The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the teaching certificate of Raymond A. Brooks, Respondent, should be revoked based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail for alleged violations of Sections 231.28 and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Sections 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Rules of the State Board of Education, as alleged in the Petition filed herein.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. Raymond A. Brooks, Respondent, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 150640, Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1979, covering the area of auto mechanics. During times material, Respondent has been employed in the public schools of Brevard County at Cocoa Beach High School as a shop teacher. He is currently on temporary duty elsewhere outside a classroom setting. This case was initiated based on a report received by the Florida Professional Practices Council on November 15, 1978, by officials of the Brevard County School Board alleging that Respondent may have committed acts providing grounds for revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.37, an investigation of the matter was undertaken and a report submitted to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council (Petitioner). On January 9, 1979, the Executive Committee found that there existed probable cause to believe that Respondent was guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate, which finding was forwarded to the Commissioner of Education who also found such probable cause and directed the filing of the instant Petition filed herein on January 25, 1979. Said Petition alleged that Respondent had engaged in conduct that is "inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience, conduct which is not a proper example for students and conduct which is sufficiently notorious to bring Raymond A. Brooks and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect." It is further alleged that his alleged conduct reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee. The material allegations of the Petition are that: Respondent, while acting in his capacity as a teacher at Cocoa Beach High School, entered into discussions with students in his classroom regarding the growth and cultivation of marijuana, which led them to believe that he condoned the use of marijuana. Respondent allowed students to clean stems and seeds from marijuana in his classroom. Respondent allowed students to roll marijuana cigarettes in his classroom. Respondent allowed students to bring marijuana to his classroom. Respondent bought a camera from a student who told him the camera was stolen. Respondent misrepresented to students, provisions of the school's student handbook regarding possession of marijuana on school grounds. Respondent served as a "lookout" for students while they smoked marijuana. On March 27, 1979, Respondent answered the allegations admitting jurisdiction, but denying the substantive allegations contained in the Petition. The Petitioner presented the testimony of eight (8) male high school students: Perry Morton, Paulo Carlini, Mark Murphy, Thomas Miller, John Gore, Hugh Baker, John Mason and Kirk Vanomer (by deposition). In addition, Petitioner offered the testimony of H. D. Smith, Principal of Cocoa Beach High School, who testified that, in his opinion, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Brevard County School System had been seriously reduced as a result of the alleged misconduct on Respondent's part. All of the student witnesses who testified were enrolled in Respondent's fourth period power mechanics class and were present when Respondent discussed the growing of marijuana with them in their classroom during their fourth period class. It suffices to say that according to their testimony, Respondent explained to them how to cut marijuana stalks in order to increase the potency of marijuana in the plant leaves. Respondent also made known to his fourth period students his personal belief that marijuana should be legalized. Testimony also reveals that at least on one occasion, Respondent told his students that they could roll a joint in his class but that they could not light it up. Student Carlini also testified that other teachers at the high school talked to them about drugs. (TR. 34-35) The testimony is clear that all of the student witnesses recalled Respondent advising them that the possession and use of marijuana was against school regulations and against the law. In this regard, Respondent testified that when the subject of marijuana came up during a free period in class, he related what information he knew based on his personal observations and a pamphlet provided him by the Brevard Sheriff's Department to advise students and address questions posed to him by such students. And, as stated, Respondent advised students that it was his personal opinion that the use of marijuana should be legalized based on the costs of enforcement and increased revenues derived from a "use" tax on marijuana. Respondent further testified that he neither advocated nor condoned the use of marijuana. In support of its allegations that Respondent permitted and/or allowed students to clean and roll marijuana in his classroom, Petitioner presented the testimony of student Paulo Carlini. Carlini acknowledged the fact that during each of two prior days before the date in question, he and other students had been rolling pencil shavings in the form of marijuana cigarettes. Carlini further acknowledged that Respondent told them that the possession of marijuana was against school regulations. A second witness presented by Petitioner was Perry Morton. Morton testified that he gave a bag of marijuana to Joe Schraffenberger during class on the day of the incident in questions. Like Carlini, Morton acknowledged that during the two days immediately preceding the incident the students had been rolling pencil shavings in the form of marijuana cigarettes. The purpose of this was to trick the teachers and administration into believing that they had marijuana in their possession and then embarrassing them when it proved to be pencil shavings. Rollin Burch, one of the student witnesses who testified indicated that he also saw pencil shavings being rolled that day on which it is alleged that the Respondent permitted marijuana cigarettes to be rolled in his class. The substance claimed to be marijuana was not presented during the hearing. Additionally, Respondent denied having any knowledge of marijuana in his classroom, nor did he give permission for his students to roll marijuana in his classroom. Respondent testified that on the two days prior to the incident involved herein, several students had been rolling pencil shavings contained in a transparent bag in the form of marijuana cigarettes. Respondent, on each of the two days in question, checked the bag and the cigarettes to make sure that what they were rolling were in fact pencil shavings. On each instance, pencil shavings were being rolled by the students. On the day of the incident, Respondent was busy working at his desk on student failure reports that were due. Carlini showed him a transparent bag and asked permission to roll the substance inside. Respondent glanced up, viewed what he thought to be pencil shavings, nodded his consent and resumed work on his reports. Later, seeing a rolled cigarette, Respondent smelled it, concluded that it smelled like pencil shavings, and returned it to the student. Finally, in response to the allegations that Respondent misrepresented school regulations by permitting students to roll marijuana in his classroom, Respondent acknowledged that he made the statement that, "You can roll them, but you can't light them up." Respondent further acknowledged that he represented to the students that nothing in the school regulations prohibited the rolling of pencil shavings into the form of marijuana cigarettes, although all smoking is prohibited. During the period in which the pencil shavings were being rolled, a student asked whether he could smoke one of the pencil shaving cigarettes, whereupon Respondent replied: "You can roll them, but don't light them up." All of the students testified during cross-examination that the above statement was made during the time when pencil shavings were being rolled. Respondent confronted several students in a prohibited area of the school grounds and advised them that they should carefully return to the school grounds inasmuch as Dean Wright was in the area. By such statement, the students apparently assumed that Respondent knew that they were there to "smoke some pot." Marijuana was never mentioned and, although Respondent's comment was made in the form of a warning, the students assumed that Respondent knew some of them smoked marijuana and that that was their purpose for being there. The students questioned on the subject acknowledged that at the time of the incident, they were doing nothing illegal and that Respondent had no way of knowing their purpose for being in that area. The Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the allegation that the Respondent bought a camera which he knew was stolen. Finally, Petitioner, through the testimony of Principal H. D. Smith, urges a finding that Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals, public conscience or sufficiently notorious as to bring Respondent and the educational profession into public disgrace and disrespect or that it has impaired his effectiveness a teacher. Principal Smith acknowledged the fact that Respondent was employed to teach power mechanics and vocational shop during his tenure as principal for the past three years. Principal Smith, prompted by reports that he received from two parents and a student, Kirk Vanomer, contacted school security who investigated reports that Respondent was permitting students to clean seeds and roll marijuana in his power mechanics class. (TR. 119-120) Based on the findings of the investigation conducted by school security, Principal Smith voiced his opinion that Respondent violated the Code of Ethics in that he permitted students to engage in an activity that was "both criminal and in violation of school board regulations." (TR. 126) Principal Smith pointed to page 25 of the School Board Regulations, Section 44.7, which provides in pertinent part that, "It is against school board regulations for students to have possession of or be under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages." He further testified that students are given copies of the student handbook during the pre-planning period (the first week of the school year) and that the teachers are responsible for advising students of their rights and responsibilities as related to the student handbook. (TR. 128) Principal Smith indicated that several parents called in inquire about what disciplinary measures would be taken against Respondent and that several students had expressed anxiety to him about being assigned to Respondent's inasmuch as they had testified against him. (TR. 130-131) George Arthur Powell, Jr., a woodworking instructor at Brevard County Public School System for approximately fifteen years, testified that the Respondent is regarded as a strict disciplinarian among fellow teachers in the school system. Mr. Powell testified that he encountered disciplinary problems with the administration supporting him with respect to his attempts to discipline students at Cocoa Beach High School. According to Mr. Powell, during the October of 1978, he queried Respondent about students using fake marijuana cigarettes rolled from pencil dust or shavings from sawdust. Powell testified that based on his experience, it would serve no purpose to send a student to the administrators for disciplining inasmuch as the administration would probably make fund of the instructor who made such a referral. (TR. 142-144) The Respondent testified on his own behalf indicating that he had been employed by the Brevard County School District for approximately eight years during which time he had taught auto mechanics and mathematics. Prior to the subject incident, Respondent had not been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings. During his initial employment as a teacher at Rockledge High School, Respondent was admonished because of his strict enforcement of the discipline code. During this same period, Respondent's performance and evaluation ratings were excellent. When Respondent was transferred to Cocoa Beach High School during the school year 1978, he was questioned extensively by Principals Hank Smith and Nelson Rutledge regarding his policy on discipline. Testimony reveals that Respondent was selected due to his reputation for being a strict disciplinarian at Rockledge High School during the prior six years. As previously stated, Respondent voiced his opinion that marijuana should be legalized based on the fact that millions of dollars are spent of taxpayers' money each year to "corral, confiscate and apprehend the various pushers and peddlers of drugs and marijuana." Secondly, he indicated that if marijuana was a controlled substance, the taxpayer or the government would realize some revenue from the legalization. Finally, he thought that if marijuana was controlled, like tobacco, alcohol and drugs, it could be regulated and the taxpayers would realize revenues rather than expending revenues to police the borders, towns and cities for pushers and sellers. (TR. 157) Respondent conveyed this opinion to his students during discussions when the subject of marijuana, etc. was initiated or brought up in class. (TR. 158) Respondent denied telling students that he condoned the use of marijuana or advocated its use and advised them that it was illegal, both lawfully and by school rule and regulation, to possess marijuana; that the penalties were whatever the law imposed because in most cases, the student not only received a school suspension but also faced a juvenile court judge because it (possession) was definitely illegal. (TR. 160-161) Respondent admitted advising students, in response to questions posed to him, about the cultivation of drugs. Respondent denied any knowledge that marijuana was, in fact, being rolled in his classroom. Additionally, Respondent denied that he served as a "lookout" for a group of students. (TR. 174) Inasmuch as the instant proceeding is one wherein the Respondent's means of livelihood is threatened, the evidence to substantiate the allegations must be both clear and convincing. See The Florida Bar v. Rayman, 238 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1970), and Walker v. Florida State Board of Optometry, 322 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975). The mere fact of Respondent's warning students that they should return to a permissible area of the school grounds provides no basis of concluding that the Respondent served as a "lookout" for students while they smoked marijuana. Testimony reveals that the students were not smoking marijuana in the restricted area nor did the Respondent have any way of knowing the students' purpose for being in the restricted area. No evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent purchased a camera known to be stolen as alleged. Based on the evidence presented, no competent and substantial evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent, during class discussions, advocated or condoned the use of marijuana. Likewise, Petitioner failed to satisfy is burden of proof of establishing that Respondent allowed students to clean and roll marijuana in his classroom or misrepresent to the students, school regulations regarding such matters. Finally, in view of the above conclusions, Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with good morals, public conscience or sufficiently notorious as to bring Respondent and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect, or that his effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired, as alleged. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the Petition filed herein be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Revocation filed herein be DISMISSED in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esquire Staff Attorney, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: RAYMOND A. BROOKS CASE NO. 79-478 /
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4.; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the evidence admitted in the record at the final hearing, and the documents officially recognized, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 878903, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2025. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as the athletic director at Evans High School (Evans) in the Orange County School District (District). Respondent was first employed by the District from 2004 to 2008, when he worked at Evans as a basketball coach and physical education teacher. He was re-employed by the District from 2014 until late in the 2017-2018 school year. He worked at Freedom High School (Freedom) as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. He then was employed at Evans as athletic director for most of the 2017-2018 school year. He resigned on April 5, 2018, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the School Board of Orange County (School Board), which is the District's governing body. Rolando Bailey was the assistant principal at Evans when Respondent was first employed there, and Mr. Bailey was the principal at Freedom when Respondent worked there through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Bailey acknowledged "situations" during Respondent's earlier time at Evans and while at Freedom that involved "conflict" and "communications" issues with Respondent and required administrative intervention, but these problems were handled without involving the Employee Relations office (now called the Employee Standards office) to impose discipline. Mr. Bailey left Freedom to become principal at Evans beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. He thought Respondent would be a good candidate for the athletic director position at Evans, because Respondent was familiar with the community and Mr. Bailey thought he would be good at program building, which is what Mr. Bailey thought the athletic department needed. When Mr. Bailey made the move from Freedom to Evans, he brought not only Respondent with him, but also, at least 15 other administrators and teachers. This set a bit of an "us against them" tone between the existing faculty and staff at Evans and the Freedom transplants. Respondent and Mr. Bailey had a close working relationship. The perception among Evans personnel, based on observed interactions between Respondent and Mr. Bailey, was that they were also close personal friends. At the hearing, Mr. Bailey and Respondent both denied being close personal friends, but they were alumni of the same college, members of the same fraternity, and would frequently meet after regular school working hours. Mr. Bailey acknowledged these frequent meetings, although he said that they were work-related: "The role itself gave us the opportunity to talk outside of hours." (Tr. 200-01). These meetings did nothing to dispel the perception among Evans personnel that Mr. Bailey and Respondent were close personal friends. Evans presented challenges for Mr. Bailey as incoming principal. The school had not been performing well academically, with a "D" rating by the state, and he was intent on improving that performance. As for the athletic department, Mr. Bailey saw the need for "program building," noting that facilities were in disrepair and resources such as uniforms and equipment were scarce, resulting in a lack of school pride. Respondent's objective was to turn the Evans sports teams into winning programs. Respondent's charge was to "lead and direct" the athletic department and allow Mr. Bailey to focus on academics. However, Mr. Bailey made a commitment to the Evans coaches who were already in place when Mr. Bailey came over from Freedom. Mr. Bailey told the Evans coaches that the 2017- 2018 school year would be an evaluative year, and there would not be any changes made until after the end of the year. Mr. Bailey committed to personally participating in each coach's evaluation at year-end, along with Respondent, and Mr. Bailey would make the decision then regarding whether changes were needed to move in a different direction. Mr. Bailey was of the view that certain changes would be needed after the evaluative year. For example, he noted that several coaches held more than one head coaching position, which he generally disagreed with except for certain "related" sports, such as cross-country and track, which had separate seasons so one individual could be head coach of both. Mr. Bailey also was of the view that an individual should probably not serve as both a head coach and an administrative dean, although exceptions could be allowed and Mr. Bailey was willing to wait and see if individuals at Evans were handling it well.2 For the 2017-2018 "evaluative" school year, Mr. Bailey was willing— and had committed—to not make changes to conform the staffing to his views, and instead, to await year-end evaluations to make these decisions. Respondent expressed a different view, stating that if it had been up to him, he would have terminated all existing coaches when he started at Evans and he would have made them all reapply. But it was not up to Respondent, and Mr. Bailey's commitment stood. Respondent started working at Evans during the last few days of July 2017. He immediately implemented some changes in how the athletic 2 For example, Mr. Thompson was an administrative dean and head football coach at Evans for years before Mr. Bailey became principal and he remained in both positions after Mr. Bailey became principal. department was run. One change involved employing Ms. Woodard, who came over from Freedom with Mr. Bailey and the others, as assistant athletic director with the responsibility for inputting team roster information, including documenting compliant physicals and grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on the roster. This apparently had the effect of revealing students who were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.0 GPA. Previously, coaches were responsible for inputting their own team rosters. The claim asserted at hearing was that coaches were "padding" their rosters with disqualified students3 or inactive students.4 The motive suggested for "padding" a roster would be that for "minor" sports like cross-country, track, swimming, golf, and others, higher roster numbers could result in supplements being authorized for assistant coaching positions. A reduction in roster numbers could mean a reduction or loss of supplements, which could mean that assistant coaches would have to coach on a volunteer basis, or a head coach might have to do without, or without as many, assistant coaches. There was no competent credible evidence proving specific instances of wrongful or inappropriate roster padding.5 3 Respondent explained how students without qualifying GPAs might have been mistakenly listed on rosters showing qualifying GPAs. He acknowledged that coaches did not have access to detailed GPA data, and instead, might input a student's cumulative GPA as shown on the prior year's report card. However, that GPA might include grades for classes that were not eligible for purposes of meeting the minimum GPA required to participate in sports. 4 Ms. Bellamy, the girls' basketball head coach, said she discouraged "her" girls from going out for cross-country, because they "probably" would not be allowed to compete in meets. Her comments were more suggestive of a turf war than credible evidence of roster padding. 5 Several witnesses who were not at Evans until 2017-2018 offered their belief that roster padding occurred before the 2017-2018 school year. The credible testimony established only that when rosters were prepared or updated under Respondent's system beginning in August 2017, inputting updated GPAs resulted in some students being disqualified. Ms. Woodard, who implemented the new system, admitted she was not sure how many supplements were lost or in which sport. She thought cross-country may have lost supplements, but then said the sport previously had four or six supplements and that it had four supplements after she updated the rosters. Whitney Poole claimed that rosters had been padded the previous year, but she did not explain how she could have known that, since she was not at Evans before August 2017, and then was only a math teacher. She did not have any position in the athletic department before January 2018 when she became an assistant coach. In general, Ms. Poole was not a credible witness, and with one exception, her testimony was not credited. Sheree Carter Sheree Carter was a coach and administrative dean at Evans in 2017- 2018, when Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and others came to Evans from Freedom. She had been employed at Evans since 2012. She remains employed at Evans to this day. During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Carter held the following positions at Evans: administrative dean over attendance; head coach of girls' cross-country and girls' track; and assistant coach for girls' weightlifting. Ms. Carter was slated for those same positions headed into the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Carter took comfort from Mr. Bailey's assurance that no changes would be made until he made the decisions after personally participating in the year-end evaluations. Ms. Carter testified that she met Respondent at the end of July, during the two-week pre-planning period before classes started. Within a week or two after they met, Respondent started saying things to let her know that he was interested in her. He made her uncomfortable, and she rebuffed his advances. But rather than discouraging his comments, the intensity and frequency of Respondent's advances escalated. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent would walk by her office, which was at the back of the front office, and he would poke his head in to see if anyone else was with her. Respondent never came into her office if someone else was with her; he waited until she was alone, and then he would come in. His conversation opener was that he was recently divorced and was trying to get his feet wet getting back into the dating game. She responded by saying okay, cool, good luck with that. Respondent then started coming by Ms. Carter's office to ask if she wanted to grab lunch together or come eat lunch in his office. She declined each time he asked. After the rebuffed lunch offers, Respondent started asking Ms. Carter if she wanted to go to the movies with him or grab drinks after work. Again, she turned him down each time. Respondent's next approach was to let Ms. Carter know that he had a sofa in his office, followed by repeated invitations to Ms. Carter to hang out and chill with him on the sofa in his office. These invitations were conveyed with a personal, intimate air. Ms. Carter always turned down these advances and let Respondent know she was uncomfortable with what he was asking. Respondent approached Ms. Carter with these advances not only when she was alone in her office, but also, on the practice fields and in the hallways or courtyard, if she was alone. Respondent only approached Ms. Carter to make these advances when no one else was around.6 Ms. Carter described it as "creepy," like "in a stalking type of way. Like he would just wait for that right moment to approach you when you're by yourself and then throw these advances at me." (Tr. 74). Respondent's stalking-type behavior and frequent approaches affected Ms. Carter's ability to do her job. She delayed or avoided communicating with Respondent about coaching matters, despite needing to communicate with the athletic director. She would check hallways before freely moving around to make sure Respondent was not present, and she took to closing her office door to give the impression she was not there. Ms. Carter's testimony was credible and clear. Her demeanor was earnest and believable. In contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the advances claimed by Ms. Carter lacked credibility. Respondent was evasive. He frequently avoiding a direct answer to the question, as illustrated by the following: Q: And did you invite her to your office to chill? A: I was hardly ever in the office. I mean, so, it's very hard to chill in there. I was very, very on the go. I was very, very on the go. You know, Mr. Bailey was big on the look and appearance. So there was stuff always that needed to be done with the field and 6 Mr. Bailey testified that he never observed Respondent engage in sexual harassment, but conceded that sexual harassment is not normally something that he sees people doing out in the open. with the cosmetics. So I was hardly ever in the office. The only time I was in the office if I had to be [sic]. But I was hardly ever in the office, so I definitely couldn't be there just to chill because it was just too much work to do. (Tr. 324). * * * Q: Did you ever invite her to eat lunch in your office? A: I never ate lunch. It's hard for me to eat lunch because I had lunch duty and we had three lunches. So, when am I going to eat lunch when I'm constantly being fussed at by Mr. Bailey about not answering e-mails. Because I was never in my office so my e-mails were forwarded to Ms. Woodard so I didn't have to hear from him about why I don't answer e-mails. So I never ate lunch during the day. (Tr. 327). Respondent avoided answering the questions posed—whether he ever invited Ms. Carter to chill or eat lunch in his office. Respondent danced around the subject, never denying or refuting Ms. Carter's clear testimony that he had, in fact, invited her multiple times to eat lunch in his office and to chill on the sofa in his office, but she turned him down each time. Respondent did deny that he had asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies7 or out for drinks with him, but he offered weak explanations, which were not persuasive, for why he would not have extended these invitations. When asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies with him, he responded: "No. I was too busy to be trying to go to the movies and live in a whole different county and try to work. You know, Evans was an hour and 20 minutes away. Freedom was 38. So there's no time to go to the movies. Especially with a person you don't know, you know." (Tr. 325-26). And when 7 Ms. Poole, a witness for Respondent who generally went out of her way attempting to testify favorably for Respondent, said that she had been friendly with Ms. Carter at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Poole admitted that during this time, Ms. Carter told Ms. Poole that Respondent had asked her out to the movies. To that extent, Ms. Poole's testimony was credible, and it corroborated Ms. Carter's testimony. asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter out for a drink, he said: "No, because I don't drink. … I just never had a drink, never smoked. So I don't drink. And because I don't drink, I'm not going to invite somebody out to watch them drink. So." (Tr. 326-27). Respondent's testimony on these points was less credible than Ms. Carter's testimony, and her testimony is credited. Ms. Carter testified that her discomfort with Respondent's advances came to a head at a soccer game, when he approached her and once again asked her out for drinks, and she got upset. She said that she blew up, emphatically reiterating (punctuated with curse words) that she had told him before she was not interested and expressing her frustration that he had not yet accepted the message that she wanted him to stop making advances at her. This was on a weeknight during the week of December 4, 2017. On Friday, December 8, 2017, Respondent went to Ms. Carter's office and told her: (1) that she was immediately removed, mid-season, from the assistant coach position for weightlifting, though she could keep the supplement; (2) that they would be moving in a different direction and she would no longer be head coach for girls' cross-country (which had ended its season one month earlier); and (3) that they would evaluate her position as head coach for girl's track after the spring. Respondent told Ms. Carter that he and Mr. Bailey had made these decisions because Mr. Bailey did not want her coaching and serving as an administrative dean at the same time.8 Ms. Carter was very upset because she loves coaching. She broke down crying and was so distraught, she was unable to perform her job duties to supervise during either lunch periods that day. Ms. Carter believed that 8 Respondent admitted to delivering this news to Ms. Carter, although he said it was in a routine meeting in his office that he had scheduled to give Ms. Carter her end-of-season evaluation for coaching girls' cross-country (conflicting with Mr. Bailey's clear testimony that he always participated in evaluations, which were done at the end of the year). Curiously, Respondent testified that his evaluation had no meaning, and its only purpose was to give coaches something for possible future employers wanting to see evaluations. Respondent failed to explain, if the meeting was only to address a meaningless end-of-season evaluation for one sport, why he used the occasion to deliver meaningful consequences or why he addressed more than that one sport. Respondent took this action to retaliate against her because she had rebuffed his advances, particularly after her strong rebuke of him earlier that week. Up to this point, Ms. Carter had confided in two different colleagues regarding Respondent's advances and her discomfort with them, but she had not lodged a formal complaint against Respondent with Mr. Bailey. She was concerned that Mr. Bailey would take Respondent's side in a dispute because of their longstanding relationship and apparent close personal friendship. Previously, when she had confided in Mr. Thompson, he had told her she should talk to Respondent regarding her discomfort, but she had tried that repeatedly. When she confided again in Mr. Thompson upon being reduced to tears on December 8, 2017, this time he told her she should not be talking with colleagues rather than going through proper channels, and he urged her to file a complaint. Ms. Carter followed that advice, submitting a complaint in an email to Mr. Bailey, which she sent to him just after midnight, very early on Monday morning, December 11, 2017. She asked if she could meet with Mr. Bailey to discuss what Respondent had told her regarding her coaching responsibilities and her concern that Respondent had taken this action because she had turned down his advances. Directly contradicting Respondent's claim, Mr. Bailey testified that he did not make the decision to remove Ms. Carter from her coaching duties during the 2017-2018 school year, nor did he direct Respondent to tell Ms. Carter in December—in the middle of the "evaluative year"—that she could not remain as coach and administrative dean.9 Instead, as he had committed to do at the beginning of the year, Mr. Bailey waited until the end of the school year to have the conversation with Ms. Carter about changes going forward. At that time, he informed her that he did not want her to continue in the dual roles of coaching and administrative dean in the 2018- 9 When Mr. Bailey found out that Respondent had that conversation with Ms. Carter on December 8, 2017, he had a meeting with Respondent to find out why he did that. 2019 school year. Ms. Carter wanted to remain in coaching to continue building her programs. With Mr. Bailey's agreement, she gave up the administrative dean position and returned to classroom teaching the next school year so she could continue coaching. Mr. Bailey was a witness for Respondent and he attempted to be supportive of Respondent in his testimony. However, Mr. Bailey clearly and directly contradicted Respondent's claim that he had instructed Respondent to remove Ms. Carter from coaching on December 8, 2017. Mr. Bailey was surprised by Ms. Carter's email reporting that Respondent had done so and had attributed the decision to Mr. Bailey. After meeting with Ms. Carter, Mr. Bailey reported Ms. Carter's complaint to the Employee Relations office for investigation.10 In contrast to the "situations" involving Respondent when he was first at Evans and again while at Freedom, which were handled by administrative interventions without involving Employee Relations, this time Mr. Bailey found it necessary to involve Employee Relations. Jamila Mitchell Jamila Mitchell, Ph.D., also provided testimony regarding inappropriate statements and conduct by Respondent that made her feel very uncomfortable and that interfered with her doing her job. Dr. Mitchell has been working at Evans since 2014. Her doctorate degree is in computer science. She has been the computer science instructor at Evans and the sports media sponsor. She held those two positions during the 2017-2018 school year. She was not a coach or assistant coach. As sports media sponsor, Dr. Mitchell is involved in all sports-related media, including film, photography, social media, and the school's website. 10 Two separate investigations were initiated: the first addressed alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Respondent, pursuant to the District's responsibilities under civil rights laws as Ms. Carter's employer not to commit unlawful employment practices. When that investigation was completed with a finding of probable cause to believe there was sexual harassment, Mr. Ganio, then-manager of the District's Employee Relations office, completed an investigation into whether Respondent had engaged in misconduct, which would provide just cause for the School Board to take action against him as a District employee. Her responsibilities include managing sports-related website content and ensuring information is disseminated for all sports-related events. She must keep up with schedules, rosters, college recruiting activities, and events such as college scholarship signing days and awards banquets. Frequent communications with the Evans athletic director are essential to her job duties, at least by the time sports activities are in full swing after the first couple of weeks of each school year. Dr. Mitchell testified that beginning in September 2017, when her job required her to be in frequent communications with Respondent, he started saying and doing things that made Dr. Mitchell uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent referred to Dr. Mitchell as his "little Mexican." Dr. Mitchell is not Mexican. Respondent would say this when passing her in the hallway, if they were both at a game or event, or when he came to her classroom. Sometimes she was alone when he said this, but sometimes other people overheard what Respondent said. She was offended by Respondent's words, and also, uncomfortable having to explain to others who heard Respondent call her his little Mexican that she was not Mexican, but was biracial. Despite taking offense, she tried to ignore it or laugh it off. Respondent frequently came by Dr. Mitchell's classroom during her planning period when she was the only one there. At least initially, they would discuss sports media matters. But then the conversations would turn to Respondent telling Dr. Mitchell that he "liked the way her butt looked" in the pants she was wearing that day, or how whatever she was wearing accentuated some part of her body. She tried to change the subject back to work, but his comments made her feel weird and "creeped out." Respondent's frequent comments about her clothing and body impeded communications regarding sports media issues. Respondent's comments also caused Dr. Mitchell to stop wearing form-fitting clothing, pants that were a little bit tight, or shirts cut a little bit low.11 She began wearing loose clothing and when Respondent came by her classroom, she stayed seated behind her desk so he would not comment on "how her butt looked." Her discomfort and worries distracted from needed communications and interfered with getting the job done. It got to the point where Dr. Mitchell avoided communicating in person with Respondent, resorting to communicating by text or phone call. Dr. Mitchell described the "tipping point" for her was when she was walking through a courtyard to go to the front office and Respondent was coming out of the front office. Dr. Mitchell was wearing her hair down (loose), which she rarely did. When they passed in the courtyard, Respondent commented that he liked it when she wore her hair down because it gave him something to grab onto. There were other people in the courtyard—teachers and students—and Dr. Mitchell testified that she just prayed that nobody heard what Respondent said to her. She was highly embarrassed by what she reasonably interpreted as a sexual reference. Dr. Mitchell did not immediately complain about Respondent's inappropriate conduct, in part because she was embarrassed, but also, because she did not know to whom she could complain. She had seen how Mr. Bailey interacted with Respondent, and observed that they seemed to have a very friendly, personal relationship. She was concerned that if she said anything, it would be her job on the line. But when she was contacted by an investigator looking into Sheree Carter's complaint, who had been told that Respondent may have also harassed Dr. Mitchell, she spoke with the 11 Respondent suggested in his PRO that Dr. Mitchell should be faulted for her choice of attire in a school "full of hormonal high school students that most likely has a dress code, stated or implied, for teachers." (Resp. PRO at 28). No credible evidence supports a finding that Dr. Mitchell's attire was provocative, inappropriate, or contrary to any dress code, and none was cited. Respondent's argument is, in effect, that Dr. Mitchell "asked for it"—a classic means to deflect blame and excuse inappropriate sexual conduct, which is, or should be, a relic of the past. Respondent's veiled hint that Dr. Mitchell asked for it is tantamount to a concession that "it" occurred, necessitating an excuse for his behavior. There is no excuse. investigator and provided the same information about Respondent's offensive conduct to which she testified at the hearing. Dr. Mitchell was very credible and genuinely distraught as she described these uncomfortable encounters with Respondent. As with Ms. Carter's specific complaints, Respondent denied (or gave evasive, less-than-clear answers) that he said or did the things described by Dr. Mitchell.12 Respondent's testimony was not as credible as Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Dr. Mitchell's testimony is credited. Jessica Kendrick Jessica Kendrick was the head swim coach at Evans, coaching both the boys' and girls' swim teams, from 2013 through the 2018-2019 school year. Her testimony was fairly narrow in scope, but clear and to the point: when Respondent was the head of the athletics department in the 2017-2018 school year, he made her uncomfortable by standing very close whenever they talked with no one else nearby—that is, when there were no witnesses. Ms. Kendrick is five feet, eight inches in height. Respondent is six feet, one inch tall. He used his height advantage to intimidate Ms. Kendrick, making her feel like he was towering over her when he stood very close and looked down at her. Ms. Kendrick's vivid description was that Respondent would be standing so close to her that she could tell what he had for lunch. Ms. Kendrick's reaction to these close encounters was to back up to create space between Respondent and herself. But Respondent would quickly move forward to close the space she had created. She would inch back again; he would inch toward her to close the gap again. Respondent made Ms. Kendrick feel very uncomfortable. 12 In contrast, the investigative summary of the District's investigation into Ms. Carter's sexual harassment complaint reported that Respondent stated he "does not recall if he made inappropriate comments to [Dr.] Mitchell." (Pet. Ex. 14, Bates p. 35). Although statements of non-party witnesses reported in the investigative summary are hearsay, and thereby limited in use to supplementing or explaining competent evidence, Respondent's statements reported in the investigative summary that was offered against him are party admissions, excepted from hearsay, and admissible for all purposes. See § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Kendrick had been the head swim head coach at Evans for four years before Respondent became athletic director. He made her so uncomfortable when they spoke in person that she went out of her way to avoid him. She told the two assistant swim coaches, Mr. Rivers and Mr. Ross, about her discomfort with Respondent. She asked her assistants to take her place for in-person meetings or discussions with Respondent so she could avoid any more uncomfortable close encounters with Respondent. It affected her job; communications with the athletic director were necessary for her to function effectively as head coach. Ms. Kendrick testified that rather than having to interact with Respondent, if Respondent had continued on as athletic director at Evans, she would have given up the head coaching position. Instead, Respondent resigned, and Ms. Kendrick decided to remain head swim coach at Evans for the 2018-2019 school year. Respondent testified that he had no idea what Ms. Kendrick was talking about. Ms. Kendrick's testimony was more credible than Respondent's and is credited. At the hearing, Respondent made the blanket statement that all the witnesses testifying against him were lying. He claimed that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kendrick were lying to get back at him for changing the procedures to prevent roster padding and costing them coaching supplements.13 He claimed that their colleagues, in whom they had confided and who corroborated their testimony, were also lying. Respondent's attempted attacks on the credibility 13 Ironically, the suggestion that Ms. Carter was mad because she lost supplements as a result of the changed roster procedures was contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. As for her head coaching positions, Respondent testified that head coaches receive supplemental pay irrespective of roster numbers. Ms. Carter might have lost those supplements as a result of Respondent's unauthorized attempt to remove Ms. Carter from cross-country head coach and to threaten removal from track, had those actions stood, but they were reversed by Mr. Bailey. As for the supplement Ms. Carter received as assistant weightlifting coach, Respondent admitted that when he told Ms. Carter she was relieved of her assistant coaching duties mid-season, he told her she could retain the supplement. Respondent's actions had nothing to do with supplements or rosters; Respondent acted to retaliate against Ms. Carter for rebuffing his repeated advances. of the witnesses testifying against him were not persuasive and did not undermine their clear, credible testimony. Most notably, although Respondent claimed some witnesses had a motive to lie to get back at him because of lost coaching supplements, no such motive was or could be attributed to Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell was not a coach or an assistant coach. Respondent offered no cogent theory to explain why Dr. Mitchell would fabricate her testimony. Respondent's accusation that Dr. Mitchell's testimony was invented does not square with her display of emotions at the hearing. She was visibly shaken and crying when she described her embarrassment with Respondent's sexual innuendos, and when she explained why she did not complain about Respondent at the time. Ulunda Frazier The pattern of behavior evident from the complaints of Ms. Carter, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Kendrick is further buttressed, at least generally, by court records regarding Ulunda Frazier and Respondent. Ms. Frazier is a teacher. At the time pertinent to this case, she taught at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge), within the District. At the hearing, Respondent described Ms. Frazier as a longtime personal friend he has known for 15 or 16 years. He said Ms. Frazier used to babysit for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant and toddler. Respondent admitted that his personal relationship with Ms. Frazier had turned "toxic." He did not offer any details to explain in what way the relationship turned toxic. Instead, alluding to a close intimate relationship gone bad, he said only that his relationship with Ms. Frazier "had become toxic and out of control that was actually birthed out of both of our pains. We -- she was going through an ugly divorce and I was going through my treatments and stuff. And so the relationship had just got toxic and it had -- it was no longer a friendly environment." (Tr. 351). Court records in Frazier v. Crawford, Case No. 48-2018-DR-000923-O, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, were officially recognized. The records reflect that on January 24, 2018, Ms. Frazier filed a Petition for Injunction Against Stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, seeking to enjoin Respondent from stalking her. That same day, the court issued a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Stalking. On January 25, 2018, the Polk County Sheriff's Office served the Temporary Injunction, Ms. Frazier's Petition, and a Notice of Hearing on Respondent at his residence. The hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2018, and was held as noticed. Both Ms. Frazier and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (Stalking Injunction). Respondent received a copy by hand delivery in open court, as acknowledged by his signature on the Stalking Injunction. He is therefore "deemed to have knowledge of and to be bound by all matters occurring at the hearing and on the face of" the Stalking Injunction. (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 51-52). The Stalking Injunction contains the following finding: "After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent of Respondent, the Court finds, based on the specific facts of this case, that Petitioner is a victim of stalking."14 (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 47). On that basis, the Stalking Injunction ordered as follows: "Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of stalking against Petitioner, including stalking, cyberstalking, aggravated stalking, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act to do violence to Petitioner." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 50). The Stalking Injunction is in effect until February 26, 2021. 14 "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]" § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 784.0485 creates a cause of action for a person who is a victim of stalking to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Stalking Injunction "reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an athletic director because it limited his ability to travel to that school and perform his duties." The terms of the Stalking Injunction do not support this allegation. While the Stalking Injunction generally and broadly prohibited Respondent from having any contact with Ms. Frazier, including at Oak Ridge where she worked and at her residence (both of which were in Orlando), there is an express exception to the no-contact prohibition, as follows: "The Respondent may go to Oakridge [sic] High School only for a valid business reason. If any contact occurs, it shall be non-hostile contact." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 49). In several respects, however, the Stalking Injunction contradicts Respondent's testimony. Respondent denied that he would have made advances on Ms. Carter because he was married and had been married to the same woman since 2010. Yet his close personal relationship with Ms. Frazier predated his marriage by five or six years. Respondent testified that Ms. Frazier babysat for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant. The fact that Respondent got married to someone else five years later did not prevent Respondent from engaging in a first "friendly" and then "toxic" close relationship with Ms. Frazier, or from stalking Ms. Frazier before the Stalking Injunction was issued against him on February 6, 2018. Whatever the details may be regarding Respondent's stalking of Ms. Frazier, it is noteworthy that she lived and worked in Orlando. This belies Respondent's claim that he could not have harassed Ms. Carter with the repeated advances she described, because he would not have had time to go to the movies or out for drinks near where he worked in Orange County. He attempted to paint the picture that he spent every moment in Orange County working or commuting to and from his home in distant Polk County. The Stalking Injunction stands as evidence that, contrary to Respondent's claim, in addition to working at Evans and commuting to and from Polk County, Respondent found time to have a first friendly, then toxic relationship with Ms. Frazier and to stalk Ms. Frazier where she lived and worked in Orange County. Respondent's Separation from the District The investigation into Ms. Carter's complaint identified individuals who were potential witnesses with relevant information or possible victims. After conducting interviews, the District held a pre-determination meeting on March 7, 2018, to share with Respondent the information learned during the investigation and give him an opportunity to respond. Respondent appeared with a union representative, who instructed him not to respond. On March 27, 2018, Respondent was suspended from work with pay while the District completed its investigation. This "Relief of Duty" status is employed when warranted by the seriousness of the allegations. "Relief of Duty" included an immediate suspension of network access, including email. During the process of completing the investigation, the District discovered a new allegation of inappropriate conduct by Respondent. The District learned of Ms. Frazier's Petition and the resulting Stalking Injunction. It held a second pre-determination meeting on April 3, 2018, to inform Respondent that it had learned about the Stalking Injunction. Again, Respondent was given the chance to respond, but again, he refused to say anything on advice of his union representative. On the same day as the second pre-determination meeting, Barbara Jenkins, the District Superintendent, issued a memorandum to the School Board, transmitting a complaint charging Respondent with misconduct in office and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and recommending that Respondent be terminated from employment for the charged violations. Immediately after the complaint and recommendation for termination were released, Respondent negotiated and finalized a Settlement Agreement and General Release (Agreement) with the School Board. The Agreement expressly stated that it was not to be construed as an admission by Respondent or the District of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent was required to resign as of April 5, 2018, and to tender a written letter of resignation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent agreed "he will not reapply for or accept employment [at a District school] at any time in the future." Respondent also acknowledged that the District would be submitting its investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct to the Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, as required by section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In form and substance, the Agreement is a common vehicle utilized for resignation of an employee in lieu of the employee having to answer to charges and face the prospect of termination. Respondent attempted to suggest that his resignation was purely voluntary, based on his decision that he did not want to work in a place where people would lie about him. His claim was not credible. Respondent fully understood when he took the position at Evans, along with at least 15 others brought over from Freedom by Mr. Bailey, that there would be an "us against them" air that he would have to overcome. Mr. Bailey attempted to set the stage for developing good relationships with existing Evans coaches and other staff, by deeming the first year an "evaluative year" in which there would not be any position changes until the evaluative year was discussed with Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and the coach at the end of the year. Respondent knew that Evans had challenging problems to overcome, with scarce resources in terms of facilities, equipment, and uniforms, and that he was expected to build winning programs and instill school pride. He knew he was expected to put in place the systems, policies, and procedures that would allow for program building, and he was well aware that his changes would be unpopular with some. It defies logic and credibility for Respondent to suggest that he chose to walk away from his commitment before completing one school year only because existing Evans coaches and assistant coaches were lying about him. Mr. Bailey acknowledged that, as principal, he was compelled to let the investigation process be carried out. As he put it: "[W]hat I performed is my role as a principal. That when there's conduct that's unbecoming of an employee, or an employee feeling as if they have been, in this case, harassed, I'm going to follow the guidance that has been presented to me in my role as the leader of the school." (Tr. 209). He acknowledged that at the culmination of that process, when it was reported to him, he followed the guidance that he was supposed to follow, and as a result, Respondent was no longer at his school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of three years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of three years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, which should include a requirement that Respondent take two college level courses, one in professional ethics for educators and one related to women's rights in the workplace; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2021. Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether there is "just cause" to terminate Respondent, Edward Starcher, from employment as a teacher in the Collier County School District.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of physical education, recreational dance, and driver's education. On August 18, 1986, the School Board hired Respondent as a teacher. Since being hired in 1986, Respondent taught continually in the Collier County public school system, except for a one-year leave of absence. Respondent began his career at Highland Elementary School and taught there for approximately two to three years. He then taught for nine years at Village Oaks Elementary School. Respondent, subsequently, taught at Gulf Coast High School, where he also served as a basketball coach. In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent was employed at NHS as a physical education teacher, driver's education teacher, and head basketball coach for the boys' varsity basketball team. At all times relevant herein, Respondent was a driver's education teacher and head coach of the boys' basketball team at NHS. Throughout his teaching career with the School Board, Respondent received positive evaluations and was recognized for having a passion for coaching. Prior to the disciplinary action at issue in this proceeding, there is no evidence that Respondent has been previously disciplined by the School Board. At all times relevant herein, A.K., a female, was a high school student in her senior year at NHS. In January 2003, A.K. was enrolled as a peer tutor under the direction of Respondent, along with two other students--A.D., a female, and A.F., a male. A.K., A.D., and A.F. were enrolled as peer tutors during the fourth block, which commenced at 12:45 p.m. As peer tutors, they assisted Respondent with doing the laundry, folding towels and T-shirts, and delivering them to the storage closet. At the beginning of fourth block, the peer tutors would typically meet Respondent in his coaching office or outside of it, and he would give them their assignment for the day. On Monday, February 10, 2003 (February 10), A.K. reported to Respondent's office during fourth block for her peer tutor responsibilities. A.D., another peer tutor, was absent that day, but A.F. and K.C. were present. K.C., an NHS student, was not assigned as Respondent's peer tutor, but he sometimes assisted Respondent and his peer tutors during the fourth block. On February 10, as Respondent and the peer tutors were exiting Respondent's office to walk to the laundry room, Respondent "put [A.K.] in a little bit of a headlock," in a playful manner. After arriving at the laundry room, Respondent and the peer tutor folded laundry. At some point, Respondent handed A.K. a pile of towels and told her to take it to the storage closet. Respondent also took a pile of towels or jerseys and both A.K. and Respondent proceeded from the laundry area across the gym to the boys' locker room. On this trip to the storage closet, only A.K. went with Respondent across the gym to the storage closet area. A.F. remained in the laundry room because Respondent told only A.K. to come with him. The storage closet was located in the boys' football locker room on the opposite side of the auxiliary gym from the laundry room. On February 10, there was a physical education class with at least 20 students and an instructor on the gym floor playing volleyball. The physical education class was divided into two groups at the opposite ends of the gym so that when the peer tutors and Respondent took the laundry across the gym floor to the storage closet, they would pass between the two groups. Respondent and A.K. entered the boys' locker room area and proceeded to the storage closet to drop off the towels and/or jerseys. A.K. entered the storage closet area first followed by Respondent. After A.K. put the towels down, she noticed Respondent shutting the door quickly, turning the lights off and on, and then opening the door. A.K. asked Respondent what he was doing, and he replied that he was just joking around. During the first trip to the storage closet, as A.K. was walking through the locker room, she saw J.C., a NHS student, near his locker. Some time after Respondent and A.K. walked through the locker room, J.C. walked around to the bench near the storage closet doorway to put on a knee brace. Thereafter, J.C. saw Respondent in the doorway of the storage closet, and Respondent introduced him to A.K. J.C.'s locker was adjacent to the storage closet wall, and he had to walk to the end of the wall and around the corner to get to the doorway of the storage closet. Due to the location of his locker, there was a period of time when J.C. was not near the doorway of the storage closet and could not see that doorway. At some point while A.K. and Respondent were in the storage closet, Corporal Ronald Byington (Coach Byington), the NHS youth relations deputy and an assistant football coach at the school, walked through the locker room from the adjacent coaches' room. Coach Byington stopped and talked to Respondent about a minute and a half. During his very brief conversation with Respondent, Coach Byington did not observe anything out of the ordinary. After briefly talking with J.C., Respondent and A.K. returned to the laundry room. After a short period of time, Respondent handed A.K. a bag of jerseys to take with her to the storage closet and proceeded alone with her back across the gym to the boys' locker room. J.C. was not in the locker room when Respondent and A.K. returned to the storage closet. When A.K. and Respondent returned to the storage closet with laundry a second time, Respondent again followed her into the storage closet, closed the door, and turned off the lights. Respondent then kissed A.K. on her neck and lips, grabbed her leg, and pushed it up against his side. A.K. pushed Respondent away from her, after which he turned on the lights, grabbed himself and remarked, "This is what you do to me." As A.K. approached the door to walk out, he placed A.K.'s hand on his groin. A.K. described the manner in which Respondent kissed her on the neck as "more of a sucking" than a kiss. After the incident described in paragraph 16, A.K. returned to the laundry room followed by Respondent. Upon returning, A.F. and K.C. noticed that A.K.'s neck was red and told her so. When A.F. and K.C. commented about the red mark on her neck, Respondent stated that it was because he had put her in a headlock. After the brief discussion about the red mark on A.K.'s neck, A.K. returned to the boys' locker room a third time, this time with A.F. and Respondent. A.K. had to wait outside the locker room since there were football players in there changing for weight training. Because A.K. could not enter the locker room, she handed the laundry she was carrying to A.F. and/or Respondent. Upon returning to the laundry room from the third trip to the storage closet, Respondent "kind of stopped [A.K.]" as they were walking across the gym floor. He then had A.K. hold her hand up while he did the same and intertwined his little finger with hers while he asked her to "pinkie swear" (promise) she would not tell anybody, and she agreed to do so. However, Respondent then told A.K. that he could not promise that it would not happen again. This brief exchange took place out of A.F.'s earshot. Moreover, given the considerable activity in the gym, it is reasonable that A.F. did not hear this conversation. A.K. returned a fourth time to the locker room to get her book bag and left school. She was in a state of shock, drove home, changed, and left for work. That evening A.K. did not tell her parents about the incident with Respondent because she was embarrassed and uncertain as to how they would react. The next morning, Tuesday, February 11, 2003 (February 11), A.K. was sitting in her car in the NHS parking lot waiting for the first-block bell to ring when her friend, E.W., a senior at NHS, approached her. E.W. noticed that there was something wrong and asked A.K. what was the matter. A.K. started to cry and told E.W. that Respondent had kissed her. As they walked to class, A.K. told E.W. more of what happened. A.K. told E.W. that on the first visit to the storage closet Respondent shut the lights off. A.K. asked him what he was doing and he turned them on. A.K. also told E.W. that on the second visit, Respondent shut the lights off and imposed himself on her, including kissing her on the neck and lips and grabbing her leg. Sometime during the course of the day, A.K. told E.W. about Respondent's having her touch his penis area. On the morning of February 11, soon after A.K. told E.W. about the incident, E.W. asked A.K. whether she had told anyone. A.K. replied that she had not. E.W. then told A.K. that she needed to report the incident to Mary Ellen Bergsma, the school guidance counselor. Although A.K. agreed to do so, she was hesitant and embarrassed to discuss the incident with Ms. Bergsma or anyone. At the beginning of the first block, E.W. accompanied A.K. to Ms. Bergsma's office. Ms. Bergsma invited both girls into her office and shut the door. Initially, when she went into Ms. Bergsma's office, A.K. was visibly upset, choked up, and unable to speak. After being encouraged by E.W., A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident with Respondent. A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that Respondent had "hit on her," meaning that he had kissed her. In response to her question, A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that the event occurred in the storage closet area and then explained what happened in more detail. During this time, A.K. continued crying and had a hard time talking. After A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident, Ms. Bergsma informed A.K. that she would have to talk with Gary Brown, the principal of NHS, about the incident. Later that morning, Ms. Bergsma accompanied A.K. to Mr. Brown's office. Although A.K. appeared uncomfortable and nervous and was crying, she told Mr. Brown basically what she had told Ms. Bergsma. At the end of the day, E.W. went to Ms. Bergsma to report some of the additional details that A.K. was too embarrassed to tell Ms. Bergsma, including Respondent's putting her hand on his genital and saying, "This is what you do to me." Over the next few weeks, Ms. Bergsma had follow-up conversations with A.K. to see how she was doing. She found that A.K. was having difficulty concentrating at school, not sleeping well, and, overall, was "having a tough time." On February 11, after A.K. reported the incident to Ms. Bergsma, she decided to remove A.K. from Respondent's peer tutor class. At 9:02 a.m. that morning, Ms. Bergsma e-mailed Respondent advising the following: "FYI – A.K. is out of your class 4th block." The e-mail was opened by Respondent at 9:05 a.m. and deleted by him at 9:05 a.m. Five minutes later, at 9:10 a.m., Respondent prepared a separate E-mail stating, "Thanks for the info. Have a great day." Respondent never contacted Ms. Bergsma to find out why A.K. was no longer in his fourth-block class. Respondent testified that the e-mail was no big deal to him and that it might have meant A.K. was out just that day since the e-mail from Ms. Bergsma did not have the word "permanently" contained in it. Between approximately 12:00 to 12:30 p.m., on February 11, Mr. Brown told Respondent in person that he wanted to meet with him in Mr. Brown's office at about 2:00 p.m. When Respondent met with Mr. Brown in his office that afternoon, Mr. Brown asked Respondent if he knew why he had been called to his office. Respondent seemed to think about the question and replied that it must be a parent complaining about his basketball program. He thought up several possibilities until Mr. Brown told him it had nothing to do with basketball. Mr. Brown then told Respondent that the meeting pertained to a complaint from a female student who had peer counseling with him and related to inappropriate physical contact that Respondent had with the student. After progressing through each of his classes and being informed by Mr. Brown that it regarded a complaint from the fourth block the preceding day, Respondent stated that the complainant had to be A.K. because she was the only female present that period on February 10. After Mr. Brown informed Respondent of the allegations, Respondent's head dropped down. He had tears in his eyes and stated that he could not believe this was happening to him. Mr. Brown then asked Respondent if he could think of any reason why A.K. would make such an accusation against him. Respondent told Mr. Brown about an incident at the NHS basketball game on January 31, 2003, which involved A.K. Respondent stated that he had spoken with A.K. on February 3, 2003, about her conduct at the game. Respondent then retrieved a letter from his brief case and presented it to Mr. Brown. The letter was dated February 3, 2003, and was addressed to Coach Byington. Respondent had authored the letter and typed it on a computer. The letter stated that during half-time of the January 31, 2003, basketball game, while Respondent was outside for "a breath of fresh air," he saw A.K. and two other NHS students, K.S. and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., outside. In the letter, Respondent indicated that the students appeared to be intoxicated and under the influence of drugs or alcohol; that two of the students approached him; and that A.K. then began making derogatory comments about two NHS assistant football coaches, one of whom was Coach Byington. Also, the letter indicated that on February 3, 2003, Respondent spoke to A.K., during fourth block about her being intoxicated. According to the letter, Respondent told A.K. that she and those with her on January 31, 2003, were "lucky that [Respondent] was in the middle of a game and [they] had not been caught." In addition to information about A.K.'s being intoxicated at the game, Respondent included statements in the letter which were unrelated to the January 31, 2003, incident. Apparently, referring to his February 3, 2003, conversation with A.K., Respondent wrote in the letter: It was during this conversation that I figured out [A.K.] was extremely bitter about coaches at NHS. After further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted. [A.K.] on several occasions accused Byington and the football staff of starting rumors about her . . . and she claimed people had given her a hard time about being a senior dating a freshman. I had never heard of such rumors and felt that she was overplaying this to an extreme. After refusing to discuss any more of these matters with her, she became very irate and said that I [Respondent] was just like the others. In quotes "jerks". [sic] Just wanted you to have this information on file. Respondent told Mr. Brown that he had never given the letter to Coach Byington because he did not want to get A.K. in trouble. Coach Byington never received Respondent's letter dated February 3, 2003, nor did Respondent speak to Coach Byington about its contents. If a letter with allegations like the ones made in the letter dated February 3, 2003, were brought to his attention, Coach Byington would look into the matter or take some action. The letter dated February 3, 2003, accurately states and it is undisputed that (1) Respondent saw NHS students, A.K., K.S., and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., on January 31, 2003, during half-time at the basketball game that evening; (2) the students, including A.K., were intoxicated; and (3) on February 3, 2003, Respondent talked to A.K. about being intoxicated at the basketball game. The letter dated February 3, 2003, falsely and inaccurately states when Respondent saw A.K. on January 31, 2003, she talked to him about her dislike for two of NHS football coaches and said derogatory things about them. Rather, after exiting the gym at half-time, A.K. and K.S. spoke to Respondent only briefly, about a minute. During that conversation, A.K. asked Respondent about his daughter, Callie, and how the basketball game was going; she also wished him luck in the second half. A.K. and K.S., along with S.W. and J.W., continued to walk to A.K.'s friend's car to have a few shots of alcohol during half-time. On the evening of January 31, 2003, A.K. never said anything to Respondent about Coach Byington or any other coach at NHS. In light of the purpose for which Respondent claimed he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent's inclusion in the letter of the statement that "[a]fter further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted and that A.K. said that Respondent was jerk [sic], just like the other coaches. Since becoming a peer tutor for Respondent and prior to January 31, 2003, A.K. had talked to Respondent on several occasions and told him that she did not like Coach Byington. The reason A.K. did not like Coach Byington was that she believed that he gave preferential treatment to football players and had made A.K. the butt of jokes because she was dating a freshman football player. A.K. made no secret that she "did not care" for Coach Byington and candidly admitted her feelings about Coach Byington at hearing. There were no other coaches at NHS who A.K. disliked or told Respondent that she disliked. The letter dated February 3, 2003, also inaccurately and falsely stated that when Respondent talked to A.K. at school on February 3, 2003, about being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game, she became irate. Respondent's testimony