petitioner contacted Sergeant Potts at the police department. The deans at PHS generally handled all disciplinary problems until they determined that a crime had been or might have been committed. At that point, the staff involved the school resource officer. In this case Petitioner relied on his staff to investigate the rumors of the sexual incident and did not involve the school resource officer. Until November 1995, Petitioner was not aware that, if the rumors of the sexual incident proved true, a crime had been committed. Shortly thereafter, Dusty Cutler of the Pensacola Police Department was assigned to investigate the sexual incident at PHS. On November 15, 1995, Officer Cutler talked to the female student who continued to deny all allegations. The female student did not admit to being involved in the sexual incident for several weeks after Officer Cutler began her investigation. Pursuant to Petitioner's suggestion, Officer Cutler also talked to the male student identified by Ms. Williams' informant as one of the participants in the sexual incident. The female student's mother told Officer Cutler that she did not want a police investigation. The mother became upset with the way Officer Cutler was talking to her. Petitioner complained to Lieutenant Knowles of the Pensacola Police Department about Officer Cutler's "abusive" behavior to the mother of the female student. From that time forward, Officer Cutler never spoke to Petitioner even though she spent six months investigating the sexual incident on a daily basis. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner interfered with Officer Cutler's investigation or failed to cooperate with her in any way. Officer Cutler reported the sexual incident to HRS. The agency gave her the same response they had given Ms. Ferguson, i.e., HRS would not investigate or follow the case because the sexual activity was not a rape and a family member was not involved. After Officer Cutler was assigned to the case, Petitioner was instructed by the school district to do nothing further until the police investigation was concluded. The Grand Jury released its Amended Report on Pensacola High School on April 15, 1996. The report indicted several male students involved in the sexual incident. Petitioner did not have an opportunity to discipline the students because he was not working at PHS at that time. In the spring of 1996, a number of middle school and high schools in the Pensacola area received bomb threats over the telephone. PHS received bomb threats on at least three occasions. The school evacuated to the adjoining football stadium on one occasion, to the fairgrounds on another occasion, and to Pensacola Junior College on a third occasion. On March 29, 1996, about 7:00 a.m., a school secretary, received a bomb threat call at PHS. Mr. Sousa received a second bomb threat call at PHS around 7:15 or 7:30. On both occasions the caller's voice was a raspy, young man's voice. The school secretary and Mr. Sousa recognized the voice of the caller as a young man in one of the self-contained classrooms. The student had created problems in the past. Each time he behaved improperly, the student would use his raspy voice. Mr. Sousa reported the first bomb threat to Mr. Carvalis. Mr. Carvalis called Petitioner at his home. Petitioner was not at school because he was not feeling well because he had been at the emergency room much of the night before. Petitioner instructed Mr. Carvalis to initiate a search. The search included a sweep of the stadium in case the school had to evacuate to that area. Petitioner advised Mr. Carvalis that he was on his way to the school. When Petitioner arrived at PHS, Mr. Carvalis informed him of the second threatening call. The staff again assured Petitioner that they knew the caller's identity, and that both calls had been made by the same student. The student was not at school. Therefore, Petitioner directed Mr. Sousa and the resource officer, Max Cramer, to go to the student's home and request the student's parent to bring the student to school. In the meantime, a third call was received from the same caller. Next, Petitioner phoned Deputy Superintendent Sherman Robinson. Petitioner explained to Mr. Robinson about the bomb threat and the school's discovery of the identity of the caller. Jones believed from his discussion with Mr. Robinson that his handling of the situation and his decision not to evacuate the school had the tacit approval, if not the explicit permission, of the district office. Petitioner believed Mr. Robinson concurred in his decision not to evacuate. The student with the raspy voice and his parent subsequently arrived at the school. After questioning the student, Petitioner believed the student was the caller. Petitioner decided to continue the search of the school without evacuating it. Petitioner directed Mr. Carvalis and the maintenance men to divide into teams and sweep the campus using the techniques taught by a handler of a bomb sniffing dog after previous threats. On one occasion a bomb sniffing dog and his handler came to PHS from Eglin Air Force Base in Ft. Walton. The PHS campus was so large that the dog got tired and refused to work about half way through the search. On that occasion, the search continued in the same manner employed by Petitioner on March 29, 1996. During the search on March 29, 1996, seven different groups looked for anything that was out of place. All of the deans had assigned areas where they searched trash bins, open lockers, and open classrooms. Later in the school day, Mr. Carvalis reported that the entire campus, including the portables, had been swept and nothing found. Petitioner does not dispute that he did not follow the Superintendent's policy regarding bomb threats on the day in question. Petitioner believed that he knew the identity of the caller. He also was concerned about the disruption that the bomb threats were causing to the academic programs at PHS. The students in the gifted program were preparing to take their advanced placement tests. The students in the International Baccalaureate program were studying for their exams. Additionally, March 29, 1996 was the last chance for some students to take the high school competency test before graduation. Superintendent Malloy was particularly concerned that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school. The previous day he had reiterated his policy of evacuation to all principals. However, Petitioner did not attend the meeting; one of Petitioner's assistant principals attended that meeting in his absence. On March 30, 1996, Superintendent Malloy placed Petitioner on administrative leave with pay, pending an investigation of his failure to evacuate PHS after a bomb threat. Superintendent Malloy subsequently assigned Petitioner to his current position as Director of Student Transfers. On June 3, 1996, Superintendent Malloy issued a letter reprimanding Petitioner for the following reasons: (1) failing to ensure that the ISS class had appropriate supervision; (2) failing to follow up on information regarding sexual activity in the stadium in a timely manner; and (3) failing to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. In November of 1996, Jim May was elected Escambia County School Superintendent. On or about June 10, 1997, the Commissioner of Education, Frank T. Brogan, filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner in Education Practices Commission (EPC) Case Number 956-1609-B. This complaint alleged that Petitioner failed in his responsibilities to ensure that all students under his charge were properly supervised. The complaint also alleged that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. On June 24, 1997, Superintendent May nominated Petitioner to be principal of WHS. At the time of the nomination, Superintendent May was aware of the relevant facts concerning the PHS sex incident and bomb threat incident. Additionally, he had been in contact with counsel for the Florida Department of Education regarding EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. Respondent rejected Petitioner's nomination to be principal of WHS. On a 3 to 2 vote, Respondent found good cause to reject the nomination based on the following: Among the reasons articulated by the three Board Members who voted against the nomination were, in addition to the reasons presented by the other speakers, Mr. Jones' unsatisfactory past performance of his duties when he served as Principal of Pensacola High School (which events were the subject of a grand jury report and are the subject of an administrative complaint by the Commissioner of Education now pending before the Education Practice Commission proceeding, . . . his lack of subsequent training to improve his skills in the areas in which his poor performance resulted in his 1996 removal as Principal of Pensacola High School, and his apparent violation of certain of the principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, in addition to gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty in connection with the Pensacola High School incidents. In sum the three Board Members who voted against the nomination felt that Mr. Jones is presently unqualified to be a Principal. After Respondent rejected his nomination, Petitioner told Superintendent May that it was unfair to the students of WHS to make them wait for a principal. On July 22, 1997, Superintendent May nominated another person to be principal at WHS. On or about November 6, 1997, the Florida Department of Education decided that it would withdraw its probable cause determination against Petitioner and enter into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with him. The department requested the Education Practices Commission to close EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. On or about March 9, 1998, Superintendent May advised the Florida Department of Education that Petitioner had performed his assigned duties and responsibilities in a professional manner during the period of January 10, 1997 and March 1, 1997. Petitioner had fully complied with all district and state rules and regulations. On or about March 26, 1998, Education Commissioner Brogan determined that there was no probable cause to suspend or revoke Petitioner's teacher's certificate. Petitioner was released from his Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the department. Petitioner holds the proper state certification for a high school principal. Except for the two incidents in question, Petitioner's performance at PHS was exemplary. Under his leadership, the school population was stable and well under control. Petitioner created an atmosphere at PHS where high quality performance on the part of a number of students was recognized, encouraged, and supported by the faculty and staff. Petitioner had an excellent relationship with students, teachers, and the PHS Advisory Council. Petitioner genuinely cared for the health, safety and welfare of the students at PHS. He was concerned more about the feelings and self-esteem of the students than with winning academic and athletic competitions, and he did not make accusatory judgments about his students until he had the necessary facts and proof to support those accusations.

Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order finding that there is no good cause to reject Superintendent May's nomination of Petitioner to be principal at WHS, promoting him to that position, and awarding him any back pay to which he may be entitled. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.

Florida Laws (1) 120.57 Florida Administrative Code (1) 6B-1.006
# 2
SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MICHELLE S. MCGHEE, 08-000467TTS (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Sanford, Florida Jan. 25, 2008 Number: 08-000467TTS Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2009