at hearing regarding this conversation is not credible. Contrary to Respondent's account, the conversation took place in the gym and not in Respondent's office. Moreover, during the conversation, Respondent seemed to be joking with A.K. about her being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game. At no time during that conversation did Respondent talk to A.K. about the kind of people she should hang out with. Respondent also never indicated to A.K., during that conversation or at any other time, that he would report her to school officials or tell her parents that she was intoxicated. Respondent provided confusing and contradictory testimony in connection with the letter dated February 3, 2003. First, despite the date on the letter, it is not clear when Respondent wrote the letter. Respondent testified that he prepared the letter on Monday, February 3, 2003, but also testified that he could have finished it later that week. This testimony is consistent with a letter Respondent wrote in March 2003, in response to the report of the School Board's investigator. Respondent also testified that even if he did not finish the letter on February 3, 2003, he would not have changed the date because he did not consider the letter an official document. During the investigation of A.K.'s complaint against Respondent, the School Board's computer system technicians checked the school's computers and found no record of the letter in the system. If, as Respondent testified, he made changes to the letter over a period of time, the letter would have been saved on the system and the computer technicians would have been able to retrieve it. Respondent's testimony and representations regarding the preparation of the letter dated February 3, 2003, are confusing and not reasonable. In his March 2003 letter to the School Board in response to the investigator's report, Respondent stated that after initially writing the February 3, 2003, letter, he waited to review it before delivering it to Coach Byington. Despite all the time Respondent indicated he took to write, review, and edit the letter, Respondent never gave the letter to Coach Byington, even though Coach Byington's office was only a 20- to 30-second walk from Respondent's office. According to Respondent, the reason was that he had a busy basketball schedule. Respondent testified that the reason he prepared the letter dated February 3, 2003, was to give Coach Byington a "heads up." Yet, Respondent provided no explanation as to why Coach Byington needed a "heads up." Respondent's testimony regarding the reason he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, is not credible. Respondent did not prepare the letter dated February 3, 2003, to give to Coach Byington and did not deliver it to him or discuss it with him. The letter was instead prepared to give to Mr. Brown to undermine the credibility of A.K. At all times relevant to this proceeding, E.M., a male, was a student at NHS. E.M. and Respondent had a close relationship and have known each other for about five years, having first met when E.M. was in the sixth grade and was coached by Respondent. While a coach at NHS, Respondent sometimes gave E.M. lunch money and also hired E.M. to work in summer basketball camps. During the investigation of Respondent, E.M. voluntarily came forward to provide information supportive of Respondent. E.M. told Mr. Brown and testified at hearing that when he was in the boys' locker room on February 3, 2003, he overheard Respondent tell A.K. that she should hang out with better people; that he then saw Respondent leave his office; that he saw A.K. leave the office soon after Respondent left the office; and that he noticed that as she was leaving, A.K. was on a cell phone saying to someone that she hated the coaches at NHS and was going to get back at them. A.K. did not make a cell phone call from school on February 3, 2003. In fact, she does not bring her cell phone to school. Moreover, A.K.'s cell phone records show that no call was made at the time E.M. claimed the call was made. Finally, as noted in paragraph 45, the February 3, 2003, conversation between Respondent and A.K. took place in the gym, not in Respondent's office. The testimony of E.M. was not credible and was refuted by competent and substantial evidence. There is no reasonable explanation for A.K. to file false charges against Respondent. As even Respondent admitted, A.K.'s animus was directed to Coach Byington, not toward Respondent. Prior to the February 10 incident in the storage closet, A.K. liked Respondent and considered him a good friend. She had been a student in Respondent's aerobics class during her sophomore year at NHS. During the first semester of her senior year, A.K. had been an office assistant at NHS and in that capacity, she was required to hand out passes to designated or assigned teachers. Respondent was one of the teachers A.K. had to deliver passes to on an almost daily basis. When A.K. delivered the passes to Respondent, they often had conversations. The second semester of her senior year, A.K. specifically requested to be a peer tutor for Respondent because she thought he was a "cool teacher." As a consequence of the February 10, 2003, incident, A.K., in a consultation with her parents, began seeing Dr. Marta Gallego, a clinical psychologist in Naples, to help her address her fears and concerns. The counseling sessions began on or about February 19, 2003, with the initial intake session involving A.K. and her family, and continued until early May 2003. The therapy sessions with Dr. Gallego focused on A.K.'s reactions to the incident, helping her deal with her reactions, and processing the incident. During the counseling sessions, A.K. exhibited symptoms related to the trauma, was anxious at times, and was depressed. Also, after the February 10 incident, A.K. withdrew from friends and family, had difficulty concentrating at school, and felt pain over the impact that the incident had on her family. Finally, A.K. expressed to Dr. Gallego that she could not understand how a teacher that she trusted could violate her trust.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Collier County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Jon D. Fishbane, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive, Third Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Dr. H. Benjamin Marlin Superintendent of Collier County School Board 5775 Osceola Trail Naples, Florida 34109-0919 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Clarence Dixon, Respondent, holds Teacher's Certificate No. 435879, Rank III, covering the area of physical education, which expires on June 20, 1984. At all times material hereto Respondent was employed by The School Board of Broward County at its facility known as Piper High School located at 800 Northwest 44th Street, Sunrise, Broward County, Florida. In that cause of action styled School Board of Broward County v. Clarence Dixon, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 81-1223, the Honorable R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered his Recommended Order directing [sic] that the Respondent, Clarence Dixon, be discharged as a teacher by The School Board of Broward County. Before the Broward County School Board acted on the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, Respondent submitted his resignation, further proceedings against him were terminated and no final order was entered by the Broward County School Board regarding the charges that had been preferred against Respondent. Exhibit 2, the Recommended Order in Broward County School Board v. Clarence Dixon, was admitted into evidence over objection by Respondent, for the limited purpose of showing that the hearing was held. Respondent's stipulation of admitted facts (Finding No. 3 above) admits more than that for which Exhibit 2 was admitted into evidence. The investigation of Respondent's conduct started when Sandra J. Brown, a security officer at Piper High School, overheard some students in the hall discussing Respondent. She then called one of these girls to her office to inquire into any contacts she had with Respondent. When it became evident that Respondent's statements or conduct towards the student may have been inappropriate, the student was taken to the Assistant Principal who, after hearing the story, directed Brown to investigate. As a result of this investigation, the School Board brought charges against Respondent, and, after those charges were disposed of, the proceedings here involved were instituted. Although Respondent disputes the testimony of the three complaining witnesses, McGee, Johnson and Snelling, their testimony was credible and believable, Some testimony was presented to show that Ms. Brown was carrying out a vendetta against Respondent in conducting the investigation; that at least one of the complaining witnesses had a "bad" reputation, meaning that she "came on to men"; that Dixon had told Ms. Brown about a dream he had about her involving sex; that Respondent, like other coaches specifically, was looked up to and frequently approached by students to discuss their problems; and that these incidents had been blown out of proportion to their seriousness. Evidence of misconduct unrelated to the specific charges involving McGee, Johnson and Snelling, has been disregarded as irrelevant to the charges here under consideration. On one occasion during the 1980-1981 school year at Piper High School Respondent approached Lesia McGee, a 16-year-old sophomore, in the hall between classes and commented on the clothes she was wearing and said the next time he saw her in purple slacks he would, as she testified, "tongue me to death." By that, McGee understood that he meant to kiss her. Valynda Johnson was a junior at Piper High School during the 1980-1981 school year and she had no classes under Respondent. She and Respondent talked on campus about how she dressed and various things unrelated to school. On several occasions he sent passes to her to leave class to come talk to him. Some of these times she was excused by her teacher and the conversation did not relate to school work. On one occasion Respondent asked Johnson when she was going to let him do it to her. When she replied "What do you mean?," he responded "You know what I mean." Johnson understood him to be talking about sex. Respondent asked Johnson to meet him at the 7-11 store down the street from the school and called her at her home on one or two occasions. She never went out with Respondent and no physical contact was made between Respondent and Johnson. Respondent had a gold chain delivered to Johnson from him by one of the football players. Respondent's testimony that he found this chain under a garbage can at school and, when he held it up in class to ask whose it was, Johnson claimed it, is not believed. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges Respondent gave a gold bracelet to Renee Snelling and this complaint was amended at the close of the hearing to change the bracelet to a chain to conform to the evidence. No evidence was submitted that Respondent gave Snelling either a chain or a bracelet. Renee Snelling was an 18-year-old student at Piper High School during the 1980-1981 school year. On one of the first occasions she talked to Respondent he told her she should be a model. Her career as a model was the dominant theme of most of their subsequent conversations. Respondent suggested she go to college and become a model. On one occasion he asked if they had sex would she tell anybody. On another occasion he told her he had a necklace for her. He never cave her the necklace but showed it to her one time when he removed it from his wallet. He called Snelling at her home on one or more occasions to ask her to go out. When Respondent returned from a trip to Moorhead College in Kentucky with some of the football players he took there in his own car to increase their interest in college, he brought back a T-shirt which he had delivered to Snelling by one of the football players. On one occasion Respondent sent a pass to Snelling but she does not recall if she left class to see him in response to the pass. The only occasion Respondent mentioned sex to Snelling was when he inquired if she would tell. The policy at Piper High School regarding passes is that they are used only with respect to school business, and rarely. If a student is in a class he cannot leave that classroom without the permission of that classroom teacher even if he receives a pass from another teacher. Respondent graduated from Pahokee High School in 1974 where he was a football star and a campus leader. With the ecouragement of his coaches, Respondent obtained a football scholarship at Bethune-Cookman College, from where he graduated in 1979. He is appreciative of the help and encouragement he received from his coaches and teachers and desires to repay that debt by helping others as he was helped. In doing this, he encourages all of the kids he talks to to go to college and get an education. When Respondent resigned from Broward County School System, he obtained a job at Pahokee High School in the Special Education Department teaching students with learning disabilities. His principal feels Respondent is doing an excellent job at Pahokee and that he is an asset to the school. During his year at Pahokee Respondent volunteered to coach and led the girls' track team to runner-up position in the state championships. He also took over the cross-country track team, which had been cancelled, and led this team to the district championship. He has continually encouraged students to continue their educations throughout high school and has gone out of his way to help them get scholarships, grants and other assistance towards this goal. Both Respondent and his wife have taken students, with parental consent, to out-of-town games, have had students over for dinner, have driven them to athletic contests, have provided transportation home from football practice which extended beyond the bus schedule, and generally have devoted considerable after-school-hours time to helping and encouraging students to attain higher standards in life.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is entitled to an athletic coaching certificate, as described in section 1012.55(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(4).
Findings Of Fact Early Life: 1960-1978 Petitioner was born on December 22, 1960. Petitioner is the youngest of five sons born to a Bahamian mother, who worked as a beautician, and a Jamaican father, who worked as a custodian. Petitioner's four older brothers have all earned college degrees. Petitioner's oldest brother served as an Army psychiatrist. Two other brothers also served in the military: one as a comptroller and the other as a Navy pilot. Petitioner's youngest brother is the executive director of a well-known hotel on Miami Beach. Petitioner grew up in the Liberty City section of Miami and graduated from Miami Beach Senior High School in 1978. Liberty City was a dangerous area in which to live with gunfire a familiar sound to residents. Two years after Petitioner graduated, Liberty City and other parts of Miami were torn by race riots. Unlike all of his siblings, Petitioner has never attended college. After high school, Petitioner worked as a washer and cook at a local hospital, but continued to pursue his real interest, which was performing as a disc jockey (DJ). Interning nights at a local radio station, Petitioner acquired enough experience to start a mobile DJ business in Liberty City and Miami Beach, where he worked on weekends. Criminal History: Essentially 1979-1986 Respondent's characterizations of Petitioner's criminal history as "extensive," in the Amended Notice of Reasons, or, worse, "storied," in his proposed recommended order at page 7, are unsupported by the record. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, only two criminal incidents are relevant, and they are misdemeanors that occurred over 25 years ago. The rest of Petitioner's criminal history consists entirely of arrests for which the charges were later dropped, except for a 1986 case in which the court withheld adjudication on a felony weapon charge to which Petitioner's plea is not in the record and a 2009 arrest for unpaid child support for which the purge amount was about $10,000. On August 28, 1979, Petitioner, then 18 years old, was arrested in Dade County for reckless display of a firearm and possession of over five grams of marijuana, both felonies. The marijuana charge--Petitioner's only arrest for drugs or alcohol--was dismissed, but Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and fined $25. This incident will be referred to as the "1979 Misdemeanor." In a letter dated May 7, 2009, to the Miami-Dade School Board Executive Director of Fingerprinting, Petitioner stated that he was in the backyard of his parents' home with one of his brothers and in possession of a bb gun. The small fine corroborates Petitioner's explanation. It is therefore found that a "bb gun" was the weapon in question, although Petitioner's letter misstated that all charges were dropped. On February 12, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for loitering and prowling and carrying a concealed weapon, the former a misdemeanor and the latter a felony. By operation of a deemed admission to Respondent's Requests for Admission, Petitioner, while a passenger in a vehicle, was found in possession of a semi-automatic weapon concealed in a ski mask. The misdemeanor charge was dismissed, but the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the felony charge and imposed a fine of an unspecified amount. The record does not disclose Petitioner's plea to this charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that, while he was DJing in a park without a permit, he had a concealed weapon without a permit, but misstated that both charges were dropped. On November 18, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for inciting rioting, a felony. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that he was DJing in a park and was arrested because the music was too loud. On October 4, 1986, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with grand larceny with a firearm, a felony. Based on a guilty plea, Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and sentenced to time served. This incident will be referred to as the "1986 Misdemeanor." In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was DJing a party in Tampa when a group of men started to beat a young woman in the parking lot. When security refused to intervene, Petitioner displayed a firearm to break up the crowd. Petitioner's letter misstates that the charge was dismissed. His explanation fails to account for the portion of the charge involving grand larceny, but makes sense when applied to the charge of which Petitioner was convicted. On December 13, 1987, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for two or three counts of aggravated assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon to commit a felony, all felonies. These charges were dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a large fight broke out at a skating rink, but surveillance video revealed that he had not been involved in the fight, nor had he possessed a weapon. On or about June 15, 1993, Petitioner was arrested in Cook County, Illinois, and charged with disorderly conduct. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was staying at the Ritz in Chicago. While shopping along the riverfront, a law enforcement officer asked him if he could afford to shop there. A confrontation ensued, and the officer arrested Petitioner, but the charge was later dropped. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon, a felony. The charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight had broken out at a house party, and the police arrested everyone in attendance. There is no record of a 1997 arrest for battery. There is an arrest in July or October 1996 for battery in Louisiana, but Petitioner pleaded not guilty, and the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner mentioned a 1997 case involving a nightclub fight with which he had not been involved. A week later, a complainant claimed that Petitioner had hit him, but the charge was dismissed. On July 5, 1999, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with battery, a misdemeanor, which may have been raised to aggravated battery, a felony, by the prosecutor. Either way, the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight broke out at a nightclub, but witnesses verified that Petitioner had not hit the complainant, who originally said that another person had hit him. On October 6, 2002, Petitioner was arrested in Dorchester County, South Carolina, and charged with aiding or procuring a person to expose private parts in a lewd and lascivious manner--namely, the insertion of a soda bottle by two strippers into the vagina of a member of the audience who climbed onstage during a performance, as well as several acts of unspecified obscenities by two male members of the audience with the aforesaid strippers. The charge was that these unlawful acts were in the presence of and with the encouragement of Petitioner. The South Carolina documentation is contradictory as to disposition. The most plausible rendering of the disposition comes from the general sessions docket, which reports that, on October 13, 2003, this charge was dismissed with leave to restore, if Petitioner violated an agreement not to appear in South Carolina for five years at a revenue-producing event. Another document completed by the court clerk states that Petitioner was sentenced to six months in the state Department of Corrections, based on a plea not otherwise described, but the sentence was suspended for five years, pursuant to the agreement identified above. A partial transcript of the October 13, 2003, court proceeding quotes the judge as saying that the state was nolle prossing two charges, and the court was sentencing Petitioner to six months on apparently a third offense, even though nothing in the other documents describes three charges, but the judge suspended the sentence for five years, subject to the above-identified agreement. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the burden of establishing what took place in South Carolina falls on Respondent. Nothing in the record supports the judge's reference to three charges, which renders the judge's description of events unreliable. The most that can be said of the South Carolina incident is that a lone charge was dropped, subject to reinstatement, if Petitioner made a revenue-producing appearance in South Carolina for five years. The evidence fails to establish any finding of guilt by the court, plea of guilty by Petitioner, or subsequent reinstatement of the charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that the club owner had performers on stage, but Petitioner had nothing to do with their performance. Petitioner testified that he had been paid merely to appear at the club and sign autographs. On February 17, 2009, Petitioner was arrested on a writ of bodily attachment in connection with a finding of contempt of court for failing to pay child support. The purge amount was $10,223.36. The disposition of this matter is unclear, although it is obvious that Petitioner was arrested for an unpaid child-support obligation and was released, presumably after paying the purge amount or such lower amount as the court deemed fit. Luke Records and 2 Live Crew: 1987-1992 After graduating from high school, Petitioner grew his DJ business to the point that, by 1987 or 1988, he had started Luke Records, Inc., a record company devoted to the production and sale of hip-hop music. Using funds provided by his brothers, Petitioner eventually employed over 40 persons in Miami and elsewhere around the United States. The growth of Luke Records was largely the result of its association with 2 Live Crew (2LC), a hip-hop group known for its sexually explicit songs. Not yet under contract with a record company, 2LC visited Petitioner in Miami, where the parties agreed to a recording contract. Petitioner appears to have quickly assumed substantial business and performance roles with 2LC and wrote some of the songs that the group performed. Serving as the frontman for 2LC, Petitioner was prominent in the group's performances, which, according to Petitioner, featured dance music informed by the twin themes of sex and comedy. Clearly, 2LC's songs were dance music that featured sex. Regardless of the role of comedy in 2LC's music, Petitioner himself acknowledges that its sexual themes rendered the music inappropriate for minors. The evidentiary record does not include the lyrics to 2LC's songs, but the more offensive titles include vulgar references to male and female genitalia and a reference to women as "hoes," meaning "whores, as well as at least one album cover featuring Petitioner surrounded by scantily clad women. Given the explicit sexual content of the titles and lyrics, Petitioner helped promote the use of parental advisory stickers to be applied to albums, tapes, and CDs, including those of 2LC, that contained lyrics inappropriate for minors and thus constituted a form of adult entertainment. On the other hand, two unimpeachable sources--the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--found serious elements in at least certain of the 2LC songs of this era. In a copyright infringement case that arose after Luke Records had sold over 250,000 copies of 2LC's adaptation of Roy Orbison's, "Oh, Pretty Woman," the Supreme Court held, in a case of first impression, that commercial parody could be protected under the fair-use exception to copyright law. Describing the song itself, the Supreme Court opinion states: While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies. It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 583 (1994). In Luke Records v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1022 (1992), Petitioner and others won a reversal of a district court declaratory judgment that the 2LC musical recording, "As Nasty As They Wanna Be," was obscene under state and federal law. In another case of first impression--this time applying the obscenity test in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), to a musical composition containing instrumental music and lyrics--the appellate court relied on the testimony of two newspaper music critics that the subject music possessed serious musical or artistic value. More interestingly, the court relied on the testimony of a Rhodes scholar who was soon to undertake employment as an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. This testimony, which focused on the lyrics, traced "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" to three oral traditions of African-American music: the "call and response," "doing the dozens," and "boasting." Noting that the lyrics of "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" reflected many aspects of poor, inner-city blacks, this witness added that some of the lyrics contained statements of political significance or used literary devices, such as alliteration, allusion, metaphor, rhyme, and personification. Assuming without deciding that the trial judge had correctly determined that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" met the first two prongs of the Miller test--i.e., the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest based on contemporary community standards and the work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law--the appellate court rejected the trial court's determination that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" fails the third prong of the Miller test--i.e., that it "lacks serious artistic, scientific, literary or political value." 