The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's employment should be terminated by Petitioner.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Seminole County School Board (the "School Board") is the public body responsible for, inter alia, hiring and monitoring school teachers for Seminole County Public Schools ("SCPS"). Bill Vogel is the superintendent of SCPS. Respondent is a certified school teacher and has been teaching school (primarily for grades 1 through 6) for 24 1/2 years. Respondent taught school at Heathrow for 16 1/2 years, beginning with second grade for three years, first grade for two years, then third grade for the duration. On December 11, 2007, Respondent was suspended from her position as a teacher at Heathrow, because she brought a loaded handgun to school. Respondent has not worked as a school teacher since that day. The circumstances surrounding this incident form the issues in this case. Respondent has a valid concealed weapon or firearm license from the State of Florida. The license allows Respondent to carry her weapon into public places. Respondent owns a Smith & Wesson brand .357 caliber revolver which will be referred to hereinafter as the Handgun. Respondent first obtained her concealed weapons permit as a result of two incidents in her life: First, she was traveling with her husband and while staying at a motel, encountered a very threatening and frightening group of people. Respondent and her husband feared for their life and honestly believed the group of people may attempt to force their way into Respondent's motel room. Respondent and her husband felt extremely vulnerable and unable to defend themselves. Second, Respondent's home was broken into in 2004 or 2005. As a result of these incidents, both Respondent and her husband purchased handguns, took the requisite classes and training, and then obtained concealed weapons permits. Respondent took all appropriate safety classes after purchasing the Handgun. She trains monthly by firing the Handgun at a firing range and routinely reviews safety rules relating to ownership and discharge of a firearm. On December 11, 2007, Respondent was having plumbing work done at her home. Respondent met the plumber at her house at around 3:00 in the afternoon. Respondent's husband was not home at that time. Feeling uncomfortable with the presence of the plumber inside her house, Respondent took the Handgun from its secure location in her bedroom and placed it in a table drawer in the living room. Respondent sat next to that table while the plumber was in her home. Respondent's husband arrived home about 4:30 p.m. After dinner, Respondent and her husband sat in the living room for after-dinner coffee. At that time, the husband noticed the Handgun in the table drawer. It was highly unusual for the Handgun to be anywhere except its secured location in Respondent's nightstand, so he questioned Respondent as to why. Respondent told him about her discomfort with the plumber, then said she was going grocery shopping later and would be taking the Handgun with her (in accordance with her normal practice). Respondent then set the Handgun on her purse, a large black leather bag. The Handgun, in a black holster, set atop the purse and blended into the black leather of the purse. Respondent and her husband sat in the living room for a while, but Respondent began to feel ill and decided not to go shopping after all. (Respondent had recently had knee replacement surgery and was still in some pain and using pain medications.) Instead, Respondent fell asleep in the living room and then later moved to her bedroom for the night. The next morning, Respondent prepared for school as normal. She normally kept her school papers and work materials in a collapsible crate which had wheels and an extended handle. As she regularly did, Respondent placed her purse and cell phone on top of the crate and wheeled it out to her car. The Handgun was still on top of the purse, but Respondent did not notice it. Upon arrival at Heathrow, Respondent parked in the same parking lot she normally used, the one adjacent to the "bus loop" where school buses dropped off students each morning. Respondent took her crate out of her car and wheeled it toward the school building. As she crossed a short strip of grass just before reaching the bus loop, the Handgun and cell phone apparently jostled off the purse and fell onto the ground. Respondent did not notice the items fall and went on into the school building.1 A few minutes later, Lorry Coats, the school secretary at Heathrow, also parked her car in the same lot. As she walked toward the school, she saw something on the ground. Upon closer examination she found two items, Respondent's cell phone and the Handgun. Coats picked up both items and took them into the school administration building, being careful to conceal the Handgun so as not to alarm anyone. Once inside the administration building, Coats notified Dr. Barbara Nixon, Heathrow's principal, about the Handgun and cell phone. A search was conducted and Nixon determined that Respondent was the owner of the cell phone. Nixon called Respondent in Respondent's classroom and let her know that the items had been found. Respondent was very distraught when she discovered that she had 1) brought her Handgun to school, and 2) dropped it on the premises. She knows better than to bring a weapon on campus and had no intention of doing so. Nixon called Respondent to the office and then called the police to report the incident. Respondent was then placed under arrest for possession of a firearm on school property and culpable negligence (exposing a person to possible injury). The first charge was a third-degree felony; the second was a second- degree misdemeanor. Both charges were eventually dismissed (nolle prossed) by the State Attorney's Office. Respondent was then placed on suspension by the superintendent of SCPS pending a final decision by the School Board. Possession of a loaded firearm on campus is, according to the superintendent, the most serious offense a person could commit. It is the most dangerous situation for students, staff, and visitors. Respondent committed an "extreme act of carelessness" that warrants a severe penalty, according to Superintendent Vogel. Vogel addressed two other incidents involving the possession of weapons on campus, but distinguished them as less serious. The first weapons incident involved the possession of a replica weapon by a student. The student intentionally brought the replica weapon to school and brandished it in a threatening manner. The student emerged from a school restroom and took a "shooting stance" toward police officers. After failing to heed warnings and continuing to point his replica weapon at SWAT team members, the student was shot to death by police. The second weapons incident involved another teacher at Heathrow. The teacher, Mr. Diesbourg, drove to school with a BB rifle on the roof of his car. Diesbourg had placed the BB rifle on his car after shooting at a raccoon or squirrel at his house. He forgot about the rifle being on his car and drove to school. The rifle was noticed by another staff member and safely put away before being seen by students or visitors. This incident happened just eight days after the incident involving Respondent. Later, Diesbourg drove to school with a pruning saw in his car. The pruning saw, left in plain sight in his unlocked vehicle, was a "weapon" as far as school policy is concerned. Again, once it was discovered by someone, the weapon was safely put away.2 Diesbourg was given a ten-day suspension without pay for the BB rifle incident. He was given a letter of concern for the pruning saw incident. Clearly, a loaded .357 caliber revolver is more dangerous than a replica firearm, or a BB rifle, or a pruning saw. Respondent is extremely sorry that she inadvertently brought the Handgun onto the Heathrow campus. She certainly did not intend to do so and knows better than to do so. Her remorse is clear and sincere. Further, after suffering the consequences of her action (suspension from the job she loves, arrest by law enforcement, depression and loss of self esteem), there is little chance Respondent would ever make the same mistake. There is probably no teacher under contract with SCPS who would be more careful about such things than Respondent. Nonetheless, Principal Nixon has some concerns about Respondent returning to Heathrow. She was concerned that something like this might happen again (although that seems unlikely when viewing the demeanor and sincerity of Respondent). Nixon also thinks that some parents may ask to have their children transferred from Respondent's class due to their (the parents') fear that Respondent would bring the Handgun to school again. There is no competent substantial evidence to support Nixon's concern, but, of course, the possibility exists that some parents would be more fearful than others. Respondent has a clear record as a teacher. She has not been reprimanded or sanctioned in any fashion during her 24 plus years in the classroom. She is respected by peers and by her students and their parents. Importantly, Respondent loves her profession and is deeply committed to teaching children. While no one was injured or physically harmed by the incident involving Respondent's Handgun, the possibility of some harm did exist.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Seminole County School Board, imposing the following punishment against Respondent, Michelle S. McGhee: Written letter of reprimand for her negligence; Suspension from teaching from December 12, 2007, until the commencement of the 2009-2010 school year in August 2009; A period of probation for her first year back in the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 6th day of March, 2009.

Florida Laws (4) 1012.011012.33120.569120.57
# 3
BETTY CASTOR, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs JOHN A. BLUMBERG, 93-005694 (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Oct. 04, 1993 Number: 93-005694 Latest Update: Oct. 06, 1995