960 F.2d at 138 (citing Miller, 413 U.S. at 24). After 2LC: 1992-2008 Petitioner and 2LC parted ways in 1992. Three years later, Petitioner and Luke Records, Inc. filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in the assignment of all masters and copyrights owned by Petitioner or Luke Records, Inc., to a company formed by a former in-house counsel of Luke Records. Thompkins v. Lil' Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1299-1301, and 1314n.22 (11th Cir. 2007). To some extent, perhaps due to the bankruptcy, Petitioner lost exclusive use of names associated with him, such as "Uncle Luke." As an asset of Petitioner, the Luther Campbell brand suffered a loss in value. The evidentiary record provides an incomplete picture of what Petitioner did during the ten years following his departure from 2LC. The arrests and Petitioner's explanations suggest that he DJed at house parties, made paid appearances at autograph-signing events, and attended nightclubs, although whether as a performer, audience member, or promoter is not clear. Petitioner released four hip-hop albums from 1992-2006. As always, Petitioner remained in Miami. In 1991 or 1992, Petitioner was among the persons who started the Liberty City Optimist youth football program. Competing with the local John Doe gang, Petitioner and other founders of the Optimist youth football program got kids off the dangerous streets and onto the football field. During the early years of his involvement with the youth football program, Petitioner invested considerable time and money, contributing at least $80,000. Petitioner helped lobby the Miami-Dade County Commission for what was eventually an expenditure of an estimated $14 million in facilities to serve organized football at local parks. Now, the Liberty City Optimist youth programs serve 6000 boys and girls, from 4-16 years of age, through a variety of sports and academic programs. Petitioner's wife, a local attorney and former FSU cheerleader, chairs the Liberty City Optimist youth cheerleading program. Although there have been some football-famous graduates of the program, such as Chad Johnson, the program's larger success is that 90 percent of the first group of youth to complete the program started college. Until 2005, Petitioner was not directly involved with the children in the Optimist youth programs. In 2005, realizing that his entertaining career had "taken a turn," Petitioner began coaching an Optimist youth football team. As he dialed up his involvement with youth, Petitioner tapered off his performances and appearances. Petitioner's two most recent albums are Somethin' Nasty, which was released in 2001, and My Life and Freaky Times, which was released in 2006. In contrast to the earlier cover art of 2LC, the cover art for the last album depicted Petitioner surrounded by fully clothed women. But some of Petitioner's titles would fit easily among the oeuvre of 2LC in its heyday. Somethin' Nasty includes "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," and "Hoes," and My Life and Freaky Times includes "Pop That Pussy" and "South Beach Bitches." In 2008, Petitioner made his last appearance, to date, with 2LC, at what was limited to an autograph-signing event. At the beginning of this period of Petitioner's life, in 1993, he became acquainted with James Harbor, Jr. Mr. Harbor was working for a state representative and met Petitioner through Congressman Alcee Hastings. Mr. Harbor later did an internship with Petitioner. Still later, Mr. Harbor was elected as a state representative from Palm Beach County and enlisted Petitioner in get-out-the-vote campaigns throughout Florida. Interestingly, Mr. Harbor testified that, as part of a voter-recruitment campaign, Petitioner appeared "in character." Mr. Harbor stressed repeatedly the distinction between the public persona of Petitioner and his private personality. Not a party person, during the time that Mr. Harbor has known him, Petitioner has always been "structured," hard-working and responsible, respectful toward women, and a firm disciplinarian when it came to his children. Mr. Harbor's testimony about the distinction between Petitioner's public persona and private personality finds support throughout the record, including a careful examination of the timelines. The 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor both involved weapons, not sex, and 2LC's main theme appears to have been sex, not violence or weapons. Whatever image of garish defiance that Petitioner may have cultivated during his 2LC-era, by the start of that era, he was never arrested again on charges that resulted in an admission of guilt, a no-contest plea, or a finding of guilt, except for the child-support arrest. Although the certification of Petitioner must take into consideration his public persona, to the extent that it still derives from his short-lived career with 2LC, there is no indication over the past 20 years that, outside of his performances and appearances, Petitioner has resembled the sex- song impresario, whom he portrayed with 2LC and in his later albums. High School Football: 2009-Present Starting in the 2009-10 school year, Petitioner turned from coaching Optimist youth football to coaching local high school football. During the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Central Senior High School, where his wife teaches a law class. For the 2011-12 school year, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Northwestern Senior High School. Although he would be willing to work as an unpaid volunteer, Petitioner has been required, due to insurance requirements in the school district, to accept the pay of a part-time contract football coach, which is $1000-$1200 per year. No longer living in Liberty City, Petitioner lives closer to another Miami-Dade County high school whose students are less exposed to violence and less at-risk than the students attending Miami Central or Miami Northwestern. Nearby Broward County public high schools do not require an athletic coaching certificate because school district policy allows a volunteer to coach. But Petitioner has decided to help the most vulnerable, most at-risk students from the inner-city neighborhood where he grew up. Petitioner has served these students in ways that other persons would find difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Trying to combat the sense of hopelessness that sometimes afflicts at-risk youth, Petitioner has worked at both schools to install a sense of school pride in football and academics. When he arrived at Miami Central, the school was an F school, but Petitioner joined a school-wide effort to improve learning conditions, and, when he left two years later, the school was a B school. Similarly, when Petitioner arrived at Miami Northwestern, it was a D school, but it earned a B during the most recent school year. Miami Northwestern is located directly across the street from housing projects, and its students are regularly the targets of violence, often involving weapons. About one-quarter of its students are required to attend gun programs. The football team includes many homeless children and children with children. In the month preceding the hearing, two Miami Northwestern students had been killed. On a positive note, about 70 percent of the 95 students on the Miami Northwestern football team are graduates of the Optimist youth football program. Also, as many as 90 percent of the students who played on the high school football teams that Petitioner has coached are attending college. The students with whom Petitioner works appreciate his dedication and hard work. They know that Petitioner has spent his entire life in Miami and has known some hard times. Generally, they know that, before they were born, Petitioner had been a celebrity as a member and promoter of a hip-hop group, itself known for its frank defiance of convention, at least in terms of graphic sexual language. As Petitioner testified, his students' mothers know Petitioner from when he was a DJ on a streetcorner, through his association with 2LC and discovery of new talent, such as the hip-hop artist Pitbull, and now from his work with youth. This familiarity presents unique mentoring opportunities to Petitioner. For instance, Petitioner knew one student's father, who later went to prison where he was murdered. One day, the student's mother approached Petitioner and asked him to tell her child about the good things that his father had done before he went to prison and died. Reflecting Petitioner's dedication to at-risk youth, for at least the past four years, Petitioner has rented one or two 15-passenger vans and, at his expense, transported interested players to schools in the southeast where they might be able to attend college. Petitioner does not reserve his attention to potential stars; instead, he tries to find colleges and junior colleges at every level that might be interested in admitting an individual student. Steven Field, the head coach of the Miami Northwestern football team, testified on Petitioner's behalf. Coach Field, who has most recently coached at University of Miami and Hampton University in Virginia, also coached at Miami Central from 2000- 2004. Coach Field testified that Petitioner is an "essential" member of his coaching staff, not for his name or past career, but for his way with the students. Petitioner leads by example and always fulfills any promises that he makes to the students--things that may otherwise be lacking in the lives of some of these inner-city youth. According to Coach Field, Petitioner's "no-nonsense, professional" style of dealing with the students commands their attention and respect. For example, as the coach in charge of the weight room, Petitioner does not allow swearing. When one student became disrespectful to another coach, Petitioner ordered the student to leave the premises. Neither Petitioner nor Coach Field would allow 2LC music to be played in the weight room due to its inappropriate adult content. Petitioner testified that, in trying to save students, he will "talk 'till I'm blue in the face," revealing not only the necessary dedication, but, more importantly, the insight that that there are no shortcuts or quick fixes in trying to communicate with at-risk children. Reinforcing the realism evident in Petitioner's testimony, Coach Stevens described his and Petitioner's efforts with the students as not much more than reinforcing the notions of living right at home and "getting your books at school." Coach Stevens stressed that he and Petitioner do not concentrate exclusively on the students who are talented enough to play football in college. At least a half dozen students are in felony programs. With these students, Coach Stevens testified that he and Petitioner do not speak about "getting into Georgia Tech"; they speak about finishing high school and getting a job. Coach Stevens has never heard Petitioner speak to the students about mistakes that he has made, nor does he wish Petitioner to do so. Coach Stevens, Petitioner, and the other coaches try to set a positive tone, so they talk to the students about what they need to do, not about mistakes that the students--or coaches--may have made in the past. However, if the school resource officer tells Petitioner about problems that an individual student is having, Petitioner will talk to the student one-on-one. In such conversations, Petitioner does not shy away from relating personally to what the student is going through. The Application Received on April 27, 2010, the Application answers "yes" to the following questions: Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offense? Have you ever had adjudication withheld on a criminal offense? Have you ever pled guilty to a criminal offense? The Application answers "no" to the following questions: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense? Have you ever pled nolo contendere to a criminal offense? The Application lists the following arrests and states that the disposition of all charges was dismissal, except for the South Carolina charge, which is reported as "guilty/adjudication withheld": Miami--8/79--reckless display of firearm Miami--2/85--loitering/prowling Miami--11/85--inciting riot Miami--12/87--aggravated assault Hillsborough--12/87--aggravated assault Miami--5/94--aggravated assault Miami--7/99--battery Dorchester County--10/22--"dissem promote" The Application is flawed in its disclosure of Petitioner's criminal history. As alleged in the Amended Notice of Reasons, the disclosure of the "loitering/prowling" arrest fails to mention the felony weapons charge, which was part of the same incident, and thus fails to note that the court withheld adjudication on this charge. Also, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Hearing, the Application fails to disclose the 1986 Misdemeanor, which occurred in Hillsborough County. Although the Application discloses a Hillsborough County arrest, it seems to confuse the incident with a later arrest in Dade County, but, more importantly, omits mention of the finding of guilt on this misdemeanor weapon charge. However, these flaws do not prove that Petitioner intentionally concealed information or was less than honest in completing the Application. Obviously, he has had many arrests, so the potential for confusion or even omission exists, and there are comparatively few inaccuracies. On these facts, it is found only that Petitioner filed an inaccurate application, but not that he filed an application with fraudulent or dishonest intent. Petitioner: At Present Petitioner does not pose a risk to the safety of the students entrusted to him. For the past seven years, Petitioner has had significant direct contact with vulnerable youth without any reported problems. In light of this critical fact, the 1979 Misdemeanor, 1986 Misdemeanor, and Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC and the adult entertainment industry lose whatever contrary predictive value that they might otherwise have. Simply put, Petitioner does not resemble the youth who committed the 1979 Misdemeanor or 1986 Misdemeanor or the man who performed with and promoted 2LC 20 years ago. Petitioner resembles the middle-aged man who released sexually explicit songs in 2001 and 2006, but this is addressed below. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, good moral character requires consideration of a person's honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and the law, so consideration of student safety, although important, is not sufficient. But the 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor, as old misdemeanors, provide insufficient support for a finding that, today, Petitioner lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law. Nor do these criminal offenses support findings that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude, as those terms are defined in the Conclusions of Law. Likewise, Petitioner's 2LC career 20 years ago and even his more recent releases of 2LC-like albums in 2001 and 2006 do not support a finding that he lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law or that he is guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude. For the reasons noted above, the redeeming value to be found in the releases means that they do not violate the law, provided they also conform to any laws restricting their dissemination, such as not to minors or not on television during certain hours of family viewing. Absent an attempt to market the offensive material in some broadly accessible fashion, such as on billboards or the sides of public buses, such non-obscene works similarly do not violate the rights of others. As noted above, the flaws of the Application do not support a finding of dishonesty or fraud. But, in his proposed recommended order, Respondent fairly questions Petitioner's initial refusal to identify his Application at the hearing. This failing of Petitioner, as well as the two others discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, cannot serve as standalone grounds for denial because: 1) they arose at the hearing and thus were not available as grounds in the Amended Notice of Reasons and even if alleged, they do not rise to the level of a lack of good moral character, as in a lack of honesty or fairness. But they do provide part of the justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner. Petitioner's failure at the hearing initially to identify his Application was not due to any confusion. There were not multiple versions of applications from which to choose. There was one Application on the table, and Petitioner initially testified, more than once, that he could not identify it. The temptation appeared palpable for Petitioner to off-load the responsibility for an obviously flawed application onto someone else who may have completed it for Petitioner, who nonetheless signed it. Cannily, Respondent's counsel moved for a summary order. The Administrative Law Judge warned Petitioner that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction in the absence of an application. Petitioner and his attorney made good use of a short recess to confer. After the recess, Petitioner identified Respondent Exhibit 1 as the Application that he had filed for an athletic coaching certificate. Petitioner's second failing of this type, also noted in Respondent's proposed recommended order, consists of his unwillingness to own up to his role or roles in any of the salacious songs that he has performed or produced. While it is possible that Petitioner might not have been responsible for the more salacious songs performed by 2LC, he clearly was responsible for the five sexually graphic titles on the two most recent, post-2LC albums, which, as discussed above, were released in 2001 and 2006. Petitioner's third failing of this type occurred when he testified about his bad period from 1979 to 1986. Petitioner admitted only to not living a "perfect" life and associating with bad persons. This seems a little lean for two misdemeanor weapons convictions and a withholding of adjudication of guilt on a felony weapon charge--all in the span of seven years. As Respondent points out, Petitioner has displayed minimal contrition for the bad choices that he made during this period. At minimum, he missed an opportunity to describe how he has changed when he "admitted" only that he was not perfect or implied that his legal problems were caused by bad associations. In these three instances, Petitioner sought to escape personal responsibility by claiming or implying that other persons prepared the flawed Application that he was somehow compelled to sign, other persons forced him to perform songs with five salacious titles in 2001 and 2006, and other persons got him into trouble during the bad period over 25 years ago. Although not evidence of a lack of honesty, Petitioner's failure to affirmatively own up to these acts suggest a lack of self- insight and perhaps even a misapprehension of the extent to which he must subject himself to the regulatory oversight that is imposed on applicants for certificates and, later, certificateholders. The other justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner is the prospect of his return to adult entertainment. In addition to part-time coaching at Miami Northwestern, Petitioner also owns a company, Luke Holdings, which deals in movie scripts and produces elements of television commercials, among other pursuits in the entertainment industry. In recent years, extreme examples of adult entertainment, such as pornography, have emerged bearing the Luther Campbell brand, but Petitioner denied that he has been involved in the production of such material. His denial is credited, although it would have been more persuasive, absent Petitioner's failings described in the preceding paragraphs. As noted above, Petitioner lost exclusive control of his brand after the bankruptcy in 1996, and, presumably, given the shadowy nature of the pornography industry, illegal use of his name is not out of the question. The distinction between past and present involvement in adult entertainment is an important one. In a recent case, EPC did not treat past involvement in the adult entertainment industry the same as involvement while a certificateholder. See In re: The Denial of the Application for Teacher's Certificate of Shawn J. Loftis, EPC Case No. 11-0464D (April 5, 2012) available at http://www.myfloridateacher.com/discipline/icmsorders/101-2590- FO-040512155402.pdf). In Loftis, Respondent denied Mr. Loftis's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate on the grounds of a lack of good moral character, gross immorality, and moral turpitude, as well as personal conduct that seriously reduces one's effectiveness as a school board employee, which violates section 1012.795(1)(g). The factual bases for the denial was that, between 2006 and 2008, Mr. Loftis had appeared in over 20 pornographic films featuring him engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the films were still available for viewing, including on the internet, although this employment had ended prior to Mr. Loftis's temporary employment as an instructor in Miami-Dade County public schools. After an informal hearing, EPC ordered that Mr. Loftis be allowed to continue to pursue certification. EPC stated that, if "found qualified," Mr. Loftis would be issued a Florida Educator's Certificate, subject to the conditions that he obtain from an approved, Florida-licensed provider written verification that he poses no risk to children and is capable of assuming the responsibilities of an educator and that, upon employment that requires possession of a Florida Educator's Certificate, Mr. Loftis be placed on probation, subject to the following conditions: 1) he immediately notify the DOE investigative office upon employment or termination of employment requiring a Florida Educator's Certificate; 2) his immediate supervisor send annual performance reports to the DOE investigative office; he pay EPC $150 for the costs of monitoring his probation; and 4) he violate no law or rules, satisfactorily perform all assigned duties in a professional manner, and bear all costs of compliance with the final order. The Loftis final order illustrates EPC's ability to issue a conditional certificate, even without a finding that the applicant had failed to meet the qualifications for certification. In considering the requirement stated in section 1012.795(1)(g) concerning personal conduct that seriously reduces the effectiveness of the certificateholder as a school board employee, the Notice of Reasons in Loftis, when compared to the Amended Notice of Reasons in the subject case, more closely approaches the most elastic requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that a certificateholder (or applicant) "[s]hall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety." Juxtapose this broader, objective requirement of protecting the student from conditions harmful to learning or harmful to the student's mental health with: 1) Petitioner and Coach Field's efforts to inculcate in their at-risk students such values as strength of character, perseverance, dedication, and hard work in the pursuit of ambitious goals and 2) the future release of more artistic or entertainment efforts along the lines of "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," "Hoes," "Pop That Pussy," and "South Beach Bitches." Consider the bewildering effect on students if, one afternoon, in the weight room and on the field, Coach Campbell were to promote rectitude and grit and, that night, the same man were to don the garb of the sex-song impresario and promote the escapist pursuit of sexual gratification. The addition of music or elements of African boasting and literary allusion in, say, "Pop That Pussy" or "Suck This Dick," which would rightfully spare these works from successful prosecution as obscenity, would not have any bearing on the extent to which the superficial appeal of this form of adult entertainment could undermine the hard, patient work of these students' coaches, teachers, and parents in trying to shape them into responsible young men. Impressionable inner- city youth might be easily confused by these competing messages, as they compared the paltry sums paid their contract coaches and modest sums paid their regular coaches and teachers with the riches lavished upon the producers of adult entertainment. Although the Loftis final order emphasizes that the applicant no longer is engaged in the making of pornographic films, neither that authority nor the record in this case provides a sufficient basis for attaching a condition to Petitioner's certificate prohibiting his engaging in the adult entertainment industry. Such litigation awaits another day and, one hopes, another certificateholder than Petitioner or Mr. Loftis. However, conditions attached to Petitioner's certificate could focus his attention on the ethical obligations that he has assumed as a certificateholder and the very real possibility that that his return to the performance or production of adult entertainment, while a certificateholder, would be at crosspurposes with the broad mission of education and expose his certificate to suspension or revocation. Petitioner should receive an athletic coaching certificate because he generally meets the substantive certification requirements that call for consideration of such broad criteria as good moral character and the absence of gross immorality and moral turpitude, he possesses unique attributes for reaching at-risk, inner-city youth, and he has demonstrated his commitment to, and effectiveness with, working with these children for at least seven years.