Findings Of Fact Admitted Facts 1/ Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 534707. The certificate authorizes Respondent to teach social studies. It is valid through June 30, 1994. Respondent is employed as a Social Studies Teacher at Osceola High School in Osceola County, Florida. He has been so employed at all times material to this proceeding, except for a suspension of five days without pay. The five-day suspension and a letter of reprimand were imposed by the Osceola County School District pursuant to a Disciplinary Agreement between Respondent and the District. The conduct that led to the Disciplinary Agreement is the same conduct that is at issue in this proceeding. In November, 1992, Respondent's classes studied the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Tim Dodson ("Dodson") was a male student in one of those classes. Dodson told Respondent that Dodson's father owned a replica of the rifle used to assassinate President Kennedy. Respondent sent a note to Dodson's father requesting that Dodson bring the rifle to Respondent's class. Dodson brought the rifle to Respondent's class during the week of November 16, 1992. On November 18, 1992, Respondent took his class outside to the football field. Dodson climbed to the top of an observation tower and fired two rounds of live ammunition at a target located on the ground. Purpose The purpose of firing the rifle from the observation tower was to simulate the angle of fire from Lee Harvey Oswald to President Kennedy in 1963. The firing time was not part of the simulation. Out of concern for safety, Respondent did not permit Dodson to fire the rifle in the same time that Oswald fired his rifle. The three story observation tower on the football field was lower than the fifth story of the book depository in Dallas, Texas. However, the distance from the observation tower to the target was also shorter than the distance from the book depository to President Kennedy. Respondent determined that the angle created by the lower tower and shorter distance in the simulation approximated the actual angle of fire in the assassination of President Kennedy. The target was a metal military helmet resting on a two- by-four board. The target was set at approximately the same height that President Kennedy was positioned in 1963. Prior to November 18, 1992, Respondent's students studied the assassination of President Kennedy and watched the "Zapruder" film of the assassination. On November 18, 1992, students witnessed the simulation and inspected the target after the simulation. They then wrote papers on the assassination and the "lone gunman" theory. Procedure The simulation was originally scheduled for November 16, 1992. Respondent cancelled that simulation because of trouble with the bolt action in the rifle and because of rain. On November 18, 1992, Respondent prescribed specific procedures to be followed during the simulation. Dodson carried the rifle. A second student carried the bolt action. A third student carried the ammunition. A fourth student was designated as a "backup shooter" in the event Dodson missed the target. Both Dodson and the backup shooter were excellent shots and had significant experience with firearms. Respondent, the three students carrying the rifle parts and ammunition, and the backup shooter climbed to the top of the tower. The tower platform was approximately 48 square feet. Respondent instructed Dodson to shoot only on Respondent's command. Respondent also instructed Dodson not to shoot if Dodson saw anyone in the vicinity. Respondent descended the observation tower and remained on the ground with the rest of the students in his class. Respondent and the students on the ground stood behind the shooter and the observation tower. The three students who remained on the platform with Dodson stood behind Dodson. Dodson assembled the rifle and loaded it. On Respondent's command from the ground, Dodson fired two shots at the target. One round hit the target; the other hit the ground. Dodson took the bolt action from the rifle and handed it to the designated student. Dodson and the other three students descended the tower. They inspected the target with the students on the ground and returned to class with the other students. Neither Respondent, any other school official, nor any other competent adult was on the tower platform with Dodson and the other three students. Dodson and the other three students on the platform were not supervised immediately before, during, and after Dodson fired the rifle. Vicinity The observation tower was located approximately 400 feet west of the nearest campus building; in a vacant football field-track-and-parking complex (the "complex"). The complex is approximately 500 feet wide, east to west, and approximately 1,200 feet long, north to south. The observation tower was situated approximately 300 feet west of the east boundary, midway between the north and south boundaries, and 200 feet east of the west boundary. The west boundary of the complex is formed by a drainage ditch that runs the entire 1,200 feet between the complex's north and south boundaries. At its closest point, the drainage ditch was approximately 200 feet west of the observation tower. The target was located approximately 250 feet southwest of the observation tower. It was approximately 10 feet in front of the drainage ditch. The drainage ditch is approximately 25 feet deep. On the west side of the drainage ditch, and adjacent to it, is a line of trees, shrubs, and a six foot chain link fence (the "ditch and tree line"). West of the ditch and tree line are athletic fields used only in the Spring. West of the athletic fields are vacant lands owned by the airport. On November 18, 1992, students and maintenance workers had access to the complex where the observation tower was located. Respondent investigated the complex surrounding the observation tower up to the ditch and tree line. Respondent correctly determined that no one was present in the area Respondent inspected. Students and maintenance workers also had access to the athletic fields west of the ditch and tree line. Although Respondent did not inspect that area, no students were in fact present in the uninspected area. Unknown to Respondent and his students, three maintenance workers were present in the uninspected area. The workers parked their trucks on the softball field between first and second base. They were parked approximately 500 feet west of the ditch and tree line. The maintenance workers were not in the line of fire. They parked their trucks approximately 700 feet due west of the observation tower and approximately 600 feet northwest of the target. The target was approximately 250 southwest of the observation tower and east of the ditch and tree line. Approximately two minutes after parking their trucks on the softball field, the three maintenance workers heard a shot. Two of the maintenance workers left their vehicle. They walked over to the ditch and tree line to investigate the shot. One of the workers walked to a clear spot in the tree line. He tried to look over the top of "some pretty good-sized brush" growing in the clear spot. He saw "three or four kids' heads" on top of the observation tower. The workers found nothing else, returned to their trucks, and completed their duties. Embarrassment And Disparagement Petitioner did not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e). 2/ Dodson was proud of his role in the simulation. Students uniformly considered the simulation to be a positive learning experience. Although the simulation received significant notoriety in the community through local media coverage and community attention, no student felt embarrassed or disparaged by either the notoriety or the simulation. The notoriety that did occur and any embarrassment or disparagement that may have occurred, if any, was not intended by Respondent. Learning Experience And Mental Health Or Safety Respondent did not fail to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to students' mental health or safety within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code 6B-1.006(3)(a). 3/ The simulation was a positive learning experience. Students described the learning experience as "great" and "interesting." Almost two years after the simulation, students involved in the simulation were excited about their experience and remembered what they had learned about a significant episode in American history. Physical Health Or Safety Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical health or safety in violation of Florida Administrative Code 6B-1.006(3)(a). The effort made by Respondent was not reasonable, and it failed in fact to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety and to their physical health. Unreasonable Effort The effort made by Respondent was unreasonable in three respects. First, it was not reasonable for Respondent to conduct the simulation in the absence of prior notice to, and written authority from, the appropriate school and law enforcement officials. Second, it was not reasonable for Respondent to sanction the possession of a rifle and the firing of live ammunition on campus. Finally, it was not reasonable for Respondent to conduct the simulation without appropriate supervision on the tower platform. 7.01(a) Prior Notice And Consent Prior notice to school and law enforcement officials would have given those officials an opportunity to determine if the simulation was appropriate under any circumstances. If those officials determined that the simulation was appropriate, they would then have had the opportunity to determine the level of supervision required to conduct the simulation in a manner that protected students from conditions harmful to their physical health and safety. By unilaterally determining that the simulation and attendant conditions were appropriate, Respondent denied school and law enforcement officials the opportunity make their own decisions and exposed those officials to potential liability for any actual harm to the students that may have occurred. It was unreasonable to expose those officials to such liability without their prior knowledge and consent. 7.01(b) Sanctioned Use Of Firearms The sanctioned use of a rifle and live ammunition on campus was unreasonable. It creates a risk that students will draw an incorrect inference from the simulation. Respondent testified in the formal hearing that he was under the mistaken impression that it was okay to permit firearms on campus. He based his impression on the fact that the principal had previously condoned the presence of a firearm in Respondent's class, that Respondent had seen ROTC members and police liaison officers present on campus with guns, and that Respondent had also previously witnessed civil war reenactments on campus and mistakenly assumed that the participants used live ammunition. Respondent drew an incorrect inference from the sanctioned presence of firearms on campus. If a person of Respondent's education, experience, and intelligence can draw an incorrect inference from the sanctioned presence of firearms on campus, there is at least an equal risk that Respondent's youthful and inexperienced students will draw a similar inference from the use of a firearm that is sanctioned by Respondent. Respondent's failure to consider this factor rendered his effort unreasonable. 4/ 7.01(c) Inadequate Supervision Respondent's effort to protect his students from harmful conditions was also unreasonable because Respondent failed to provide adequate supervision for students on the tower platform. The failure to have, at a minimum, at least one school official, law enforcement official, or other competent adult on the tower platform with Dodson and his companions was not a reasonable effort to protect students on the platform and students on the ground from harmful conditions. Harmful Conditions The effort actually made by Respondent failed, in fact, to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety. The effort created unsafe conditions including the possession and discharge of a rifle, loaded with live ammunition, by an unsupervised high school student, positioned on top of a three story tower, accompanied by three other students who were also unsupervised, while Respondent and the other students observed from the ground three stories below. Those conditions were unsafe and, therefore, failed to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety. The conditions of the simulation threatened harm to the students physical health by creating a risk of actual harm. The conditions were, therefore, harmful to the students' physical health for purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The harm that students were threatened with included serious injury or death. A misfire could have resulted in serious injury or death to any of the students on the ground or on the platform. Similarly, a fall from a height of three stories could have resulted in serious injury or death to any of the four students on the platform. Mitigating Factors The physical health of any one student was not in fact harmed as a result of the simulation. The angle of the rifle to the target, the depth of the ditch, and the density of the tree line made it unlikely that a bullet fired at the target would hit anything except the target, the ground, or the ditch and tree line. Dodson and the "backup shooter" had substantial experience with firearms and were expert marksmen. Those factors diminished the possibility of a misfire and the possibility that bullets fired at the target would hit anything other than the target or the ditch. The bullets, in fact, struck only the target or the ditch. No students other than those involved in the simulation were present in the complex. No students were present in the uninspected area west of the ditch and tree line. No person who was not a student was injured as a result of the simulation. The maintenance workers were not in the line of fire and were not in fact harmed. Respondent did not fail to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical health or safety before and after the simulation. Respondent gave Dodson specific instructions before Dodson brought the rifle to school. Pursuant to Respondent's instructions, Dodson removed the bolt action from the rifle, put the rifle in his car, locked the rifle in his car, and went to class. Respondent and Dodson immediately retrieved the rifle from the car and carried the separate parts of the rifle and the ammunition back to the classroom. Respondent followed adequate safety precautions before and after the simulation. The unloaded rifle, the bolt action that had been removed from the rifle, and the ammunition were kept locked in Respondent's closet in his classroom. The only times that the rifle was not locked in the closet was during the simulation and when Respondent permitted his students to view the rifle when it was first brought to school. The only time that the rifle was harmful was on the platform immediately before, during, and after it was fired. Earlier in the school year, school officials condoned the presence of a World War II rifle brought into Respondent's class without notice to school officials and without their prior consent. The school principal entered Respondent's classroom on other business and saw Respondent and other students inspecting the rifle. The principal did not object to the presence of the rifle and joked about students wanting to get rid of the principal. The school principal encouraged Respondent to use simulations. At a meeting of social studies teachers conducted in the beginning of the school year, the school principal encouraged those teachers to take teaching risks and to use new and unconventional methods for reaching students. Simulations were included in the methods suggested by the principal. 5/ Respondent is highly regarded by students. They give him high marks for bringing his subject matter to life. He frequently uses films, demonstrations, and simulations to capture students' interest through visual history. Students in Respondent's classes learn, enjoy learning, and retain what they learn. Other students try to get into Respondent's classes. Respondent is highly regarded by his employer. The Assistant Principal of Osceola High School testified: He is a very good teacher, very effective. Kids love him. He works very hard. He loves teaching. He is passionate with his subject. When I . . . observe him, I get so involved that I don't want to leave. Respondent's employment assessment for the last two years has been "excellent." The abilities and skills that Respondent brings to the classroom are significant resources for students and provide them with substantial benefits. School officials arranged for Respondent to complete his five-day suspension so that he did not miss any time in the classroom. Respondent is highly respected by the school faculty. Respondent's role in the simulation conducted on November 18, 1992, did not diminish the respect Respondent has earned from his peers. The faculty at Osceola High School voted Respondent teacher of the year for the 1993-94 school year. Respondent was runner-up for teacher of the year in the 1992-93 school year, the year that Respondent conducted the simulation. Respondent is a well educated public school teacher. Respondent received his undergraduate degree from Central Michigan University, a teachers college. He received a master's degree in education, curriculum, and instruction from Michigan State University. Respondent received a specialist degree in leadership (i.e., administration) from the University of Central Florida. A specialist degree is awarded to persons who hold a master's degree and successfully complete all of the requirements for a doctorate except the dissertation. Respondent is presently a doctoral student in leadership at the University of Central Florida. Respondent has significant teaching experience. He has been teaching public school children for over 16 years, including 10 years at Osceola High School, a time at Winter Park Junior High School in Orange County, Florida, and six years in DeWitt, Michigan, a suburb of Lansing, Michigan. Respondent has been an adjunct teacher at Valencia Community College and the University of Central Florida. While Respondent taught public school children, he was also involved in assisting students in their extra curricular activities. Respondent was a head basketball coach for junior varsity and freshman basketball, a high school football coach, and a varsity and junior varsity baseball coach. Respondent coached youth leagues for girls softball and boys baseball. He coached in summer basketball camps put on by Michigan State University and worked for the Milwaukee Bucks in coaching basketball clinics for them. Respondent also teaches religious education and is the head of a youth group. Respondent has no prior disciplinary history against his teaching certificate. The Disciplinary Agreement entered into between Osceola High School and Respondent, as a result of the simulation conducted on November 18, 1992, is the only disciplinary action taken against Respondent during his considerable teaching career. One of the elements of The Disciplinary Agreement involved a period of probation. Respondent was returned to a Needs Improvement status and evaluated by school officials at the end of his probationary period. Respondent successfully completed the probation, was evaluated "excellent," and returned to his regular status.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Educational Practices Commission (the "Commission") enter a Final Order finding Respondent: not guilty of intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e); not guilty of failing to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to their mental health or safety within the meaning of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a); and guilty of failing to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical health or safety in violation of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose the following penalty: a letter of reprimand filed in Respondent's teaching certificate file; the completion, at Respondent's expense and within one year of the date of the Final Order, of an appropriate course in classroom safety which shall not exceed one, three hour college level class; and suspension of Respondent's teaching certificate for not more than 30 days to be carried out in a manner that will not preclude students at Osceola High School from receiving regular classroom instruction from Respondent, will not preclude the automatic reinstatement of Respondent's teaching certificate at the conclusion of the period of suspension, and will not have an adverse effect for Respondent's current employment status at Osceola High School and any attendant benefits such as medical insurance and retirement benefits; or either at the election of Respondent or in the event it is not feasible to implement suspension subject to the limitations stated herein, an administrative fine not greater than $1,000 to be paid in lieu of suspension of the teaching certificate. The actual term of suspension or the actual amount of the fine, if elected, shall be determined by the Commission subject to the limits established in this Recommended Order. Respondent may elect to pay the fine at any time prior to the first day of the actual suspension determined by the Commission. Subject to the limits established herein, any fine elected by Respondent shall be imposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.262(6)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 31st day of October, 1994.