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that EPC issue an athletic coaching certificate to Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: The certificateholder shall be placed on probation for five years, immediately upon issuance or, if later, employment that requires a certificate. Upon issuance of the certificate and on each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, EPC or its agent shall contact the Department of Revenue and inquire if Petitioner owes any child support arrearages. Upon receipt of written notice of such arrearages from the Department of Revenue or a circuit court, EPC shall immediately suspend the certificate until the arrearages are paid in full. The payment of a purge amount that leaves an arrearage owing does not satisfy this condition. Within six months of issuance of the certificate and within six months of each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, Petitioner shall complete 10 hours in coursework in the area of ethics with emphasis on the Principles of Professional Conduct, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 and shall deliver to the DOE investigative office written proof of such coursework. At the start of every school year, during the term of probation, Petitioner and his immediate supervisor will sign a statement certifying that each has read the Principles of Professional Conduct and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 20 days of the first day of school. The supervisor's statement shall confirm that he or she understands that his or her professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(l) that he or she "shall not assist entry into or continuance in the profession of any person known to be unqualified in accordance with these Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and other applicable Florida Statutes and State Board of Education Rules." Petitioner's statement shall confirm that he understands that his professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that he "shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/ or physical health and/or safety." If Petitioner's immediate supervisor changes during the school year, the new supervisor shall sign a supervisor's statement within 30 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 60 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner. Within 30 days of the preparation and delivery of an evaluation to Petitioner, during the term of probation, he shall submit a copy to the DOE investigative office. During the term of probation, if Petitioner becomes actively involved in the adult entertainment industry, in any manner, he shall notify the DOE investigative office, in writing, within 30 days of first involvement. For the purpose of this paragraph, the performance or production of a sexually explicit song that would be inappropriate for the football team weight room or the appearance at an autograph- signing event promoted on the basis of Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC is active involvement in the adult entertainment industry. During the term of probation, the certificateholder shall reimburse EPC or its agent its reasonable costs of monitoring. If any of these conditions, except for the condition stated in paragraph 2, are not timely performed by Petitioner or, if applicable, his supervisor, EPC may suspend the certificate until Petitioner demonstrates compliance (or the term of the certificate expires) or, at its discretion, revoke the certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael John Carney, Esquire Kubicki Draper, P.A. Wachovia Bank Building, Suite 1600 One East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 mjc@kubickidraper.com Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 charles@ctwpalaw.com
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maynard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Education (K-6) and a Master of Arts degree in Teaching (Special Education). Her prior teaching experience includes teaching in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Ms. Maynard began her employment with the School Board as a substitute teacher. She was a substitute teacher for approximately six years. In the Summer of 2004, Ms. Maynard was hired to teach at the Pompano Beach Elementary School (Pompano Beach Elementary). However, Pompano Beach Elementary had over-hired, and she was surplused-out to Cypress Elementary School (Cypress Elementary). For the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Maynard began at Cypress Elementary as a kindergarten teacher. For the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Maynard was reassigned as an elementary teacher at Cypress Elementary. The parties agree that the relevant time period in the instant case is the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Maynard was an instructional employee, a third grade teacher, with the School Board at Cypress Elementary. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard received a written reprimand from Cypress Elementary's Assistant Principal, Barbara Castiglione (now, Barbara Castiglione-Rothman). The basis for the disciplinary action was Ms. Maynard's failure, twice, to comply with a directive from Ms. Castiglione--Ms. Maynard was requested to report to an academic meeting with Ms. Castiglione. Among other things, Ms. Maynard was advised that her failure to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. A copy of the written reprimand was provided to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard contended that she was not refusing to attend the meetings but wanted to meet with Ms. Castiglione when a witness of her own choosing could attend. Ms. Maynard wanted a witness to be present at the meetings because she viewed the meetings as disciplinary meetings even though Ms. Castiglione indicated that the meetings were not disciplinary meetings. Additionally, on April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard made a written request for a transfer from Cypress Elementary. The type of transfer requested by Ms. Maynard was "Regular."2 Cypress Elementary's principal, Louise Portman, signed the request. The principal's signature, as well as the requester's signature, was required. No transfer occurred. PMPs During the 2006-2007 School Year Through School Board policy, implementing a Legislative mandate, all teachers at Cypress Elementary were required to develop an individualized progress monitoring plan (PMP) for each student, who was deficient in reading, in consultation with the student's parent(s). Data for the PMP were collected through reading assessments at the beginning of the school year to establish a student's reading level. The appropriate reading program for the student would be decided upon using the data. Also, who was going to teach the reading program would be decided. The PMP, among other things, identified the student's reading deficiency and set forth the plan to remediate the deficiency and enhance the student's achievement in reading, which included the proposed supplemental instruction services that would be provided to the student. PMPs were generated usually two to three weeks after the beginning of the school year. A copy of the PMP was provided to the student's parent(s). The PMP was referred to as a "living, fluid document." It was not unusual for PMPs to reflect interventions not being used at the time, i.e., it was permissible for PMPs to reflect interventions that were to be used during the school year. Further, the wording current on a PMP referred to interventions during the current school year, not necessarily at that time. PMPs were modified throughout the school year on an as needed basis depending upon a student's progress. On or about September 29, 2006, Ms. Portman advised Ms. Maynard that Ms. Maynard's PMPs must be deleted because the interventions listed on the PMPs were not on the Struggling Readers Chart and were, therefore, invalid. The Struggling Readers Chart was developed by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) and contained interventions approved by DOE. Cypress Elementary had a Reading Coach, Jennifer Murphins. Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, in order to delete the PMPs, a list of the students, who were on the PMPs, was needed so that Ms. Murphins could provide the names to the person in the school district who was authorized to delete the PMPs. Further, Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, once the PMPs were deleted, Ms. Maynard could input valid interventions for the students. The School Board's Curriculum Administrator, Mark Quintana, Ph.D., was the person who was designated to delete PMPs. It was not unusual for Dr. Quintana to receive a telephone call from a school to delete information from PMPs-- the request must originate from the school. Ms. Maynard resisted the deletion of the PMPs and refused to delete them time and time again. She suggested, instead, not deleting the PMPs, but preparing updated PMPs and sending both to the students' parents. Her belief was that she could not put proposed interventions on the PMPs, but that she was required to only include interventions that were actually being used with the students at the time. Even though Ms. Maynard was advised by Ms. Portman that proposed interventions could be included on PMPs, Ms. Maynard still refused to provide Ms. Murphins with the list of the students. Furthermore, Ms. Maynard insisted that including interventions not yet provided, but to be provided, on the PMPs was contrary to Florida's Meta Consent Agreement. She had not read the Meta Consent Agreement and was unable to provide Ms. Portman with a provision of the Meta Consent Agreement that supported a contradiction. Ms. Portman directed Ms. Murphins to contact Dr. Quintana to delete the PMPs for Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Murphins did as she was directed. The PMPs were deleted. On or about October 5, 2006, Ms. Maynard notified Ms. Portman by email that a complaint against Ms. Portman was filed by her with DOE regarding, among other things, the changing of the PMPs and the denying to her students equal access to the reading curriculum and trained professionals. On or about October 30, 2006, Ms. Castiglione sent a directive by email to all teachers regarding, among other things, placing PMPs and letters to parents in the students' report card envelopes. Ms. Maynard refused to comply with Ms. Castiglione's directive because, among other things, the students' PMPs for Ms. Maynard had been deleted and to rewrite the PMPs with interventions that were not actually used by the students was considered falsifying legal documents by Ms. Maynard. On or about October 31, 2006, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard to rewrite the PMPs. Ms. Maynard continued to refuse to obey Ms. Portman's directive. Around November 2006, Ms. Maynard lodged "concerns" about Ms. Portman with the School Board's North Area Superintendent, Joanne Harrison, Ed.D., regarding the PMPs and the instruction of English Language Learners (ELL). Dr. Harrison requested Dr. Quintana and Sayra Hughes, Executive Director of Bilingual/Foreign Language/ESOL Education, to investigate the matter. Dr. Quintana investigated and prepared the report on the PMP concerns, which included findings by Dr. Quintana as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Ms. Hughes investigated and prepared the report on the ELL concerns, which included findings by Ms. Hughes as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Dr. Harrison provided a copy of both reports to Ms. Maynard. Included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) that a school's administration requesting the deletion of PMPs was appropriate; (b) that PMPs are intended to document support programming that was to occur during the school year; (c) that including a support program that was not initially implemented, but is currently being implemented, is appropriate; and (d) that the School Board should consider revising the parents' letter as to using the term "current" in that current could be interpreted to mean the present time. Also, included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: the principal's direction to the teachers, as to the deadline for sending PMPs home by the first quarter report card, was equivalent to the School Board's deadline for sending PMPs home; (b) teacher signatures were not required on PMPs; (c) the principal has discretion as to whether to authorize the sending home of additional PMPs and, with the principal's consent, PMPs can be modified and sent home at any time throughout the school year; and (d) Ms. Maynard completed all of her students' PMPs. Ms. Maynard's concerns regarding ELLS were that Ms. Portman was denying ELLs equal access and had inappropriately adjusted Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) scores of ELLs. Ms. Hughes found that Ms. Maynard only had allegations or claims, but no documentation to substantiate the allegations or claims. As a result, Ms. Hughes concluded that Ms. Portman had committed no violations. As a result of the investigation by Dr. Quintana and Ms. Hughes, Dr. Harrison determined and advised Ms. Maynard, among other things, that no violations had been found in the areas of PMP process, management or implementation and students' equal access rights and that the investigation was officially closed and concluded. Further, Dr. Harrison advised Ms. Maynard that, should additional concerns arise, Ms. Portman, as Principal, was the first line of communication and that, if concerns or issues were not being resolved at the school level, the School Board had a process in place that was accessible. Ms. Maynard admits that she was not satisfied with the determination by Dr. Harrison. Ms. Maynard does not dispute that the deleting of the PMPs were directives from Ms. Portman and that Ms. Portman had the authority to give directives. Ms. Maynard disputes whether the directives were lawful directives and claims that to change the PMPs as directed would be falsifying the reading materials used by her students and, therefore, falsifying PMPs. A finding of fact is made that the directives were reasonable and lawful. Interaction with Students and Parents Ms. Maynard's class consisted of third graders. In addition to reading deficiencies indicated previously, some of her students also had behavioral issues. Ms. Maynard was heard by staff and teachers yelling at her students. For instance, the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein, heard Ms. Maynard yelling at her (Ms. Maynard's) students. The Media Center was across the hall from Ms. Maynard's classroom and had no doors. On one occasion, Ms. Goldstein was so concerned with the loudness of the yelling, she went to Ms. Maynard's room to determine whether something was wrong; Ms. Maynard assured her that nothing was wrong. Paraprofessionals working in the cafeteria have observed Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. Some teachers reported the yelling to Ms. Portman in writing. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist and Administrative Designee, Marjorie DiVeronica, complained to Ms. Portman in writing regarding Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. A Haitian student was in Ms. Maynard's class for approximately two weeks during the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. The student was not performing well in school. The student's father discussed the student's performance with Ms. Maynard. She indicated to the father that Ms. Portman's directives to teachers, regarding reading services, i.e., PMPs, had negatively impacted his son's performance. Ms. Maynard assisted the father in preparing a complaint with DOE, dated October 12, 2006, against Ms. Portman. Among other things, the complaint contained allegations against Ms. Portman regarding a denial of equal access to trained teachers and the reading curriculum in violation of Florida's Meta Consent Agreement and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Ms. Portman was not aware that the parent had filed a complaint against her with DOE. Additionally, on October 16, 2006, Ms. Portman held a conference with the Haitian parent. Among other things, Ms. Portman discussed the reading services provided to the parent's child by Cypress Elementary. Ms. Portman provided a summary of the conference to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard responded to Ms. Portman's summary on that same day. In Ms. Maynard's response, she indicated, among other things, that Ms. Portman did not give the Haitian parent accurate information regarding the child. Interaction with Staff (Non-Teachers) A system of awarding points to classes was established for the cafeteria at Cypress Elementary. A five-point system was established in which classes were given a maximum of five points daily. Classes entered in silence and departed in silence. Points were deducted if a class did not act appropriately. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the five-point system encouraged appropriate conduct by students while they were in the cafeteria. The cafeteria was overseen by Leonor Williamson, who was an ESOL paraprofessional, due to her seniority. The paraprofessionals were responsible for the safety of the students while the students were in the cafeteria. The paraprofessionals implemented the five-point system and came to Ms. Williamson with any problems that they had involving the cafeteria. On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Maynard's students entered the cafeteria and were unruly. Ms. Williamson instructed the paraprofessional in charge of the section where the students were located to deduct a point from Ms. Maynard's class. Ms. Maynard was upset at Ms. Williamson's action and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson, demanding to know the basis for Ms. Williamson's action. Ms. Maynard would not cease complaining, so Ms. Williamson eventually walked away from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Williamson was required to oversee the safety of the students in the cafeteria and, in order to comply with this responsibility, she had to remove herself from the presence of Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard also complained to another teacher, who was attempting to leave the cafeteria with her own students. Additionally, the lunch period for each teacher's class is 30 minutes. On that same day, Ms. Maynard took her class from one section to another section in the cafeteria to serve ice cream to the students. As a result, Ms. Maynard surpassed her lunch period by approximately ten minutes and, at the same time, occupied another class' section. Ms. Williamson viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as unprofessional during the incident and as abusing the scheduled time for lunch. On or about December 12, 2006, Ms. Williamson notified Ms. Portman about the incidents and requested Ms. Portman to remind Ms. Maynard of the cafeteria workers' responsibility to the students and the lunch period set-aside for each class. The incident on or about December 11, 2006, was not the first time that Ms. Williamson had instructed paraprofessionals to deduct points from Ms. Maynard's class. Each time points were deducted, Ms. Maynard became upset and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson. Ms. Williamson felt intimidated by Ms. Maynard. Also, paraprofessionals had deducted points from Ms. Maynard's class on their own accord without being directed to do so by Ms. Williamson. Whenever the deductions occurred, Ms. Maynard expressed her displeasure with the paraprofessionals' actions and often yelled at them in the presence of students and teachers. Another cafeteria situation occurred in December 2006. A paraprofessional, who was in charge of the section where Ms. Maynard's students ate lunch, observed some of the students not conducting themselves appropriately. The paraprofessional decided to deduct one point from Ms. Maynard's class and to indicate to Ms. Maynard why the point was deducted. Furthermore, the paraprofessional decided that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. Upon becoming aware of the incident, Ms. Maynard, who did not witness the conduct, wrote disciplinary referrals on the students involved and submitted them to Ms. Castiglione. The policy was that a referral could be written only by the staff person who observed the incident. Ms. Castiglione discussed the incident with the paraprofessional who indicated to Ms. Castiglione that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. As a result, Ms. Castiglione advised Ms. Maynard that, based upon the paraprofessional's decision and since Ms. Maynard did not witness the incident, Ms. Maynard's referrals would not be accepted and the matter was closed. Ms. Maynard did not agree with the paraprofessional's decision. Ms. Maynard approached the paraprofessional with disciplinary referrals on the students and presented the referrals and strongly encouraged the paraprofessional to sign the referrals. The paraprofessional refused to sign the referrals. Interaction with Staff (Teachers and Administrators) Safety procedures for the Media Center were established by the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein. At one point in time, Ms. Maynard wanted to bring all of her students to Distance Learning. Because of safety concerns, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that all of her students could not attend at the same time. However, Ms. Maynard brought all of her students anyway. Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to preclude Ms. Maynard from entering the Media Center. Additionally, at another point in time, Ms. Maynard requested, by email, that Ms. Goldstein provide all of her (Ms. Maynard's) students with New Testament Bibles. That same day, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that only two Bibles were in the Media Center and, therefore, the request could not be complied with. Disregarding Ms. Goldstein's reply, Ms. Maynard sent her students to the Media Center that same day in twos and threes, requesting the New Testament Bibles. When the two Bibles on-hand were checked-out, Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to offer the students alternative religious material. During 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Terri Vaughn was the Team Leader of the third grade class. As Team Leader, Ms. Vaughn's responsibilities included being a liaison between team members and the administration at Cypress Elementary. Ms. Vaughn's personality is to avoid confrontation. Ms. Vaughn had an agenda for each team meeting. During team meetings, Ms. Maynard would deviate from the agenda and discuss matters of her own personal interest, resulting in the agenda not being completed. Also, Ms. Maynard would occasionally monopolize team meetings. Additionally, in team meetings, Ms. Maynard would indicate that she would discuss a problem student with parents who were not the student's parents. As time progressed, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would engage in outbursts. She would become emotional on matters and raise her voice to the point of yelling. Also, it was not uncommon for Ms. Maynard to point her finger when she became emotional. At times, Ms. Maynard would have to leave the meetings and return because she had begun to cry. Additionally, at times after an outburst, Ms. Maynard would appear as if nothing had happened. Further, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would excessively raise the subject of PMPs and accuse Ms. Portman of directing her to falsify PMPs or Title I documents. Ms. Vaughn did not report Ms. Maynard's conduct at team meetings to Ms. Portman. However, a written request by a majority of the team members, who believed that the team meetings had become stressful, made a request to the administration of Cypress Elementary for a member of the administration to attend team meetings; their hope was that an administrator's presence would cause Ms. Maynard to become calmer during the team meetings. An administrator began to attend team meetings. Marjorie DiVeronica, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist, was an administrative designee, and Ms. Portman designated Ms. DiVeronica to attend the team meetings. Ms. DiVeronica would take notes, try to keep meetings moving, and report to Ms. Portman what was observed. Discussions were stopped by Ms. DiVeronica, and she would redirect the meetings to return to the agenda. Even with Ms. DiVeronica's presence, Ms. Maynard would raise her voice. At one team meeting attended by Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard would not stop talking and the agenda could not move. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to stop talking, but Ms. Maynard would not stop. Ms. Portman placed herself in close proximity to Ms. Maynard in order to defuse the situation and raised her voice in order to get Ms. Maynard's attention. Ms. Portman dismissed the meeting. Additionally, at a team meeting, Ms. Maynard had become emotional. Ms. Castiglione was in attendance at that meeting. Ms. Maynard raised her voice and was shouting and yelling and pointing her finger at Ms. Castiglione. Ms. Maynard continued her conduct at the team meetings no matter whether Ms. Portman, Ms. Castiglione, or Ms. DiVeronica attended the meetings. Outside of team meetings, Ms. Vaughn reached the point that she avoided contact with Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's constantly complaining of matters that were of her (Ms. Maynard's) own personal interest, which resulted in long conversations. Ms. Vaughn's classroom was next to Ms. Maynard's classroom. A closet, with a desk in it, was in Ms. Vaughn's room. At least two or three times, in order to complete some work, Ms. Vaughn went into the closet and closed the door. Another team member, Elizabeth Kane, also made attempts to avoid Ms. Maynard. Ms. Kane viewed Ms. Maynard as making the team meetings stressful. Also, Ms. Kane was uncomfortable around Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and, furthermore, felt threatened by Ms. Maynard when Ms. Maynard became agitated. Additionally, Ms. Kane made a concerted effort to avoid Ms. Maynard outside of team meetings. Ms. Kane would "duck" into another teacher's classroom or into a stall in the bathroom to avoid Ms. Maynard. Barbara Young, a team member, tried to be someone to whom Ms. Maynard could come to talk. Ms. Young was never afraid of or felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Further, regarding the cafeteria incident in December 2006, which Ms. Maynard did not witness, Ms. Maynard did not allow the incident to end with Ms. Castiglione's determination to agree with the paraprofessional's decision to not issue disciplinary referrals. Ms. Maynard, firmly believing that Ms. Castiglione's action was unfair, openly disagreed with the decision in the presence her (Ms. Maynard's) students and strongly encouraged some of the students to go to Ms. Castiglione and protest Ms. Castiglione's determination. Some of the students went to Ms. Castiglione regarding her disciplinary determination. Ms. Castiglione explained her determination to the students, including the process and the reasoning why she did what she did. The students were satisfied with the determination after hearing Ms. Castiglione's explanation. Further, the students indicated to Ms. Castiglione that they had no desire to go to her, but Ms. Maynard wanted them to do it. Ms. Maynard's action had undermined Ms. Castiglione's authority with the students. LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard or viewed Ms. Maynard as being hostile towards her. However, Ms. Maynard did make her feel uncomfortable. A second grade teacher, Paja Rafferty, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Excessive Emails Communication thru emails is the standard operating procedure at Cypress Elementary. However, Ms. Maynard engaged in excessive emails. Ms. Maynard's emails were on relevant areas. However, she would not only send the email to the staff member, whether teacher or administrator, who could directly respond to her, but would copy every teacher and administrator. This process and procedure used by Ms. Maynard resulted in massive emails being sent to staff who might or might not have an interest in the subject matter. One such staff person, who took action to stop receiving the emails, was Ms. Kane. Ms. Kane was inundated with Ms. Maynard's emails regarding matters on which Ms. Kane had no interest or concern. To stop receiving the emails, Ms. Kane sent Ms. Maynard an email, twice, requesting that Ms. Maynard remove her (Ms. Kane) from the copy list. However, Ms. Maynard did not do so. Due to the massive number of emails sent to Ms. Portman by Ms. Maynard, a significant portion of Ms. Portman's time was devoted to responding to the emails. Ms. Portman had less and less time to devote to her responsibilities as principal of Cypress Elementary. Eventually, Ms. Portman was forced to curtail Ms. Maynard's emails. None of Ms. Maynard's emails threatened teachers, staff, or students. Additional Directives During the time period regarding the PMPs, Ms. Portman became concerned that the parents of Ms. Maynard's students were being misinformed by Ms. Maynard as to the students' performance and as to Cypress Elementary and Ms. Portman addressing the students' performance. On November 3, 2006, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard. Also, in attendance were Ms. Castiglione and Patricia Costigan, Broward Teachers Union (BTU) Steward. During the meeting, among other things, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard not to have conferences with a parent unless an administrator was present, either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione, in order to assure that parents were not misinformed. A summary of the meeting was prepared on November 6, 2006. A copy of the summary was provided to Ms. Maynard and Ms. Costigan. Subsequently, Ms. Portman received a letter from a parent dated December 20, 2006. The parent stated, among other things, that the parent had approximately a two-hour telephone conversation, during the evening of December 19, 2006, with Ms. Maynard about the parent's child, who was a student in Ms. Maynard's class. Further, the parent stated that her son was referred to by Ms. Maynard as a "fly on manure." Even though Ms. Maynard denies some of the statements attributed to her by the parent and the time span of the telephone conversation, she does not deny that she had the telephone conversation with the parent. On December 20, 2006, Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione went to Ms. Maynard's classroom to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive. Ms Maynard was not in her classroom but was in another teacher's room, Barbara Young, with another teacher. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to come into Ms. Maynard's classroom so that she and Ms. Castiglione could talk with Ms. Maynard out of the presence of the other teachers. Ms. Maynard refused to leave Ms. Young's classroom indicating that whatever had to be said could be said in front of everyone, in front of witnesses. Ms. Portman, complying with Ms. Maynard's request, proceeded to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive to not conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Maynard became very agitated and yelled at them, indicating that she (Ms. Maynard) wanted what was said in writing and that she (Ms. Maynard) was not going to comply with the directive. Shortly before Winter break, on or about December 21, 2006, in the morning, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 10, 2006, regarding insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all contact with parents" until the meeting was held. Later in the afternoon, after the administrative office was closed, Ms. Maynard returned to Ms. Portman's office. Ms. Maynard confronted Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione about the notice, wanting to know what it was all about. Ms. Maynard was very agitated and emotional, raising her voice and pointing her finger. Ms. Portman indicated to Ms. Maynard that the requirement was only to provide the notice, with the meeting to be held later. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard several times to leave because the office was closed; Ms. Maynard finally left. After Ms. Maynard left Ms. Portman's office, Ms. Portman could hear Ms. Maynard talking to other staff. Ms. Portman was very concerned due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and conduct. Ms. Portman contacted the School Board's Professional Standards as to what to do and was told to request all employees, except day care, to leave. Ms. Portman did as she was instructed by Professional Standards, getting on the intercom system and requesting all employees, except for day care, to leave, not giving the employees the actual reason why they were required to leave. Unbeknownst to Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard had departed Cypress Elementary before she (Ms. Portman) instructed the employees to leave. Regarding the afternoon incident, Ms. Maynard felt "helpless" at that point. She had been informed by Professional Standards to go to administration at Cypress Elementary with her concerns, who was Ms. Portman. Ms. Maynard viewed Ms. Portman as the offender, and, therefore, she was being told to go to offender to have her concerns addressed. On January 9, 2007, a Child Study Team (CST) meeting was convened to address the academic performance of a few of Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Maynard had referred the students to the CST. The CST's purpose was to provide support for the student and the teacher by problem-solving, using empirical data to assist with and improve a child's academic performance and behavior, and making recommendations. No individual member can override a team's recommendation, only a principal could do that. On January 9, 2007, the CST members included, among others, Ms. DiVeronica, who was the CST's leader; Miriam Kassof, School Board Psychologist; and LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor. Also, in attendance were Ms. Maynard and Ms. Castiglione, who, at that time, was an Intern Principal. During the course of the meeting, Ms. Maynard diverted the discussion from the purpose of the meeting to her wanting two of the students removed from her class. She began discussing the safety of the other students in the class, which was viewed, at first, as being well-meaning, however, when she insisted on the removal of the two students, she became highly emotional, stood-up, and was yelling. Members of the CST team attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Ms. Maynard was not willing to engage in problem solving and her actions were counterproductive. Due to Ms. Maynard's constant insistence on discussing the removal of the students from her class, the CST was not able to meet its purpose within the time period set- aside for the meeting. However, before the CST meeting ended, one of the recommendations made was for Ms. Maynard to collect daily anecdotal behavioral notes regarding one of the students and for the behavioral notes to be sent home to the student's parent. Ms. Castiglione gave Ms. Maynard a directive that, before the behavioral notes were sent home to the parent, the behavioral notes were to be forwarded to Ms. Castiglione for review and approval. Ms. Maynard resisted preparing behavioral notes, expressing that that plan of action would not help the situation. The CST members viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as being unproductive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. On January 10, 2007, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held regarding Ms. Portman considering disciplinary action against Ms. Maynard for insubordination. Attendees at the meeting included Ms. Portman; Ms. Castiglione (at that time Intern Principal); Ms. Maynard; Jacquelyn Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Andrew David, Attorney for Ms. Maynard. The basis for the insubordination was Ms. Maynard's refusal to comply with Ms. Portman's directive for Ms. Maynard not to conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Portman pointed out that Ms. Maynard had a telephone conversation with a parent, regarding the parent's child, on December 19, 2006, without an administrator being present and showed Ms. Maynard the letter written by the parent to Ms. Portman, dated December 20, 2006. Ms. Maynard admitted only that she had the telephone conversation. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard to provide a compelling reason as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken; Ms. Maynard did not respond. Ms. Portman reiterated the directive and advised Ms. Maynard that a letter of reprimand would be issued. A summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting was prepared. Ms. Maynard was provided a copy of the summary. On January 17, 2007, a written reprimand was issued by Ms. Portman against Ms. Maynard for failure to adhere to the administrative directive of not having a parent conference unless an administrator was present. The written reprimand stated, among other things, that Ms. Maynard had a parent's conference on the telephone with a student's parent without an administrator being present and that Ms. Maynard failed to present a compelling reason as to why no disciplinary action should be taken. Furthermore, the written reprimand advised Ms. Maynard that any further failure to perform consistent with the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties, as a third grade teacher, would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. Ms. Maynard received a copy of the written reprimand. After the Written Reprimand of January 17, 2007 Also, on January 17, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard which was not a disciplinary meeting, but was a meeting for Ms. Portman to discuss her concerns and job expectations with Ms. Maynard. In addition to Ms. Portman and Ms. Maynard, attendees at the meeting included Ms. Castiglione; Jacqueline Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Mary Rutland, BTU Steward. Ms. Portman discussed five concerns and issued five directives. The first concern of Ms. Portman was Ms. Maynard's unprofessional behavior. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (b) yelling at administrators, referencing the incident on December 20, 2006; and (c) continuing to publicly accuse Cypress Elementary's administrators of falsifying documents after an investigation had determined the accusation to be unfounded. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Ms. Portman's second concern was unprofessional and inappropriate comments. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) indicating on December 20, 2006, while she was in Ms. Young's room, that she would not comply with the directives of which she was reminded by Ms. Portman; (b) speaking to a parent and referring to the parent's child as a "fly on manure"; and (c) telling parents, during conferences, that there was a problem at Cypress Elementary. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate comments. Additionally, Ms. Portman reminded Ms. Maynard that all notes were required to be submitted to administration for review no later than 1:00 p.m., except for student daily behavioral notes, which were to be submitted at 1:30 p.m. The third concern of Ms. Portman was continued dialogue of PMPs and ESOL issues. Ms. Portman indicated that the district had reviewed Ms. Maynard's issues and concerns and had responded to them. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that the said issues were considered closed and that, if Ms. Maynard wished to pursue the said issues, she should contact her attorney. Ms. Portman's fourth concern was unmanageable emails sent by Ms. Maynard. The example provided by Ms. Portman was that she had received over 200 emails from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Portman indicated that the procedure that Ms. Maynard was required to follow when she (Ms. Maynard) had issues or concerns that needed to be addressed was (a) make an appointment with the administrator through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; and (b) provide the confidential secretary with the issue in writing. Only when (a) and (b) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue at the appointment time. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard would cease and desist sending issues via emails and that conferences would be scheduled per the procedure outlined. The fifth concern of Ms. Portman's was protocol compliance. Ms. Portman indicated that the proper procedure for Ms. Maynard to adhere to when Ms. Maynard had a complaint or concern was to first, contact her (Ms. Maynard's) supervisor, not the area office, wherein Ms. Maynard would be provided with an opportunity to meet with an administrator. Additionally, as to meeting with an administrator, (a) Ms. Maynard would meet with either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione; (b) an appointment with the administrator would be made through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; (c) Ms. Maynard would provide the confidential secretary with the issue or concern in writing; (d) only when (b) and (c) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue or concern at the appointment time; (e) administration would address the issue or concern and after the issue or concern had been presented to administration, Ms. Maynard was to consider the issue or concern closed. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman gave to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard was to comply with the protocol outlined for all of her concerns. Moreover, Ms. Portman indicated that a failure by Ms. Portman to follow all of the directives would result in disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment. A summary of the meeting of concerns and job expectations was prepared. On January 18, 2007, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 29, 2007, regarding gross insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all communication with parents both written and oral" until the meeting was held. The notice was hand-delivered to Ms. Maynard at Cypress Elementary. On or about January 22, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting to develop a strategic plan to help motivate one of Ms. Maynard's students, who was in foster care, in the areas of academics and behavior. In addition to Ms. Portman, attendees at the meeting included, among others, Ms. Castiglione; Ms. Smith-Settles; and the student's Guardian Ad-Litem. During the meeting, the Guardian Ad-Litem indicated that Ms. Maynard had telephoned the student's foster parent, engaged in more than a 45-minute conversation, and, during the telephone conversation, made negative comments about Cypress Elementary. On January 23, 2007, Ms. Portman provided Ms. Maynard with a Notice of Special Investigative/Personnel Investigation (Notice) by hand-delivery. The Notice stated, among other things, that the investigation regarded allegations that Ms. Maynard was creating a hostile environment. The Notice directed Ms. Maynard not to engage anyone, connected with the allegations, in conversation regarding the matter and advised that a violation of the directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Further, the Notice advised Ms. Maynard that, if she had any question regarding the status of the investigation, she should contact Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, providing his contact telephone number. The Notice was provided to Ms. Maynard as a result of Ms. Portman making a request for the investigation on January 17, 2007. The request indicated that the allegations were: (1) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (2) yelling at both the principal and assistant principal on December 20, 2006; (3) accusing the principal of falsifying documents even after the school district investigation found the accusation unwarranted; (4) not complying with directives; and (5) accusing the principal of lying to a parent at a conference. The pre-disciplinary meeting noticed for January 29, 2007, was not held due to the placing of Ms. Maynard under investigation. On or about January 25, 2007, Ms. Maynard was temporarily reassigned to the School Board's Textbook Warehouse by Mr. Melita. Temporary reassignment is standard operating procedure during an investigation. Teachers are usually temporarily reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse. Because of the investigation, Ms. Maynard could not return to Cypress Elementary or contact anyone at Cypress Elementary without Mr. Melita's authorization. The SIU investigator assigned to the case was Frederick Davenport. On August 14, 2007, Investigator Davenport went to the Textbook Warehouse to serve a notice of reassignment on Ms. Maynard from Mr. Melita that her reassignment was changed immediately and that she was reassigned to Crystal Lake Community Middle School. The notice of reassignment required Ms. Maynard's signature. Investigator Davenport met with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room and advised her of his purpose, which was not to perform any investigative duties but to serve the notice of reassignment and obtain her signature. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the notice of reassignment because it was not signed by Mr. Melita and left. Investigator Davenport contacted Professional Standards and requested the faxing of an executed notice of reassignment by Mr. Melita to the Textbook Warehouse. Professional Standards complied with the request. Investigator Davenport met again with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the executed notice of reassignment. She felt threatened by Investigator Davenport and ran from the room into the parking area behind the Textbook Warehouse at the loading dock. A finding of fact is made that Investigator Davenport did nothing that the undersigned considers threatening. Investigator Davenport did not immediately follow Ms. Maynard but eventually went to the steps next to the loading dock, however, he did not approach Ms. Maynard in the parking lot. Ms. Maynard refused to talk with Investigator Davenport, expressing her fear of him, and contacted the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO). A BSO deputy came to the parking lot. After Ms. Maynard discussed the situation with the BSO deputy and a friend of Ms. Maynard's, who arrived at the scene, she signed the notice of reassignment. Investigator Davenport delivered the notice of reassignment to Professional Standards. Investigator Davenport completed his investigation and forwarded the complete investigative file and his report to his supervisor for approval. At that time, his involvement in the investigation ended. His supervisor presented the investigation to Professional Standards. On or about September 19, 2007, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment and recommended termination of her employment. The Flyer On April 27, 2009, a town hall meeting was held by the School Board at the Pompano Beach High School's auditorium. That town hall meeting was one of several being held the same night by the School Board. The process and procedure for the town hall meeting included (a) all persons who wished to speak were required to sign-up to speak and (b), if they desired to distribute documents, prior to distribution, the documents were required to be submitted and receive prior approval. Security was at the auditorium, and Investigator Davenport was one of the security officers. During the town hall meeting, an unidentified man rose from his seat, began to talk out-of-turn and loud, was moving toward the front where School Board officials were located, and was distributing a flyer. The actions of the unidentified man got the attention of Investigator Davenport and caused concern about the safety of the School Board officials. Investigator Davenport and the other security officer approached the unidentified man, obtained the flyer, and escorted him out of the auditorium. Once outside, the unidentified man indicated, among other things, that he had not obtained prior approval to distribute the flyer. The unidentified man did not identify who gave him the flyer. Investigator Davenport observed that the flyer was placed on most of the vehicles in the auditorium's parking lot. Once Investigator Davenport and his fellow security officer were convinced that the unidentified man was not a threat to the School Board officials, they released the unidentified man who left the area. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer saw Ms. Maynard at the town hall meeting or had any indication that she had been there. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer had any indication that Ms. Maynard had requested the man to distribute the flyer. The flyer was signed by Ms. Maynard and dated April 27, 2009. The heading of the flyer contained the following: "PARENTS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE"; an email address; and "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN." The content of the flyer included statements that Ms. Maynard was a teacher in 2006 at Cypress Elementary and was directed twice by her administrators in emails to falsify Title I documents; that she was directed to mislead parents about materials and services that the students were legally entitled to; that many of the students failed because they were denied the materials and services; that she refused to follow the directives and filed complaints with the proper authorities; that in 2008, Ms. Portman, who gave the directives to Ms. Maynard, was removed from Cypress Elementary, along with Ms. Murphins and Dr. Harrison--the flyer also indicated the new locations of the individuals; that persons, who were interested in learning how to prevent themselves from being misinformed and to protect their children from being denied the materials and services, should contact Ms. Maynard at the email address on the flyer; and that parents who gather together have more power than teachers to influence the school districts. Ms. Maynard had no determinations or proof to support any of the allegations in the flyer, only her belief. Recognizing that the flyer contained statements similar to the statements of his investigative report, Investigator Davenport forwarded the flyer to Mr. Melita. Ms. Maynard admits that she prepared the flyer and signed it. She indicates that an individual who claimed to be a member of the parent group, Parents For Full Disclosure, contacted and met with her. That individual, who also did not reveal her identity, requested Ms. Maynard to prepare the flyer and informed Ms. Maynard that the flyer would be distributed at the town hall meeting. Filing Various Complaints with Investigative Agencies Ms. Maynard filed various complaints with public investigative agencies regarding: harassment during the investigation; minority teachers being investigated, reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse, and not receiving annual evaluations; and the flyer. The public investigative agencies included the FBI, Broward County EEOC, federal EEOC, Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Commission on Human Relations. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Maynard was prohibited from filing the complaints. Contract Status At the time of the investigation of Ms. Maynard in January 2007 for creating a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Further, at the time that Professional Standards determined probable cause, on or about September 19, 2007, that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Ms. Maynard testified that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract, a fact which the School Board did not refute. A finding of fact is made that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract. Employment Requiring a Teaching Certificate At the time of hearing, Ms. Maynard had not found employment requiring a teaching certificate since being suspended, without pay and benefits, by the School Board on or about March 18, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed Counts 2 (only as to gross immorality), 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16; Dismissing Counts 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17; and Suspending Doreen Maynard's educator's certificate for three years, with denial of an application for an educator's certificate for the three-year period, and, after completion of the suspension, placing her on probation for one year under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commissioner of Education. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should discipline Respondent for immorality, misconduct in office, or incompetency in connection with his supervision, as a high school baseball coach, of a team trip, during which hazing occurred, and his subsequent investigation of the incident.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a teacher and a coach for 27 years. He taught and coached in Illinois for 11 years before moving to Florida, where he has taught and coached for the past 16 years. He currently is teaching health, and he sometimes teaches physical education. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 551145, which is valid through June 30, 2005, and he is certified in health education, physical education, and social science. Respondent has coached basketball, football, and baseball. Most recently, Respondent was the head baseball coach at Coconut Creek High School where he was the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Coach of the Year for Broward County three years ago. He coached baseball four years at Coconut Creek High School and the preceding eight or nine years at Fort Lauderdale High School. The events in this case arose during the 2000 season; Respondent did not coach during the 2001 season. During spring break of 2000, Respondent took his baseball team to Orlando and Sebring. The purpose of the trip was to allow the team to play two high-school baseball games against teams from different regions of the state and to visit an Orlando theme park. The trip took place toward the end of the season, prior to the commencement of the district tournament. The Orlando trip extended from Sunday, April 16, through Wednesday, April 19. Twenty-four student athletes went on the trip. In addition to Respondent, the other adults supervising the students were assistant coaches Reynaldo Nieves, Joseph Leone, and Rex Nottage. Respondent's wife was also with him, as were several parents, but they did not share with Respondent and the assistant coaches supervisory responsibility for the students. On arriving in the Orlando area early in the morning, the group first visited Islands of Adventure, a theme park. They finally reached their hotel at about 8:00 p.m. Respondent gathered the students together and gave them directions as to where they could go. He told them they could not leave the motel property without the permission of a coach. Some students wanted to eat; most wanted to shower. Respondent told them they had to be in their rooms by 11:00 p.m. and their lights must be out by midnight. Respondent warned them that he and the other coaches would perform bed checks at these times. Respondent and his wife had arranged the rooms so that the group was together at the motel. Their rooms were on the second or third floor of the motel. Each room accommodated four students. Respondent and his wife were in a room, Mr. Leone was in a room, and Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage shared a room. The students' rooms were between the rooms of the adults to enable the adults to exercise closer control over the students. At some point prior to the first bed check, the older students began entering the rooms of the younger students, by trick or by force. A large group of the older students would then overpower the younger student and, typically, apply Icy Hot liniment to a towel and then to the testes of the student. The students were aware that this hazing was likely to occur during this trip. Seven of the students were hazed by nearly all of the remainder of the team. Prior to being hazed himself, D. B. was aware that other students had been hazed and was aware of the form of the hazing because some of the other students had come to D. B.'s room and asked to use the shower. D. B. was a junior, but this was his first year on the varsity, and he knew that the older students would try to haze him too. However, he did not try to contact one of the coaches or parents to intervene in the half hour that D. B. estimates elapsed between the hazing of the last of the other students and his hazing. As had happened to most of the other hazed students, most, if not all, of the older students on the team entered D. B.'s room, pulled down his pants, and applied Icy Hot and shaving cream to his genital area. D. B. yelled and struggled against four or five students on various parts of his prone body. He sustained some minor scratches while he was held down for about one minute. As soon as he was released, D. B. took a shower. He chased the remaining students out of his room, swinging a belt and yelling. While in the shower, D. B. was so angry that he threw soap and shampoo containers in the shower stall. About ten minutes after D. B. was hazed, Mr. Nieves was roaming the rooms and entered D. B.'s room. Petitioner contends that Respondent had allowed Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage to leave the motel for dinner from 8:00 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. If so, Respondent, his wife, and Mr. Leone could adequately supervise the students occupying the six rooms between them. However, D. B. testified that the hazing took place around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m., so, if Mr. Nieves arrived ten minutes later, he was gone only until 9:10 to 9:40 p.m. Either way, the record does not reveal any irresponsibility on Respondent's part in allowing his two assistant coaches to leave him, his wife, and Mr. Leone to supervise 24 students for even three hours. When Mr. Nieves looked into D. B.'s room, he found D. B. in a bad mood, angrily throwing things around the bathroom. The door to D. B.'s room was open, so Mr. Nieves walked inside and asked if he was okay. D. B., who was wearing only a towel wrapped around his waist, did not answer, but left the bathroom and stood in front of the wall air conditioning, unit, which was blowing cold air. Mr. Nieves saw about five marks on D. B.'s back and saw that D. B. was beet red. The marks appeared as though someone had been grabbing him. Mr. Nieves offered to get Respondent, and D. B. said to do so. Mr. Nieves thought that D. B. had been wrestling or something. His visit to D. B.'s room had occurred not long before the first room check. Mr. Nieves walked down the hall to Respondent's room and found Respondent inside. Mr. Nieves informed Respondent that D. B. wanted to talk to him. He told Respondent that it looked like something was wrong. Respondent and Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room. They arrived there about three minutes from the time that Mr. Nieves had left the student's room. Respondent entered D. B.'s room ahead of Mr. Nieves and found D. B. standing in front of the air conditioning fan, holding the towel open like he was cooling down. In a conversation that lasted about 30 seconds, Mr. Nieves said to D. B., "Coach is here. Tell him what's wrong." Respondent added, "What's wrong?" To these inquiries, D. B. replied, "Nothing. Don't worry about it." Mr. Nieves and Respondent asked about the red marks, but D. B. said they were nothing and everything was fine. D. B. testified that he did not disclose the hazing because he knew that Respondent would punish the team. He assumed that the team would be upset with D. B. for telling the coach that they had done something of which Respondent disapproved. Somewhat irritated that D. B. had asked to see Respondent and three minutes later declined to tell him anything, Mr. Nieves left the room with Respondent. They then completed the bed check, and Mr. Nieves did not see Respondent again that night. However, Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room about a half hour later. He found D. B. still standing by the air conditioning fan. Mr. Nieves told D. B. that it was not fair to Mr. Nieves to say to Respondent that nothing was wrong. Mr. Nieves then asked if something was wrong. D. B. replied, "They got me, coach." Mr. Nieves did not know what he meant, but thought that D. B. meant some sort of rough-housing. Mr. Nieves asked D. B. why did you not say something to Respondent. Mr. Nieves spent about 15 minutes in D. B.'s room, but did not learn anything more specific. However, D. B. expressed considerable anger to Mr. Nieves. The Icy Hot that came into contact with D. B.'s penis was most painful. The next morning, the pain was somewhat reduced. Early that morning, the team went to a baseball field to prepare for a game that day. They did a lot of situational baserunning so the fielders could practice. Because D. B. was not a starter, he and the other nonstarters had to do much of the baserunning. He displayed no problems running in the morning. However, hours later, during the pregame practice, a ball was hit toward D. B. in the outfield. He charged it, but it got by him. Instead of turning and running after the ball, as Respondent required of all players, D. B. turned and walked toward the ball. Seeing D. B. and another student not hustling, Respondent pulled them off the field. When Respondent demanded to know why D. B. had not run after the ball, D. B. said that "my balls are on fire." D. B. had a poor attitude at times and was stubborn. Without responding meaningfully to D. B.'s explanation, Respondent benched both players for the entire game. D. B.'s explanation is discredited due to his ability to run without impediment in the morning. D. B. had called his parents Monday at around noon and had told them what had happened the prior evening. D. B. called them again after the afternoon game. During the first call, D. B.'s parents told him to defend himself if necessary and not to worry about talking to Respondent about the hazing. Respondent had not been feeling well Sunday night. By the time of practice Monday morning, his throat was so sore that he had to have his assistant coaches direct the students on the field and yell instructions. After the game, in which Respondent's team had played poorly and lost, Respondent spoke only briefly to the team and allowed Coach Nottage to yell at the students to fire them up and make them work harder. After the team had returned to the motel, Mr. Nieves talked to D. B.'s roommates. He was somewhat concerned about D. B. because, after the game, when he had asked the student what was wrong, D. B. had only laughed as if he were mad. The roommates talked vaguely about Icy Hot, but they were unwilling to be more specific. Around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Monday at the motel, D. B. came to Respondent's room and asked if he could talk to the coach for a minute. Respondent said he could. D. B. then told Respondent that he had had Icy Hot put on his testes. Whispering, Respondent asked if he was alright and what did D. B. want Respondent to do about it. The record is unclear whether he asked this in a challenging or inquisitive tone. D. B. did not add more details. On Tuesday morning, the team departed Orlando in vans headed for Sebring, where they were to play another game Tuesday night. Respondent had been quite sick Monday night, unable to swallow or talk. By Tuesday, he was even more sick. No one spoke to him about D. B. or hazing. With considerable effort, Respondent was able to escort the team to the Sebring motel, and then he went directly to a nearby hospital emergency room. Diagnosed as having pharyngitis, Respondent obtained an injection of antibiotics, which provided him relief the next day. Scheduling problems resulted in postponing the Sebring game, so that the team did not return to the motel until after 11:00 p.m. Respondent directed the students to go directly to their rooms and told them that there would be a midnight bed check. Late the next morning, Wednesday, the team left Sebring to return to Fort Lauderdale, where they arrived at 3:00 p.m. One of the parents traveling with the team told Respondent at a gas stop that D. B. had called his parents. Respondent summoned D. B. and complained about D. B. calling his parents without first informing Respondent of the problem. The conversation was brief because the group was waiting in their vans. D. B. replied, "Well, coach, you know what happens." Respondent answered, "I don't know what happens. Go get in your van." On the way back to Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Nieves told Respondent what he knew about hazing in the form of older students applying Icy Hot to the genitalia of younger students and, in some cases, paddling younger students. Respondent expressed his frustration that D. B. had not complained to him about the hazing. When they returned to Fort Lauderdale, Respondent told D. B. that he wanted to speak to him and his father, who was there to pick him up. However, D. B. and his father left the school without speaking to Respondent. Respondent decided to call a team meeting to find out what had happened. Respondent called D. B.'s mother to assure that D. B. would come to the meeting, but she said that he was at work and that she had already called the school board. D. B. was not at work. In the team meeting, Respondent warned the students that hazing was very serious. He asked for those persons directly and indirectly involved to identify themselves. Various students began raising their hands, admitting to various levels of involvement, and Mr. Nottage recorded their names, at Respondent's direction. Respondent then warned the students that the school board was involved and there could be criminal punishments for certain persons. He told the students that there was nothing that he could do about these consequences, but he would take his own actions. At this point, many of the students began retracting admissions. Feeling that the notes had become useless, Respondent obtained the notes from Mr. Nottage and discarded them later that weekend. Prominent among the many differences in testimony concerning the events of this trip and its immediate aftermath is a difference in recollection between Respondent and Mr. Nieves concerning a conversation between the two of them following the meeting. Mr. Nieves testified that Respondent instructed him to deny that the notes existed, and Respondent denied that this is true. Such dishonesty, if true, would merit punishment. It is possible that Respondent did ask Mr. Nieves to conceal the truth in order to protect Respondent's students, who had made confessions prior to understanding the potential administrative and criminal consequences. Perhaps Respondent regretted his role in securing this inculpatory information. On the other hand, Mr. Nottage, as well as over 22 students were at this meeting (another student had failed to attend), so Respondent had to know that such a concealment was unlikely to go undetected. Most importantly, though, Mr. Nieves was a most unconvincing witness. His recollection of details was poor, contradictory, and entirely inconsistent with his apparent intelligence. His demeanor was poor. The Administrative Law Judge was left with the opinion that Mr. Nieves was lying at the time that he first provided statements concerning the events--for some reason, trying unfairly to inculpate Respondent or to exculpate himself--or he was lying at the hearing--belatedly, trying to protect Respondent. On balance, it is impossible to credit Mr. Nieves' testimony on this crucial point. After talking the matter over with Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage (Mr. Leone had already left before the meeting), Respondent decided to punish the students as best he could by making them run. Those who had actually touched the younger students had to run 10 miles. Older students who had stood by and encouraged or supported the hazing had to run an intermediate distance. Even the victims, such as D. B., had to run because they had not reported the hazing, but their distance was the shortest. The team had a game the next morning. Late in the afternoon or early in the evening on Thursday, Respondent called his supervisor for athletics, the Coconut Creek High School athletic director, and reported the hazing in general terms. The athletic director told Respondent that he had done the right thing by calling him and said to come see him Monday, when school was back in session. On Saturday morning, Respondent required the students to run the distances that he had determined appropriate. He also informed the team that he would be recommending to the principal that the baseball team not take field trips. The athletic director later suggested that Respondent not make that recommendation. D. B. and his parents have filed a civil action against the school board for damages arising out of the incident. School officials have known that hazing has been a problem in the past at Coconut Creek High School, although more with the soccer team. In 1997, the athletic director asked Respondent, as the baseball head coach, to draft a letter stating a policy prohibiting hazing. Addressed to the parents of baseball players, the letter states in part: "The athletic department has a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to "initiating" or "hazing" a fellow student. Anyone guilty of participating in a hazing or a form of initiation will be immediately dismissed from the team." Respondent and the athletic director signed the letter. At the start of the 2000 season, Respondent warned the students on the team that he would not tolerate any sort of misbehavior, including hazing. Respondent had not been aware of any hazing incidents on the baseball team since 1997. As already noted, other students knew of the continuation of the practice. Some of the parents of the older students also knew of the practice, at least as it had been inflicted on their sons. However, it does not necessarily follow that what a student shares with a parent, he also shares with his coach. Petitioner has failed to prove incompetency, lack of fitness, inefficiency, or incapacity on the part of Respondent. Nor has Petitioner proved immorality. The evidence does not establish that Respondent knew or had reason to know that hazing was about to occur or that hazing had occurred. At all times, Respondent was in charge of 24 students, and, most of the time, he was sick--after Sunday, very sick. The scrutiny that Respondent could reasonably be expected to give the D. B. situation, especially given the student's reluctance to make a straightforward declaration of what happened, must be assessed n light of these circumstances. As the last person to be hazed, D. B. had ample opportunity to alert the coaches. After the hazing, D. B. repeatedly declined to disclose the problem to Respondent. D. B. knew that Respondent did not condone hazing. D. B. knew that, rather than ignore a hazing complaint, Respondent would punish the responsible players, and this would draw unwanted attention to D. B. Seeking advice from his parents, D. B. was reinforced in his earlier determination not to seek the effective remedies that he knew were available within the structure of the team. Petitioner has also failed to prove misconduct in office. Again, Respondent's supervision of the students was adequate. His investigation was sufficient for imposing intra- team discipline. His apparent departure from school policy of dismissal from the team may be explained by Respondent's awareness that the school board and possibly law enforcement would also investigate the matter and impose their own sanctions; presumably, the athletic department policy was intended to operate in isolation. Although Respondent could have informed the athletic director of the problem Wednesday night or Thursday morning, Respondent did so later Thursday. This brief delay caused no prejudice, as Respondent's supervisor assured Respondent that he had done the right thing and he would visit him the next Monday.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Frank Till Superintendent School Board of Broward County, Florida K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen Rodriguez Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street, Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Robert F. McKee Kelly & McKee, P.A. Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Jerry W.Whitmore, Bureau Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