Florida Laws (4) 120.57120.687.017.02 Florida Administrative Code (1) 6B-1.006
# 4
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs SUSAN E. BROWN, 95-006148 (1995)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Largo, Florida Dec. 15, 1995 Number: 95-006148 Latest Update: Jul. 15, 1996

Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, (Board), was responsible for operating the public schools in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Susan E. Brown, was employed as a plant operator at the 16th Street Middle School in St. Petersburg, a school operated by the Board. She had a son enrolled in Lynch Elementary School, operated by the Board. On or about November 9, 1995, Respondent's son, V.B., was sent home at the end of the regular school day with a referral slip, signed by Ms. Proper, the principal, which reflected that the child had used inappropriate language to a female student in the class that day. The language was, "Suck my dick." The alleged incident was discussed in a class meeting and the matter was referred to the principal as the result of a recommendation by the class. The referral slip was not enclosed in an envelope. The child's teacher had had prior conferences with Respondent regarding her child's academics and behavior. Mrs. Brown was very much upset by this referral, not only from the standpoint that such language was attributed to her son, but also because the referral slip was not enclosed in an envelope. As a result, early the next day, November 10, 1995, she arrived in the office at Lynch Elementary where she was met by Ms. Lemos, the data preparation clerk, at the front counter. Respondent loudly demanded to speak with the principal. When informed by Ms. Lemos that the principal was in an awards ceremony at the time but would be back shortly and would see her upon her return, Respondent nonetheless insisted on seeing the principal immediately. She also demanded to speak with the teacher involved. She was upset about the referral slip a teacher has written regarding her son. When informed that the offending teacher was in class and could not be interrupted at the time, Respondent said, "I'll interrupt her," and left the office, heading for the classroom. Ms. Lemos immediately used the intercom system to forewarn the teacher and also immediately called the intervention specialist. Ms. Robinson, the teacher in question, heard Ms. Lemos' warning over the intercom system and within a few seconds, Respondent burst into the classroom, waived a sheet of paper, later determined to be the offending referral sheet, in her face and said, "I don't want this shit again", along with other obscene words including the word, "fucking." Ms. Robinson asked Respondent to leave the classroom, but she refused. Respondent asked for "that ass-hole, Jonathan." Jonathan is another child in the class who, Respondent believed, is the one who made the offensive comment attributed to her son. Respondent's actions were upsetting the children. Some were screaming and others were crying. Ms. Robinson claims that even Respondent's son called for her to stop, but she did not. Respondent stated to the teacher, "If I have to come back, I'll kick someone's ass." Ms. Robinson continued to try to get the Respondent to leave the room and managed to get herself and Respondent out of the room and into the hall. At this point, Ms. Robinson tried to go back into the classroom and close the door with Respondent out in the hall, but Respondent forestalled this, slapping Ms. Robinson's hands away from the door. At one point in the altercation, apparently in the classroom or nearby but in sight of some of the children, Respondent pushed Ms. Robinson away from the door, using both hands to the teacher's upper arms or torso. As a result of the Respondent's actions, Ms. Robinson was emotionally and mentally affected. She was afraid for her life at the time of the incident because the Respondent appeared very angry and was physical with her. The teacher's professional and family life has been affected by this assault. She was afraid to go back into the classroom and missed several days work because of it. She did not seek psychological counselling or a physician and she has now returned to the classroom, but this incident has affected her teaching and she still has trouble sleeping at times. Based on what happened, Ms. Robinson would not want to work in the same school with the Respondent. The altercation involving the Respondent and Ms. Robinson was heard by another third grade teacher, Ms. McLaughlin, who had come to the third grade pod of four classrooms to get another student. As she walked toward the pod she heard someone using profanity, including the words, "Shit. How dare you write this?" After going into her own classroom to get the student she wanted, Ms. McLaughlin came out to see Ms. Robinson pinned with her back to the open door facing away from the classroom, and a parent, identified as the Respondent, up close to her face. She saw Respondent, who was very loud, push Ms. Robinson with both hands Ms. McLaughlin did not hear Ms. Robinson say anything but noted she was trying to close the classroom door. As Ms. McLaughlin watched, the intervention specialist, Ms. Mills came up and took control. Ms. Mills went to the room as a result of the request by Ms. Lemos. As she approached the pod, she heard loud yelling and saw Ms. Robinson with her back to the door and Respondent yelling at her, facing her. Ms. Mills yelled at the Respondent directing her to return to the office. At this point, Respondent turned toward her and yelled that some "shit had been written on [her] baby's paper." She wanted to talk with the principal and, according to Ms. Mills, threatened to "mess them all up." As the two women were walking toward the office, Respondent also allegedly called the staff "fucking crackers", and when advised by Ms. Mills to keep her voice down because children were present, said she didn't care. Ms. Mills claims some children were present as they went toward the office. As Ms. Mills and Respondent arrived at the school office the Respondent was still yelling. Ms. Mills directed her to leave the campus but she refused and continued to demand to see the principal. At this point, Ms. Mills advised the office staff to call the police. Upon the arrival of the principal, Ms. Mills left the office and returned to the classroom where she found the children frightened and upset. When the principal, Ms. Proper, arrived at the front office she told the Respondent to go into her private office because she was yelling so loud. Ms. Proper could hear Respondent from down the hall. When Proper got the Respondent into her office, she asked what was wrong and in response, Respondent waived the referral slip. Ms. Proper took it and looked at it and this had the effect of calming the Respondent down somewhat. However, when Ms. Proper explained why the referral had been written, Respondent exploded again and Ms. Proper told her to leave the campus. Before she could do so, the police arrived. According to Ms. Proper, Respondent's actions upset the awards ceremony, a teacher was made upset and required a substitute, the office staff was upset, and she had to spend several hours with the police. In addition, at least one parent has called the school and expressed concern about the incident. This was the parent to whose daughter the obscene comment was allegedly made by V.B., Respondent's son. At the time of the incident neither Ms. Proper nor anyone else involved knew that the Respondent worked for the school system. Respondent did not identify herself as a school employee nor was she wearing any kind of uniform which identified her as a Board employee. All of the children who testified at the hearing, whether for the Board or for the Respondent, indicated they had, to some degree or another seen and heard the incident. There is no doubt that Respondent physically battered Ms. Robinson at the doorway to the classroom. Whether she intended to injure her is doubtful, however. Respondent clearly used profanity in front of the children, but it is equally clear she did not address the profanity toward them. By the same token, it does not appear that Respondent threatened the children in any way. Though she denies having done so, it is found she did refer to one child, Jonathan, as an ass-hole, but she did not direct that comment to him directly. Respondent has worked as a plant operator, (janitor), for the school system for four years, starting at the 16th Street Middle School only shortly before the incident in issue. Her hours are from four in the afternoon to midnight. She has one child, V.B., who attended Lynch Elementary at the time in issue. Respondent recalls that on November 9, 1995, V.B. came home from school with a referral which was not in an envelope nor was it folded over. When she saw it she was upset over the way it was written. She felt that her son's alleged language could have been more discreetly put and she also felt the slip should have been put in an envelope for transmittal. The referral did not require her to come to school, but she went anyway to see why the slip had been written and transmitted as it was. She also wanted to know why she wasn't called about it. Consequently, on the morning of November 11, 1995 she went to the school office and spoke with the lady at the front desk. Respondent admits to using the word "shit" to describe the referral but denies she cursed anyone in the office. When she asked to speak with the principal she was told that she was in a ceremony and to come back later. Nonetheless, Respondent insisted on speaking with the principal but cannot recall what she said next. She remembers having the impression that the office staff did not want to see the referral, so she decided to go to her son's classroom to speak with the teacher about it. Respondent claims the office staff did not tell her not to go to the classroom. When she got there she asked the teacher why she sent the referral home without it being in a sealed envelope. When the teacher merely shrugged in reply, Respondent repeated the question and admits to again using the word, "shit". With that the teacher asked her to leave the classroom and she claims she started to do so with the teacher behind her. Respondent admits to using the word "shit" a third time but denies calling the teacher a bitch, and most specifically, she denies having cursed at any of the students. It has been found that she did not curse at the student. As she and the teacher were departing the classroom, Respondent indicates she again asked the teacher, in a voice louder than normal, why she had sent the referral home as she did. In doing so, she admits to holding the referral up in front of the teacher's face and claims that the teacher then pushed her hand out of the way. The teacher allegedly pulled on the door to close it and told Respondent to leave. Respondent claims she then turned away and pushed the door but denies having ever come into contact with the teacher. The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates, however, that she pushed the teacher at least once, and it is so found. Respondent also admits to having used the word "shit" in front of the second lady who came to the room in a query about the referral. It was this individual, Ms. Mills, with whom Respondent walked back to the office. However, she denies having threatened her or stating that she or anyone else would be "messed up", and further denies having referred to Ms. Mills or anyone else as a "fucking cracker." She also denies having used the word "shit" with the principal, though it is clear she did. She claims, however, that the principal neither asked her to come into the private office nor gave her a reason for the referral. This is irrelevant, however. Respondent admits she was on her way back to the classroom from the office a second time but before she could do so, the police arrived and she talked with them. Respondent did not think she was frightening the children by her actions, but it is clear she was. She did not intend to do so. All she wanted was an answer to her question. She admits she was angry when she went to the office and when she went to the classroom. She admits to entering the classroom without knocking or without an invitation because the door was open even though the class was in session. However, she justifies her conduct as a result of having been upset. Respondent's work supervisor has never heard Respondent use profanity to her co-workers, to teachers or to students while on the job or otherwise. He has never received a complaint about her behavior from either students or teachers. He has heard other employees use profanity from time to time, but never in a direct confrontation with each other or in front of students or teachers. Mr. Morris has never disciplined any of his workers for using curse words but would do so for inappropriate conduct. He is aware of the Board's sexual harassment rule, but other than this is unaware of any Board rule which prohibits the use of curse words. Based on his limited experience with the Respondent, he has no concern over her working in an environment where she might come into contact with middle school students or teachers. When he hired her he knew of no record of prior discipline regarding the Respondent and apparently there is none. He agrees it is important not to use profanity around students and that students should feel safe in the school setting. In that regard, if he were to know that an employee did what Respondent is alleged to have done, he would feel that person should not be employed as a plant operator. James M. Barker, an administrator with the Board's Office of Professional Standards, investigated the allegations against the Respondent and concluded that they were accurate and constituted various violations of Board Policy 6Gx52-5.31 which outlines in writing offenses and penalty ranges for employee misconduct. He interviewed the teachers involved but not the students, and when he interviewed the Respondent, she denied all of the allegations. She admitted she was upset by the comments contained on the referral slip but denied either touching a teacher or using threatening language. Notwithstanding, Mr. Barker's investigation indicated to him that Respondent had improperly harassed a student, used inappropriate or disparaging remarks to students, improperly interacted with colleagues, and committed misconduct in office, all in violation of Subsections (l), (n), (p) and (v) of the policy. The aforementioned sections list not only the conduct which is considered actionable, but also suggests a penalty range for the imposition of discipline when misconduct is found to exist. In each case, the suggested penalty ranges from either a caution or a reprimand to dismissal. Section 3 of the same policy outlines aggravating or mitigating factors which may be considered when determining the appropriate penalty. In this case, Mr. Barker recommended dismissal of the respondent because he could find no factors in mitigation but did find aggravation in the severity of the offenses committed, the involvement of students, the potential for damage to the public and the actual emotional damage imposed upon Ms. Robinson and the students. Even though the Board's policy and general practice is to impose discipline progressively, here he recommended dismissal immediately because of Respondent's comments before students and her aggression toward Ms. Robinson. Mr. Barker is aware that Respondent has been employed by the Board for only a relatively short time and that she was not employed at the school where her misconduct occurred. He is also aware that Ms. Robinson did not seek medical of psychological help as a result of her contact with Respondent but does not know if any member of the public was involved. He considers Ms. Robinson and the staff at Lynch to be coworkers of the Respondent even though they are not employed at the same school and they did not know Respondent was a Board employee at the time of the incident. This is an overly broad interpretation. Mr. Barker's recommendation was based on his determination that the Board does not consider it appropriate for any employee of a public or private school to act as Respondent did in this instance. Teachers should not have to fear assault in class and students should not have to be exposed to conduct like that alleged here.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a Final Order affirming the temporary suspension of Respondent with pay and her termination from employment with the Board as of December 14, 1995. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-6148 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for the allegation that the Respondent pointed her finger at the students. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted but not probative of any fact in issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Lydia S. Castle, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Incorporated 641 First Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Michael H. Olenick General Counsel 32399-0400 The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 5
FRANK T. BROGAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs CLEMINTINE JOHNSON, A/K/A CLEMINTINE GOD, 95-002937 (1995)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Jacksonville, Florida Jun. 08, 1995 Number: 95-002937 Latest Update: Mar. 20, 1996

The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violation of various provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.

Findings Of Fact A graduate of Bethune-Cookman College in 1972, Respondent Clementine God received a master's degree in Education (vocational/technical education) from the University of North Florida in 1977. Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 318649, valid through June 30, 1997. Certified in the areas of business and vocational education, including vocational education director, she has been employed in the public school system for 22 years. Ronnel Poppell was the school principal at Ed White High School during the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 school years when Respondent was employed there. During the 1991-1992 school year, Respondent was an inside school suspension teacher. In this position, she was not responsible for delivery of instruction to students, but instead insured that students completed work assigned by other teachers. To avoid reassignment to another high school in the face of staff reductions, Respondent voluntarily changed teaching assignments for the 1992- 1993 school year when she became responsible for teaching business education and peer counseling classes. Principal Poppell observed Respondent's classroom performance on approximately 13 occasions during the 1992-1993 school year. Poppell found deficiencies in Respondent's teaching performance during each of his observations. The most serious problems always involved Respondent's classroom management and discipline. Students argued with Respondent and each other. Some students were not on task, engaged in nonproductive movement within the classroom, and were permitted by Respondent to leave the classroom in excessive numbers. Poppell once observed a student throw a book across the room. In addition to Respondent's failure to maintain a classroom environment conducive to learning, as a result of the movement of the students and the chaotic classroom environment, Poppell also observed Respondent's inability to control student behavior and appropriately handle discipline problems. As observed by Poppell, Respondent also engaged in inappropriate and inconsistent instruction. Respondent repeatedly ignored or failed to respond to student questions and taught the same lesson material over a period of weeks as opposed to introducing new material on a successive basis. Significant destruction to school property, especially typewriters, occurred in Respondent's classroom and Respondent failed to assist Poppell in determining the students responsible for the damage by not providing Poppell with student seating charts. Respondent had failed to assign seats to students of her various classes and did not check the equipment at the end of each class as ordered. Poppell requested Jane Friedlin, the school board supervisor of business administration, to observe Respondent's classes. She performed the observation on November 17, 1992, and concluded that Respondent was not in control of her class with all the students on task at any time. Friedlin observed that the students displayed a total lack of respect for Respondent. Further she noted that instruction by Respondent was scanty, hard to follow, and sometimes incorrect or incomplete. During Friedlin's observation of Respondent's class, several students threw paper, one student made chicken sounds without being reprimanded, and students talked during the entire period. Poppell discussed the observations with Respondent on three separate occasions: October 7, 1992; November 18, 1992; and January 6, 1993. Despite the conferences with Poppell, Respondent's teaching performance did not improve. Poppell then made arrangements to assist Respondent's improvement by having her observe peer counseling classes taught by other teachers at the high school and visit similar classes at three other high schools. Respondent complied and completed these observations. On March 15, 1993, Poppell completed Respondent's professional growth evaluation for the 1992-1993 school year, taking into consideration Friedlin's report to him of her observations. Poppell rated Respondent unsatisfactory in five of the eight competencies on the evaluation and rated Respondent unsatisfactorily overall. Respondent signed the evaluation and the Classroom Observation Instrument (COI) upon which the evaluation was based. Dr. Larry Zenke, Duval County School Superintendent, notified Respondent on or about May 10, 1993, that her 1992-1993 school year performance was unsatisfactory and that her performance must be improved to avoid dismissal. She was also offered an opportunity to transfer to another school. Following the conclusion of the school year, Respondent transferred to Arlington Middle School for the 1993-1994 school year where Dr. Jordan Baker, Sr., was the school principal. Respondent met with Baker on August 18 and 27, 1993, pursuant to school board policy and formulated a plan which would afford Respondent an opportunity for specific in-service training to correct alleged deficiencies in her past teaching performance. During the meetings, Baker detected no recognition by Respondent that she felt her performance was deficient or that she needed assistance to improve it. Without prior announcement, Baker informally observed Respondent's classes on several occasions between September 24 and October 18, 1993, memorializing his observations in note form. He found fundamental problems with Respondent's classroom management. Students were disruptive during each observation and furniture and equipment were destroyed. Baker was concerned for the safety of Respondent and the students when some students turned off the lights and threw textbooks and other objects. On October 26 and 27, 1993, Baker conducted formal observations of Respondent's performance. Conducted at different times of day with differing classes of students, Baker again noted Respondent's problems with classroom management and the students' disrespect for Respondent. Students were confused about what was expected of them and appeared unable to understand Respondent's directions. Baker memorialized these observations on two COI forms. On October 29, 1993, Baker met with Respondent. He discussed Respondent's progress with regard to the plan devised by them prior to the beginning of the school year. He also suggested that they revise the plan, that Respondent visit other schools to observe teacher performances, and that Respondent attend workshops. Respondent refused to sign the COI forms and teacher growth evaluation prepared by Baker. She also refused to visit other schools or attend workshops. Respondent informed Baker that she felt no need to do these things. As a result, Baker did not make arrangements for such assistance, but he noted Respondent's lack of recognition of the existence of a problem. On November 4, 1993, Baker went to the music suite, the part of the school facility where Respondent's class was located, in response to a fire set by two of Respondent's students. Respondent provided Baker with little information regarding what had happened or who was responsible. Upon investigation, Baker learned that two students had been referred by Respondent to the school office for discipline. The students forged a punishment assignment on the teacher copy of the referral form and set fire to the original form outside the classroom. The students then re-entered the classroom and later started another fire in the back of the classroom. More concerned than ever about the safety of Respondent and students in her classes, Baker wrote a memorandum, dated November 10, 1993, to Dr. Alvin White, the school board assistant superintendent for human resources. Baker requested the removal of Respondent from the classroom for her safety and that of students assigned to her classes, as well as students in other classrooms in the building. Baker's request to Alvin White was denied. Instead of removing Respondent from the classroom, a full time substitute was assigned to assist Respondent in her responsibilities. During the course of the 1993-1994 school year, Baker received numerous student accident reports and incident investigation forms concerning students injured by thrown books, fights, and other disorderly conduct in Respondent's classroom. Shirley Rodriguez, a vice principal at the school, first became aware of Respondent's problems due to the accident and injury reports she received, as well as other reports from teachers in rooms near Respondent's classroom regarding the noise, confusion and lack of safety in Respondent's classroom. Rodriguez also became aware of the condition of typewriters and textbooks in Respondent's classroom in October of 1993. She later went to the classroom to examine equipment and found typewriter parts and chair parts on the floor and in trash cans. Equipment was in such disrepair that those machines were not functional again until the fall of 1994. On October 21, 1993, Rodriguez conducted an observation of Respondent's class for approximately 33 minutes. She found an atmosphere not conducive to learning. Students were talking while Respondent was talking and were generally off task. One student was playing with a chair part that he had removed from his chair. Rodriguez memorialized her observations on a COI form which Respondent refused to sign. On October 27, 1993, Rodriguez and Michael Kemp, an assistant principal for student services at the school, were called to Respondent's classroom by students needing assistance. Upon arrival, Rodriguez and Kemp observed students running around the room, crawling under desks to avoid flying objects, and books flying across the room. Respondent was taking no action to stop these activities. Rodriguez and Kemp immediately brought matters under control. Students reported their injuries to Rodriguez and Kemp. Both administrators memorialized the incident in separate memoranda. Jane Friedlin, who had observed Respondent at Ed White High School, returned to observe Respondent again at the middle school on November 9, 1993, at the request of Principal Baker. Friedlin again observed Respondent's lack of classroom control and poor rapport with students. Friedlin also noted misspelled words on posters in the classroom, as well as Respondent's grammatical errors and mispronunciation of a number of words. Friedlin observed at the final hearing that Respondent's problem areas at the middle school were consistent with those observed previously at the high school and that Respondent's overall performance had further declined. During the early part of 1994, Baker continued to observe Respondent informally and discuss problems of her performance with her. Respondent continued to deny performance deficiencies or the need for improvement. On January 7, 1994, Rodriguez and Kemp were called again to Respondent's room. A student had turned the lights off twice during the class. Books were again being thrown. At least one student had been struck in the head by a book. Rodriguez was called to Respondent's classroom again on January 11, 1994, by a security officer. The classroom was littered with paper. Respondent reported that her home room class had started throwing paper and that the behavior had carried over into subsequent classes. By letter on January 11, 1994, Baker again expressed his concerns to Respondent about her performance and informed her that he would be conducting a formal observation prior to March 1, 1994. On February 23, 1994, Rodriguez again observed Respondent's teaching performance. Rodriguez felt that Respondent's performance had declined since Rodriguez's October 21, 1993 observation. Students were again observed talking without regard to Respondent's attempts to explain the lesson of the day. Respondent's instructions were unclear. Respondent refused to sign the COI prepared by Rodriguez. Bennie Floyd-Peoples, an assistant principal for student services at the school, went to Respondent's classroom on 15 or 16 occasions during the 1993-1994 school year to respond to discipline problems. Floyd-Peoples was sometimes assisted by security personnel. Floyd-Peoples consistently observed a pattern of classroom disruption in Respondent's classroom. Observations included students exhibiting defiance to Respondent, pouring soda down the Respondent's back, pulling off her hair piece, throwing paper, and students fighting with one another. Floyd-Peoples noted that Respondent took no action to stop disruptive activities and did not appear to comprehend what was happening in the classroom. Over time, the conduct of students in Respondent's classroom appeared to worsen in the view of Floyd-Peoples. On February 24, 1994, Baker informed Respondent that he would conduct his formal observation on February 25, 1994. During the course of his February 25, 1994 observation, Baker documented Respondent's continued unsatisfactory performance. He noted a slight increase in the area of Respondent's knowledge of subject matter, but a decline in her willingness to assume non-instructional responsibilities such as care of equipment entrusted to her. Baker completed the professional growth evaluation of Respondent on March 7, 1994. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form. By memorandum dated March 23, 1994, Baker again expressed his concern for safety of Respondent and her students to Alvin White. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was removed from the classroom on Baker's recommendation. On or about April 25, 1994, Respondent was notified by Superintendent Zenke that she would be dismissed as an employee on the basis of professional incompetency. A subsequent formal administrative hearing resulted in a recommendation to the school board that Respondent be terminated from employment on the basis of incompetency as a teacher. A final order entered on March 7, 1995, adopted the recommendation. Respondent was offered frequent opportunities to take advantage of specific in-service training to correct deficiencies in her performance but refused most of those opportunities. Respondent's classes represented a fair and accurate cross section of the students at each school. Her students were no more disposed to miscreant behavior than others in their age group. Discipline problems experienced by Respondent at both schools were unique and differed from the discipline exhibited by the same students in other classes with other teachers. At final hearing, Respondent minimized her personal responsibility for the disruptive behavior of students in her care, arguing that the incidents were not "the fault of my hands." In addition to her disavowal of responsibility for the care of students entrusted to her care, Respondent also testified that her recent change of name from Clementine Johnson to Clementine God legalized the award of the new name made by the deity to her in 1988. The new name was a reward for scoring well on a divine test administered to her through her left eye. Such testimony in an administrative hearing is unique and creates concern regarding the eccentric nature of Respondent, as well as concern for students who might be subjected to her care and tutelage.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 231.28(1)(b), Section 231.28(1)(f), and Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as a result of her violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and permanently revoking her teaching license. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 11th day of December, 1995. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-2937 In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Accepted. 3. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 4.-13. Accepted, but not verbatim. 14. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 15.-22. Accepted, not verbatim. 23. Accepted, as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 24.-34. Accepted, not verbatim. 35. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 36.-39. Accepted, not verbatim. 40. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 41.-50. Accepted, not verbatim. 51. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 52.-57. Accepted, not verbatim. 58.-63. Incorporated by reference. 64.-72. Adopted, not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings Respondent submitted a document consisting of 10 numbered pages. The contents of the document consisted of unnumbered paragraphs full of rambling and sometimes nonsensical statements. Respondent's proposed findings are rejected as violative of procedural requirements for submittal of proposed findings and not relevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Clementine God a/k/a Clementine Johnson 3104 West 12th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Dr. Larry Zenke Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8154 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Florida Laws (1) 120.57 Florida Administrative Code (1) 6B-1.006
# 6
EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION vs. VERNA A. ROBINSON, 77-001771 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-001771 Latest Update: Aug. 11, 1978

The Issue Whether or not on March 16, 1977, the Respondent, Verna A. Robinson, entered the home of Edward Johnson at 1100 Little River Drive, Miami, Florida, and fired several shots at Edward Johnson, who suffered gun shot wounds in the wrist, upper arm and hip. Whether or not this alleged conduct described is in violation of Section 231.28, and 231.09, Florida Statutes; together with Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is conduct that is grossly immoral and a poor example for students. Further, whether or not such alleged conduct raises serious questions as to the Respondent's emotional preparedness to properly deal with the normal stresses which arise in classroom teaching.

Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petition for the revocation of teachers certificate filed by the Petitioner, Professional Practices Council, on July 29, 1977. This is an action against Verna A. Robinson, the Respondent, which attempts to suspend or revoke her Teaching Certificate no. 176010, Graduate, Rank II, which is valid through June 30, 1979, and covers the areas of Elementary Education and Junior College. The facts in this case show that the Respondent was acquainted with one Edward Johnson, to the extent that they had been intimate over a period of seven years. By March 16, 1977, the relationship between Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Johnson had diminished to some degree. On that date, in the late afternoon, a telephone conversation was held between the Respondent and Johnson. The discussion concerned getting together to attend a movie. Johnson declined to go with Robinson and this was the cause of some consternation on the part of the Respondent. The depth of that consternation was demonstrated when the Respondent went to the home of Johnson, later that afternoon and carried a pistol with her. When she arrived at the Johnson home she was admitted by Mr. Johnson's son and there ensued a short conversation. It should be indicated that the Johnson and Robinson families were social friends, and Mrs. Johnson was a teacher in the same school where the Respondent was employed. When Mrs. Robinson entered the home the son indicated that his father was changing clothes, to which Mrs. Robinson replied, "he doesn't need any clothes". She then approached Johnson, who was in the bedroom area of his home and stated to him "I'll teach you to fuck with me". She then fired several shots, five or six in number, at Johnson, striking him with three of the bullets in the area of his wrist, shoulder and hip. The wounds were not fatal. The Respondent then turned around and left the house and was followed by the Johnson's teenaged son who threw an object through her windshield as she was departing the scene of the confrontation. During the course of this exchange at the Johnson home, the Johnsons to include the victim, Edward Johnson, his wife and son, did not find the Respondent to be overly excited. The Respondent then went to the home of a fellow teacher one Linda Panapas. When she arrived, Mrs. Panapas described the Respondent as being agitated, disoriented, illogical and incoherent. She said the Respondent stormed about the house speaking in incompleted sentences and Mrs. Panapas found it very difficult to understand what had transpired. She did however discern that something had happened involving a shooting. The Respondent did not indicate who had been shot. Something in the conversation lead Mrs. Panapas to call the Johnson home where she was told that there had been a shooting. One other factor in the shooting which was described by the Respondent, was the fact that she had thrown the gun away afterwards. Early the next morning the respondent voluntarily surrendered herself to the Dade County Public Safety Department. She spoke with a police officer of that organization whose name is John Little. At that time the Respondent was given an opportunity to make a statement. After being advised of her constitutional rights she indicated that she remembered throwing out a gun while driving on Interstate 95 near Northwest 103 Street in Dade County, Florida. At the time of this interview, there was no sign of lack of control of her faculties, that could be detected by the officer. The principal of the elementary school where the Respondent was working at the time of the shooting was contacted on the day after the incident. The school is the Norwood Elementary School, in Dade County, Florida. The principal in that school is Betty Angell. Ms. Angell stated that at the time of the incident she was unaware of the involvement between the Respondent and Johnson. When Robinson contacted the principal she stated that she would be taking some days off, but did not indicate for what reason. Later, on the Sunday following the shooting, Robinson spoke to Ms. Angell at Ms. Angell's residence. Mrs. Robinson explained to Ms. Angell that Robinson and Johnson had, "got to liking each other too much and she had more than she could take." The Respondent was interested in knowing what would happen to her career in view of the incident. It was explained to Mrs. Robinson, by Ms. Angell, that she might be recommended for suspension or placed in some other school. Mrs. Robinson was not opposed to being placed in another school. During the conversation at the Angell home, the Respondent remained calm and appeared to be sorry for what had happened. The Respondent has not returned to the school where she teaches. According to Ms. Angell, prior to this event, the Respondent had been a teacher of high caliber, even though she recalled a few deficiencies in Mrs. Robinson's teaching effectiveness. Ms. Angell now holds the opinion that Mrs. Robinson's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired because she has demonstrated an inability to manage conflict and in the mind of Ms. Angell this would translate itself into an ineffectiveness in dealing with the conflicts between the various students in Mrs. Robinson's class. Ms. Angell holds this view, notwithstanding the fact that the children and other people within the community and school are unaware of the incident itself. Moreover, Ms. Angell indicated that steps had been taken to keep the incident from becoming a matter of common knowledge within the community and within the Norwood Elementary School. She has made these efforts because she feels that if the incident became a matter of community knowledge it would create problems on the issue of the effectiveness of Mrs. Robinson. The Respondent was charged with the shooting of Edward Johnson under the terms of Chapters 782.04(1) and 777.04(1), Florida Statutes. She was tried for those offenses of attempted murder in the first degree, and possession and display of a firearm. The outcome of that trial was a finding that the Respondent was not guilty because she was insane at the time of the commission of the offenses. This decision was reached in view of the opinion of several experts in the field of psychiatry and psychology. The same experts testified in the course of the hearing at bar. The experts testified about their observations of Mrs. Robinson shortly after the shooting and immediately prior to the hearing before the undersigned. The observations of the experts could be summarized; however, they are sufficiently critical to warrant examination separately. One of the specialists who saw the Respondent at the request of the Circuit Court, was Jeffrey J. Elenewski. Mr. Elenewski has a doctorate in clinical psychology. Elenewski saw the Respondent in May, 1977. From his observation he concluded that the Respondent was suffering an acute disassociative reaction at the time of the shooting incident involving Mr. Johnson. This reaction rendered the Respondent out of contact with reality. Elenewski arrived at this opinion after doing psychological testing on the Respondent and through clinical observation of the Respondent. Beginning on June 7, 1977, the Respondent was treated by Dr. Elenewski through individual psychotherapy. He saw her weekly for approximately one hour through the end of September, 1977. She has called and discussed her situation with Dr. Elenewski subsequent to September, 1977, as occasion demanded. On January 30, 1978, Dr. Elenewski saw the Respondent for purposes of examining her mental state in the context of the present time. Again he conducted clinical interviews and gave her a battery of tests. The clinical interview took approximately one hour and the testing a period of two to three hours. His overall opinion of the Respondent based upon his January 30, 1978 observations and prior history, was to the effect that she has made an adequate psychological adjustment after the incident. At the January 30, 1978 session he found her to be relatively free of anxiety, to be energetic and innovative and someone who is extremely conscientious and dedicated to her profession. Dr. Elenewski currently believes the Respondent does not present a danger to herself or to other people, and would not pose any specific danger to children of the age group which she teaches. Moreover, Dr. Elenewski feels that the Respondent possesses attributes that make her an excellent role model for children. In his view, the Respondent has strong self-confidence and through the recent past has developed a high tolerance for frustration. Dr. Elenewski believes that the shooting incident was an isolated incident and is extremely incapsulated and he does not feel that those stresses and pressures which lead to the incident would exist in the future. Because the incident itself was one that the Respondent was not conscious of, it was therefore an act without premeditation, according to Elenewski. The Respondent was also seen by Dr. Syvil Marquit. Dr. Marquit is a clinical psychologist who had examined Mrs. Robinson at the request of Mrs. Robinson's defense attorney. He saw her for a period of six or seven hours in the latter part of April, 1977, this interview sequence followed some initial testing in the beginning of April, 1977. His conclusions about the Respondent were that at the time of the offense, that she did not know right from wrong and was suffering from a frenzied disoriented state, to the extent that another personality emerged. By April, 1977, Dr. Marquit felt that the Respondent was no longer a danger to herself or to others but still might become a danger if not treated. Dr. Marquit saw Mrs. Robinson again of February 3, 1978. At that time the interview phase and psychological testing that was done took place over a period of two hours. He found Mrs. Robinson to be much improved and not as depressed as of the time of the interview in April, 1977. Based upon the February, 1978 observation, Dr. Marquit feels that the Respondent could handle herself well in a classroom setting in times of stress. In summary, Dr. Marquit felt that the Respondent was unaware of the events that took place during the course of the incident, but has sufficiently recovered to be able to continue in her role as a teacher. At the time of the criminal offense, the Circuit Court also ordered the Respondent to be examined by Dr. Arthur D. Stillman. Dr. Stillman is a psychiatrist. Dr. Stillman saw the Respondent in April, 1977. His initial observations of the Respondent was to the effect that she was serious minded and cooperative in a studied way. She was able to respond to the questions readily and had no fragmentation of thinking, looseness, or dysphoria or euphoria. She denied any delusions or hallucinations. Her memory, to his observation, was generally good except for the events in which she was found to be amnesiac. Those events pertained Lo the incident in question. At best she had vage screen memories of those parts of the incident. From his observations and the testing that was done, Dr. Stillman concluded that the Respondent showed evidence of a psychotic episode. He felt that she needed therapy for her condition, and that she presented potential for acting out. Specifically concerning the events that occurred in the shooting, Dr. Stillman felt that she was suffering from a temporary, transitory episode and was insane at the time of the commission of the offense. Dr. Stillman saw Mrs. Robinson again in February, 1978, in his mind there had been some improvement and although the Respondent was not totally aware of her situation in terms of an emotional perception of the incident, she was improving. In Dr. Stillman's opinion, the patient would benefit from further attention in the area of the difficulty involved in the shooting incident. Dr. Stillman felt like Mrs. Robinson had not achieved enough insight about the why of the events of the shooting incident. The type of treatment that she needs is not a structured treatment plan. However, in his view, the chances of such an event reoccurring are remote. He did not find her to be a danger to herself or others or in particular, children. In Dr. Stillman's mind the Respondent is a good role model because she is stable after having suffered through a rather traumatic experience, and additionally because she got sick and recovered. The incident in itself in Dr. Stillman's opinion is an isolated event, and new he feels that she is sufficiently recovered to deal with stress. In Dr. Stillman's analysis, the sickness caused her to commit the act, not a lack of morality. Finally, Dr. Stillman feels that Mrs. Robinson would be more effective in helping children deal with their problems of stress, because of the experience she has suffered through. One of the other witnesses that testified in the course of the hearing was Samuel Hudson Latimore. Mr. Latimore is the Detention Superintendent of the Dade Detention Facility. This facility deals with juvenile delinquents, and has as one of its functions the education of these children. Beginning in August, 1977, the Respondent volunteered to work in this facility. This voluntary service was not a condition imposed by any court. According to Latimore, the Respondent works at the facility twice a week, two or three hours a day and teaches 10 through 18 year old boys and girls. In his mind, the Respondent has demonstrated herself to be competent and effective in dealing with this type of young person. Latimore stated that she teaches survival skills, and aspects of getting jobs and helped to develop programs for these young people. In Latimore's opinion, Mrs. Robinson would be capable of working with any children in an education setting. He feels that she is very qualified to fulfill this function and believes this even after being made aware of the shooting incident. Mrs. Robinson's husband, her minister and fellow employees at the school where she taught, also gave testimony. Those individuals stated that she has done well in the school setting in the past and has attempted to face up to the problem that lead to the incident with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Robinson, her husband, has stood by his wife during the pendency of the present charges and the criminal prosecution that was brought against her. His testimony demonstrated that he intends to continue living with his wife and to assist her in whatever fashion necessary to deal with the remnants of the problem which she has had. The Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a number of violations. Specifically, a violation of Sections 231.28(1) and 231.09, Florida Statutes; together with Rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1, and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code. The facts when considered in light of the language of those provisions of the Florida Statutes, and the Florida Administrative Code, demonstrate to the Petitioner that the Respondent is guilty of conduct which is grossly immoral and a poor example for students. The Petitioner further feels that those facts show that the Respondent is guilty of conduct which raises serious questions as to whether or not Verna A. Robinson is emotionally prepared to properly deal with the normal stresses which arise in classroom teaching. In examining the basis of the charges, the provisions of Section 231.28(1), read as follows: 231.28(1) 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 teaching 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: 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 misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation, or upon investigation has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously 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. An examination of the testimony offered in the course of the hearing, with due regard to the fact that the testimony of the experts in the fields of psychiatry and psychology is unrefuted, leads to the conclusion that the Respondent is not guilty of immorality or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude, as alleged. At the time the offense was committed, the Respondent was found to be insane by the jury, and therefore was not convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. The same opinion which was expressed by the experts, to the effect that the Respondent did not appreciate the nature of her act, leads to the conclusion that she was not capable of committing an immoral act, because such acts of immorality presuppose intent and knowledge. The Respondent being insane at the time of the commission of the act was incapable of such intent and knowledge. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, also deals with discipline for lack of effectiveness. The incident is not a matter of general knowledge, consequently her effectiveness cannot be said to be reduced because of the knowledge of the community or members of the school. The fact of the potential knowledge of such an incident is not a matter that may be considered at this juncture, if ever. Finally, the testimony of the experts strongly demonstrates that the Respondent has not had her effectiveness as a teacher reduced because of the incident. An examination of the provisions of Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, leads to the conclusion that none of the provisions found in the charges have been violated by the act which the Respondent committed, for the reasons discussed in examining Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, to include the fact that the pupils in her school are unaware of the events for which Mrs. Robinson has been charged. Therefore, it can not be said that what she did is a poor example for pupils in their deportment and morals and in the future the accurate impression which has been offered by the psychiatrist and psychologist shows that she will be an example for people in their deportment and morals. The provision concerning deportment and morals comes directly from the Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes. It should also be stated that that particular provision has been held unconstitutional in the case of Meltzer v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, etc., et al., 548 F.2d 559 (5th Circuit Court of Appeals). However, on petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, which is reported at 553 F.2d 1008, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing with the right for oral argument and the opportunity to submit supplemental briefs, with the date of the oral argument to be announced. That rehearing has been held but no decision has been rendered. Consequently, the remarks about the provisions, Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, have been offered with the caution that the section may be ultimately held unconstitutional. In the charging document, the Petitioner makes further reference to certain rules of the Florida Administrative Code. The first reference is to Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Coda. That provision pertains to the procedures to be utilized in cases of this sort, and does not set forth substantive requirements, which if violated would constitute grounds for disciplinary action. Again, Rule 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Code of Ethics of the education profession in the State of Florida; however, it does not delineate substantive requirements which would be cause for consideration under the factual allegations in these charges. Rule 6B-5.07, Florida Administrative Cede, reads as follows: Management Techniques. In exercising management techniques, the competent educator shall: Resolve discipline problems in accordance with law, state board regulations, school board policy, administrative regulations and accepted school policies, Maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice, Use management techniques which are appropriate to the particular setting such as group work, seat work, lecture, discussion, individual projects and others, and Develop and maintain standards of conduct. These provisions should be read in conjunction with the provisions of 6B-5.10 and 5.11, Florida Administrative Code, which state: 6B-5.10 Human and Interpersonal Relationships. Competent educators are held to possess effective human and interpersonal relations skills and therefore: Shall encourage others to hold and express differing opinions or ideas, Shall not knowingly misinterpret the statements of others, Shall not show disrespect for or lack of acceptance of others, Shall provide leadership and direction for others by appropriate example, Shall offer constructive criticism when necessary, Shall comply with reasonable requests and orders given by and with proper authority, Shall not assign unreasonable tasks, and Shall demonstrate self-confidence and self-sufficiency in exercising authority. 6B-5.11 Personal Requirements. In assessing the mental or physical health of educators, no decision adverse to the educator shall be made except on the advice or testimony of personnel competent to make such judgment by reason of training, licensure and experience. However, certain behaviors are held to be probable cause to examine, and each competent educator within the scope of delegated authority shall: Be able to engage in physical activity appropriate to the designated task except for temporary disability, Be able to communicate so effectively as to accomplish the designated task, Appropriately control his emotions, and Possess and demonstrate sufficient intellectual ability to perform designated tasks. When these requirements are examined in view of the facts that were offered in the course of the hearing, it is clear that the Respondent is able to resolve those problems of discipline in a proper manner and to deal with the interpersonal relationships between the students, to include students who are having conflict. Moreover, it is clear that the Respondent would be able to control her emotions in the classroom setting and is emotionally prepared to deal with the normal stresses in classroom teaching. In conclusion, the facts do not warrant the revocation of Verne Armstrong Robinson's teachers certificate.

Recommendation It is recommended that the action for the revocation of the Respondent's teachers certificate be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Vossler, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida Elizabeth J. du Fresne, P.A. Suite 1782, One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Michael S. Hacker, Esquire Hacker, Phelps & Matters Suite 1400 - Ainsley Building 14 Northeast First Avenue Miami, Florida 33132

Florida Laws (2) 777.04782.04
# 8
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY vs. ALEXANDRO ALFONSO, 81-003072 (1981)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 81-003072 Latest Update: Jul. 26, 1982

Findings Of Fact During the 1981-82 school year the student was enrolled as a seventh grade student at H. H. Filer Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. On October 21, 1981, the student left his home carrying a knife, with the intention of not attending classes on that day. The student met his girl friend and a friend, Ivan Martinez, at a cafeteria adjacent to the campus of H. H. Filer Junior High School. Upon learning that his girl friend intended to attend classes that day, the student, while still off campus, gave the knife to Ivan Martinez to keep for him, with the understanding that Martinez would not attend classes that day. Thereafter, Martinez decided to go to class, and gave the knife to Eddie Hidalgo to keep. Hidalgo then decided to attend class also, where he was discovered by a teacher in possession of the aforementioned knife. Hidalgo was sent to the principal's office after the knife had been discovered and, during questioning by the principal, implicated the Respondent. Although the Respondent admitted to the principal that the knife belonged to him, he denied having the knife on his person on the school grounds. However, the student was suspended for ten days and, on November 20, 1981, was administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. While serving his ten-day suspension as a result of the knife incident, the Respondent was charged with trespassing on the campus of H. H. Filer Junior High School. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding concerning either the facts surrounding or the disposition of this trespass charge or several other trespass charges which occurred after Respondent had been administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School North and which are, therefore, immaterial to the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner called the principal at H. H. Filer Junior High School as its only witness in this proceeding. The principal had no direct knowledge of any incidents of disruptive behavior engaged in by the Respondent prior to the date of his assignment to Jan Mann Opportunity School North. None of the students' records were produced at final hearing, nor were any teachers or other witnesses who might have direct knowledge of any incidents of disruptive behavior called to testify. The principal testified generally about the student's excessive rate of absences during the 1980-81 school year, and noted poor conduct grades for the student during that same period. Indeed, these earlier incidents appear not to have had any effect on the decision to seek the student's reassignment for, when questioned about whether the student had the above-described knife in his possession on campus the principal testified ". . . there was evidence . . . to indicate that the knife was in his possession on school grounds, or we would not have made the recommendation based on what we made the recommendation on." It therefore appears that the sole triggering cause for seeking Respondent's reassignment to Jan Mann Opportunity School North was the allegation that he possessed a knife while on school property.

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 9
JEANINE BLOMBERG, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs PATTI ROSE WITHERS, 08-005205PL (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Temple City, Florida Oct. 20, 2008 Number: 08-005205PL Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2009

The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should impose a sanction against Respondent for alleged violations of statutes and rules relating to the practice of teaching.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the person responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring school teachers in the State of Florida. Withers is a licensed and certified teacher in the State of Florida; she holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 795790 covering Foreign Language-French and history. Withers' certificate is valid through June 30, 2010. Withers has been teaching school for over 22 years, beginning as a teacher's aide in New York. Withers has been under a continuing contract with Pasco County Public Schools since 1998. She was a teacher at Pasco High from 1998 until May 22, 2006. Withers' state certification allows her to teach French and history. She also holds a county certification (through the HOUSSE program) which allows her to teach Spanish, but only in Pasco County Public Schools. The only formal reprimand received by Withers concerned her falling asleep during class on numerous occasions. Withers is currently teaching at Wiregrass High School, another school under the authority of the Pasco County Public Schools. During the 2005-2006 school year, Withers was teaching Spanish, French, and intensive reading at Pasco High. She held State of Florida certifications for French and history, but had not yet passed the examination for certification in Spanish. Pasco County Public Schools, at that time, allowed a non-certified teacher to teach subjects outside their field for up to five years without becoming State-certified. The French curriculum was being phased out at Pasco High, so Withers understood the need to obtain certification to teach Spanish. During the 2005-2006 school year, Withers took the Spanish certification test (for the fourth time). She was under the impression that failure to pass the test would mean she would lose her job and/or not be able to teach Spanish any longer at Pasco High. On or about Saturday, May 20, 2006, Withers received a letter indicating that she had not passed the Spanish certification exam on her latest attempt. She had failed by a mere six points. The letter made Withers very despondent, and she became depressed and upset by the news. Almost immediately, Withers began to think her career was over and her thoughts turned dark. She began at that time to think about the idea of committing suicide. At that point of time in her life, Withers was not in good health. She was suffering from a number of illnesses, including asthma, arthritis, Type II diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, paradoxical vocal chord disorder, anxiety, and depression, as well as the onset of Parkinson's disease. Withers was extremely overweight and under the influence of over 16 different medications. The medications caused side effects such as drowsiness, insomnia, increased sweating, and sensitivity to light, as well as exacerbation of her other symptoms. Withers would unilaterally change the dosages or frequencies of her medications, thus further affecting her mental state. From Saturday, May 20, 2006, until arrival at school on Monday, May 22, 2006, Withers contemplated ending her life. She mulled over the idea until reaching a decision sometime during the school day on Monday. That day was the first day of final exams for the school year, and Withers proctored final exams in her French classes throughout the day. Some time during the course of that day, Withers drafted a number of "suicide notes" to be left behind when she died.1 The notes were handwritten on different sizes and kinds of paper, indicating they were likely done over a period of hours (or perhaps on different days). At the conclusion of the school day on May 22, 2006, Withers gathered together a number of medications, including Valium and Ativan. She then obtained water for the purpose of helping her take a large number of pills. She intended to ingest enough medicine to terminate her life. The school day ended at 2:05 p.m. (final bell). At some point just after school let out, and while Withers was sitting at her desk in the portable classroom, she was visited by fellow teachers Debra Neel and Ms. Snell. They wanted to make sure Withers was handling the news of her latest certification examination results without any problems. Neel had also become concerned, because Withers did not answer her classroom telephone earlier. Neel and Snell went into the classroom and spoke briefly with Withers. Withers, in an unusually brusque tone, asked Neel and Snell whether there was anything else she could do for them. Neel and Snell, feeling they were not welcome any longer, left the classroom.2 It was between 2:30 p.m., and 2:45 p.m., at that time. Neel noticed that Withers was unusually curt and that there was a bottle of water sitting on the desk. That was unusual as well, because Neel never knew Withers to drink water during the day. When Neel left Withers' classroom, she called another teacher to express her concern about Withers' behavior. Once Neel and Snell were gone, Withers locked the door of her classroom (a portable building set apart from the main campus). Withers first made sure things were ready for exams to be given to her students the next day; she then began to take the medications. After taking an undetermined number of pills, Withers ran out of water. She then went outside, got on her motorized scooter and headed toward the main campus to locate some more water.3 On her way to the main campus buildings, Withers crossed paths with Norman Brown, the assistant principal at Pasco High. Withers did not acknowledge Brown as they passed and that concerned Brown; it was contrary to Withers' nature to be rude or to ignore her peers. Withers then encountered other fellow teachers who somehow determined that Withers was trying to ingest the pills. The teachers began to argue with Withers and everyone got agitated. Neel saw the confrontation and ran to Principal Reedy's office to tell him what was going on. Reedy immediately issued a 911 call over the school radio system to obtain assistance from any available source.4 Meanwhile, Brown saw the confrontation going on just as he heard the 911 call over the radio. Brown immediately went to offer his assistance to Withers and the teachers. At that time, Brown discovered a pill bottle in Withers' hand and wrestled it away from her. Withers produced another bottle, and Brown was able to knock that bottle out of Withers' hand, as well. This confrontation was going on just outside the administration building. At one point Brown noticed some students observing their actions, so he convinced Withers to move into the clinic so the students could not witness anything more than they had already seen. Shortly after entering the clinic, paramedics arrived and removed Withers to the hospital by way of ambulance. Pasco High issued a statement to its staff and teachers generally describing what had happened. The statement said the school would offer counseling to any students who requested it as a result of the incident. (That statement was Pasco High's only attempt to identify the students who had observed the confrontation. There is no evidence that any of the students ever requested or obtained counseling.) Pasco High's administration was most concerned about two things: First, that Withers would be despondent enough to try to take her own life. Second, that she would do so on school grounds where students may witness the act or even discover her body after her death. The latter concern was less probable, because no students had keys to the portable classroom and custodians would likely have been the persons to discover the body. However, students often remain on campus after school hours to engage in any number of activities. That is why Withers took her pills with her when she went to get more water. Prior to ingesting the pills, Withers had left several suicide notes and some cash in her classroom. The notes addressed her despondency and pain at having failed the Spanish certification exam. The notes also directed the school to use Withers' money to throw a party for students, to contribute money to the teachers' end-of-the-year party, and to give some of her personal belongings (toys and things) to students. Withers presumed that her body would be discovered by janitors, rather than by any student, but her exact rationale for that presumption was not adequately discussed at final hearing. Withers has not worked at Pasco High since the date of the incident. She is otherwise gainfully employed in the teaching profession. Withers continues to be under the care of a psychologist (counselor) and a psychiatrist. She continues to suffer the same mental illness that she was experiencing on the date of her suicide attempt. She continues to receive essentially the same medications that she was taking on that date.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Withers is guilty of misconduct and should be placed on monitored probation for a period of two years. Further, a letter of reprimand concerning her actions should be placed in Withers' employee file. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 25th day of March, 2009.

Florida Laws (3) 1012.795120.569120.57 Florida Administrative Code (2) 6B-1.0066B-4.009
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer