Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 1, 1980, Respondent, David K. Witherspoon, and his parents were advised by the Pinellas County Superintendent of Schools, Gus Sakkis, that he was being suspended from the public schools of Pinellas County for the remainder of the 1980/81 and 1981/82 school years based on an allegation that Respondent committed a battery while on school grounds on September 19, 1980, following a high school football game. (Joint Exhibit 1) Respondent is scheduled to graduate from high school at the end of the 1981/82 school year. Following the expulsion, Respondent has been assigned and is attending an evening alternative education school program sponsored by the Pinellas County School System. According to testimony, that a system provides two hours of instruction each week day evening. Respondent appealed the Superintendent's expulsion and the parties stipulated that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to resolve this controversy. According to the Code of Student Conduct, students are expected to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that "shall [not] infringe on the rights of others. A battery, according to the Code of Student Conduct, is the unlawful, intentional touching . . . or force to another person, done in a rude, insolent and angry manner shall subject a student to disciplinary action which may include suspension or expulsion from school." Paragraph 3(a)2, Code of Student Conduct. The material allegations of this controversy are that following the football game at Gibbs Senior High School (Gibbs) on September 19, 1980, Respondent while in the company of four other black males struck Anthony Scott Taylor, a seventeen year old senior at Gibbs, his mother and his fiancee in the school's parking lot. Anthony Taylor charged that Respondent kicked him across his eye; struck him with his fist, bruising his nose and caused his eye to bleed. Taylor has know Respondent for more than two years and has had no prior run-ins or altercations with Respondent. Taylor alleges that approximately 20 or more black students encircled him during the altercation with Respondent. Taylor, while on his knees in a slouched position when he was allegedly hit an kicked by Respondent, glanced up to identify Respondent. Taylor admitted that he was preoccupied with ensuring that his fiancee and mother could leave the parking area without difficulty. He also commented that blood was streaming from his right eye from the blow he received. Ann Taylor, Anthony Taylor's mother, was also struck by a black male as she was leaving the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Mrs. Taylor testified that her son was knocked down he (Anthony) told one of the black males "that's my mother you knocked down." Mrs. Taylor testified that she was unable to identify any of the students involved in the altercation and noted that her son was dazed when he left the area where the fight occurred. Lori Bush, Respondent's fiancee, also accompanied the Taylors following the football game. Ms. Bush also could not identify any of the students involved in the altercation with them. Ms. Bush and Anthony Taylor's mother picked him up and carried him to their car. Ms. Bush did not recall having seen Respondent prior to the hearing in this cause. Paula Sitzelberger, a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department investigated the subject incident which occurred at Gibbs on September 19, 1980. Detective Sitzelberger spoke to Respondent at school on September 23, 1980, and after questioning him, reported that Respondent denied striking Anthony Taylor following the game. Detective Sitzelberger noted that Respondent admitted to having shoved another white male whose identity is unknown in another area of the parking lot after the white male allegedly pulled or struck Respondent. Detective Sitzelberger was unable to locate any independent witnesses to the subject incident. Jerry Young, a witness called on behalf of Respondent, recalled the numerous fights which occurred following the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Young followed Respondent throughout the school ground area and denied that Respondent had any involvement in the subject incident. He corroborated Respondent's testimony to the effect that Respondent's hand was injured in another incident in another area of the school's parking area after Respondent was first enmeshed in an altercation with another white male. Respondent related the incident following the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Respondent has been attending evening sessions at Mirror Lake Adult High School since his expulsion from the regular public schools of Pinellas County. According to Respondent, Tony Taylor was struck by a group of other blacks and Respondent denied any involvement on his part in that incident. Respondent surmised that Tony Taylor shouted that he recognized him while he was being struck in an effort to gain some sympathy from the group that was striking him. Respondent, after hearing Tony Taylor shouted that he recognized him while he was being struck in an effort to gain some sympathy from the group that was striking him. Respondent, after hearing Tony Taylor repeatedly shout that he knew him, left the area with companion Young although he got involved in another altercation with another white male which resulted in an injury to his hand. Respondent first became aware of his alleged involvement in the Anthony Taylor incident the following Monday when he was questioned by Dean Jones and Detective Sitzelberger. 2/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be reinstated in the Pinellas County School System; that the suspension be revoked and that the student be permitted to make up the school work missed as provided in Chapter 4(b)1(h) of the Code of Student Conduct adopted by the Pinellas County School System. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1981, 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 14th day of January, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 27, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: General Findings Respondent, Robert A. Pringle, Jr., holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 720759, covering the areas of mathematics and physical education, which is valid through June 30, 2005. Mr. Pringle has a bachelor's degree in education from Maryville College in Maryville, Tennessee. Mr. Pringle played baseball at Maryville College for five years and coached baseball for two semesters at the college. In 1993, immediately after graduating from Maryville College, Mr. Pringle was employed as a mathematics and physical education teacher at Riverdale High School ("Riverdale") in the Lee County School District (the "District"). Mr. Pringle's employment as a teacher at Riverdale has continued uninterrupted since 1993. For the past eight years, Mr. Pringle has served as Riverdale's head baseball coach. He has been Riverdale's golf coach since 2000. Mr. Pringle has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against his license. The precipitating event for the allegations in this case was the varsity baseball tryout in January 2002. During Mr. Pringle's tenure as head coach, the Riverdale baseball team had progressed from a perennial losing program to a contender for the state championship in Class 3A. Competition was fierce for the 16 available spots on the team. In some years, as many as 100 boys would try out for the team. In January 2002, 38 players participated in the three-day tryout. Mr. Pringle testified that, though the number of players trying out was lower than in some previous seasons, the quality of the players was quite high, and he knew that the cuts would be hard to make. There were 25 players trying out who had played for the Riverdale varsity or junior varsity teams, in the autumn "wooden bat" league, or for local summer or AAU teams. In 2001, there had been many complaints from the disappointed parents of players who failed to make the cut. Before the 2002 tryouts, Mr. Pringle warned the Riverdale administrators to expect another round of complaints, because he fully expected that some good players would be cut. The varsity tryouts were conducted from Monday, January 14, through Wednesday, January 16, 2002. Players were allowed to choose the positions for which they wanted to be considered. At the tryouts, the coaches assessed each player on the basis of the "five tools" of baseball: hitting for average; hitting for power; running speed; arm strength; and fielding ability. The five tools are the accepted standard for rating baseball players. Running speed was measured via a timed 60-yard dash. Arm strength was measured by timing a throw from 120 feet away for infielders and 220 feet away for outfielders, commencing from the point at which the ball touched the fielder's glove to the point at which the ball touched the receiver's glove. Two coaches would time each dash or throw to ensure accuracy. Fielding was assessed by coaches on a one-to-five scale. One coach would hit to the fielders while two others stood to the side observing. Hitting and pitching were also graded on a one-to-five scale, with several coaches observing and comparing notes to arrive at a consensus rating. The Riverdale coaches conducting the tryouts included Mr. Pringle, assistant varsity coach Justin Cook, and junior varsity coach Cliff Trosterud. They were assisted at the tryout by Tommy Watkins, Jason Guy, and Ryan Carter, all of whom play professional baseball at the minor league level, as well as Casey Brock, a former college player who assists with the junior varsity pitchers at Riverdale. Mr. Pringle posted the results of the tryouts on the door of his classroom on the morning of Thursday, January 17, 2002. Among the players who did not make the varsity team were twin brothers Willard and Chris Truckenmiller, Curtis Rine, and Tyler Caruthers. All of these boys were juniors who had played junior varsity baseball the previous year, though mostly in a backup capacity. Mr. Pringle testified that all of these boys had the ability to play high school baseball, but that the talent level on the 2002 Riverdale team was extraordinarily high and they were simply not good enough to make that team. During a change of classes on the morning of January 17, 2002, Curtis Rine entered Mr. Pringle's classroom at Riverdale. Curtis was very upset at not making the cut. He yelled at Mr. Pringle that he did not need to be on his team, that he could transfer to Bishop Verot High School (a private Catholic school in Fort Myers) and play baseball for them. Mr. Pringle did not report this incident because Curtis did not use profanity or otherwise do anything that merited discipline; he was "just a kid . . . upset that he was cut from the baseball team." On the evening of January 17, 2002, Mr. Pringle conducted varsity practice at the Riverdale baseball field. Chris Stevens, a deputy with the Lee County Sheriff's Department assigned as Riverdale's school resource officer, was in the parking lot outside the baseball field. Richard Shafer, Riverdale's principal, had informed Deputy Stevens that there were parents disgruntled about the baseball cuts and asked Deputy Stevens to stay near the baseball field to make sure Mr. Pringle was safe. Deputy Stevens noticed Kim Caruthers, the mother of Tyler Caruthers, in the parking lot with Tyler's father. Deputy Stevens approached Mr. Pringle on the baseball field and told him that Ms. Caruthers was apparently waiting to talk with him. Mr. Pringle told Deputy Stevens that he would talk to her and attempt to explain the situation regarding the baseball cuts. Mr. Pringle testified that as soon as he came near her, Ms. Caruthers began yelling and "calling me every name in the book" in a profane harangue. She said that "I hurt her son and now she was going to hurt me." Deputy Stevens concurred that Ms. Caruthers was very angry and became more agitated as the conversation went on, until she "start[ed] to boil" and repeatedly threatened that Mr. Pringle was "going to go down." Deputy Stevens told Ms. Caruthers more than once that she needed to calm down. Deputy Stevens testified that Mr. Pringle maintained a calm, professional demeanor throughout Ms. Caruthers' rant and tried repeatedly to explain the tryout process to her. After about ten minutes, Ms. Caruthers began to walk away from Mr. Pringle, then turned around and spat at Mr. Pringle. The spit landed on Mr. Pringle's shoe. Deputy Stevens told Ms. Caruthers to leave.2 Deputy Stevens told Mr. Pringle that the spitting could be construed as battery and that he had the right to press charges. At the time, Mr. Pringle saw no need to press charges. Mr. Shafer, the Riverdale principal, testified that Ms. Caruthers had been generous to the school. Among other donations, she had offered $35,000 to support the baseball program. On January 17, 2002, the same date as her confrontation with Mr. Pringle, Ms. Caruthers showed up at a school open house and told Mr. Shafer that she would not give the money to Riverdale and would take her money to a school that wanted her son. Mr. Pringle testified that matters with Ms. Caruthers did not end on the evening of January 17, 2002. Over the next three weeks, she repeatedly made threatening phone calls. She would come to the baseball field and yell at Mr. Pringle. She came into the school and shouted at him in the hallways. She threatened to circulate flyers labeling Mr. Pringle a "pervert" and a "rapist." Tiring of the harassment, Mr. Pringle filed a complaint for misdemeanor battery against Ms. Caruthers on February 6, 2002. He testified that he hoped that pressing charges would lead to entry of a restraining order that would keep Ms. Caruthers away from him. Eventually, the state attorney declined to prosecute the matter. On February 18, 2002, Tom and Mary Rine, the parents of Curtis Rine, met with Mr. Pringle, Mr. Shafer, Riverdale athletic director Boyd Gruhn, and assistant principal Don Trelease. Both Mr. Shafer and Mr. Trelease recalled that the gist of the meeting involved the Rines' contention that their son should be on the varsity baseball team. Mr. Shafer told the Rines that he had seen the scores on the cut list, looked at the quality of the people who judged the players, and concluded that the tryout had been conducted fairly and competently. At this point, the Rines launched into a series of personal allegations against Mr. Pringle. Their chief accusation concerned a story their son Curtis had told them about a bus trip to a baseball game in Miami the previous season. They alleged that on the trip back from Miami, Mr. Pringle and the other coaches went around the bus asking the players if they wanted to accompany them to "Lookers," a strip club in Fort Myers. The Rines also alleged that Mr. Pringle "always" had a dip in his mouth at games and practices,3 and that he freely used profanity in the presence of his players. Mr. Shafer asked the Rines why they would want their son to play on a team where such inappropriate behavior was occurring. The Rines responded that Mr. Pringle was a successful coach. Ms. Rine testified that at this meeting, Mr. Pringle admitted that he chewed tobacco on the field, but never when there was a student around. If he was on the field on the weekend, or during the school day when no students were present, he would use tobacco, but would take it out if anyone else approached. Ms. Rine also testified that Mr. Pringle admitted to using improper language with students, including the term "blow job." Mr. Pringle testified that he did not admit to using tobacco on the baseball field. He did admit to using tobacco away from the school and stated that his life away from the school was his own business unless he did something to embarrass Riverdale. Mr. Pringle testified that he did admit to using the term "blow job" once in a conversation with his players and expressed regret that he did not employ the term "oral sex" or some other more clinical term. Mr. Pringle explained that late in the 2000 baseball season, five Riverdale athletes, including one member of the baseball team, were facing charges for having received oral sex from an underaged female. Later, there was coverage of the matter in the local newspapers and on television news, but when the charges first arose, neither Mr. Pringle nor his players knew anything other than that the player did not show up for practice and that rumors were flying around the school. Mr. Pringle was called into the principal's office and the matter was explained to him. He then met with his players to explain the situation and gauge the team's reaction. He told his players that no decision had been made whether the player would be expelled from school or even suspended from the baseball team, and he wanted to ensure that the other players would react appropriately should their teammate later show up to play. It was a delicate situation, and Mr. Pringle wanted to be sure his players understood the facts. He used the term "blow job" in explaining what happened, because he thought that was a term the players would understand. At the meeting with the Rines, he conceded that it was a poor choice of words. Mr. Trelease confirmed Mr. Pringle's version of the discussion regarding tobacco. Mr. Pringle stated that he was a tobacco user, but he leaves his tobacco in the car and never has it on his person when he is at school. Mr. Trelease did not recall the details of the profanity discussion because it was such a minor part of the overall meeting. He stated that the Rines spent most of the meeting talking about their allegations of misbehavior on the bus trip back from Miami. Mr. Pringle's version of the discussion at the meeting with the Rines is credited. There is no essential conflict between his version and that of Ms. Rine as to the profanity discussion. They both recalled Mr. Pringle's admitting to using the term "blow job." Ms. Rine simply leapt to the conclusion that this constituted a broader admission than Mr. Pringle intended. As to the tobacco discussion, Mr. Pringle's version is supported by the credible testimony of Mr. Trelease. On Tuesday, January 28, 2002, a group of parents including Terry and Dani Truckenmiller, Mary Rine, Kim Caruthers, and the father of Sean Fox (a 2002 Riverdale graduate who had played golf for Mr. Pringle and who had failed to make the varsity baseball team as a junior) met with Mr. Shafer and Doug Whittaker, the director of curriculum for the District. Mr. Shafer testified that these parents voiced allegations that Mr. Pringle constantly used tobacco on school property, used profanity in the presence of students, and indulged in sexual innuendo with and about female students. Mr. Shafer stated that it was clear to him these parents not only wanted Mr. Pringle fired, but wanted his teaching certificate revoked. On January 29, 2002, the Truckenmillers filed a written complaint with the District. Mr. Pringle was immediately suspended from his coaching duties, though not his teaching duties, and the District commenced an investigation into the parents' allegations. Bill Shoap, the District's coordinator of personnel services, conducted the investigation. In his investigative report, Mr. Shoap framed the issues as follows: The allegations are as follows: Whether Robert Pringle ever used tobacco products on school district property during baseball practice and game times; whether he ever used profanity in front of team members; and whether he ever communicated sexual innuendo towards students. Mr. Shoap described the investigation as follows: A total of forty-nine [sic] witness statements were received regarding this investigation. Approximately 27 concerned parents, past co-workers and community members submitted letters of support for Robert Pringle, describing him as a positive role model and dedicated coach, as well as an effective teacher. Each of the 16 members of the Riverdale Varsity Baseball team (acting as witnesses) signed a letter which specifically refutes the three allegations being made against Mr. Pringle. This investigation also takes into account additional information provided by those who have worked near or along the side of Mr. Pringle, as well as those who have made the allegations . . . . Mr. Shoap submitted his investigative report to the District on February 11, 2002. On February 12, 2002, a pre-determination conference was held to allow Mr. Pringle to respond to the allegations. John Hennebery, the District's coordinator for professional standards presided over the conference, which was also attended by the District's staff attorney and a recording secretary. Mr. Pringle denied every allegation. He admitted that he does use dip, but stated that he has never done so on school grounds or at any school function, including baseball practices and games. He stated that on occasion he might have muttered the word "damn" or "hell" to a fellow coach in the dugout and that a player conceivably could have overheard, but that he had never otherwise used profanity in front of students. After reviewing the investigative report and considering Mr. Pringle's statements, Mr. Hennebery determined that there was no probable cause to proceed further in the matter and that no disciplinary action should be taken against Mr. Pringle. Mr. Hennebery testified that the allegations simply could not be substantiated. He noted that Florida High School Athletic Association ("FHSAA") rules prohibit chewing tobacco, and that no one had ever been ejected from a Riverdale baseball game for that offense. He also noted that Mr. Pringle had been accused of "cussing out" the entire team and offering trips to a strip club to a charter bus full of students, yet only a few students, none of whom included current members of the baseball team, and no coaches claimed to have witnessed these acts. In sum, Mr. Hennebery concluded that the witnesses supporting Mr. Pringle were more credible than his accusers. Mr. Pringle's suspension was lifted on February 14, 2002. At about the same time, someone filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Practices Services of the Department, which assigned Shellie White to investigate on behalf of the Department. It is noted that there was confusion at the hearing as to who filed the complaint with the Department and dispute as to the manner in which Ms. White conducted her investigation. Mr. Pringle alleged that Ms. White purposely neglected to interview any witnesses possessing exculpatory information. This allegation was lent some support by the testimony of Jason Scott, a social studies teacher at Riverdale. Mr. Scott stated that Ms. White commenced an interview with him, then stopped it after five minutes and never contacted him again. It is also noted that the Department chose not to elicit testimony from Ms. White or anyone else involved in its investigation of Mr. Pringle and chose not to clarify the question as to who filed the complaint against Mr. Pringle.4 On September 27, 2002, the Department issued its finding of probable cause and the Administrative Complaint described in the Preliminary Statement above. Terry Truckenmiller Terry Truckenmiller is the father of the twins, Willard and Chris, who were cut from the varsity team in January 2002. Of all the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Department, Mr. Truckenmiller was the most vociferous accuser. He was also the least believable. For the sake of orderly presentation, Mr. Truckenmiller's testimony is treated separately at the outset, so that the Findings of Fact in Sections III through VI below may deal with those witnesses possessing some level of credibility. In a statement provided to Ms. White, the Department's investigator, Mr. Truckenmiller wrote: In the 5 years I have known Mr. Pringle it is comman [sic] knowledge from students, staff & parents that he chews tabacco [sic] & swears every moment at school. It is comman [sic] knowledge of his sexual conduct and actions with minor girls. He has taken his players to "strip clubs" many times and supplied them with alcohol on a weekly basis. I repeat this is not an allegation-- it is FACT. Mr. Shafer (the Principle)[sic] knew of this and probably many more, that he has "sweeped [sic] under the rug." This all started when a friend of Mr. Pringle who was the wrestling coach here at Riverdale asked my son if he was having sex with his girl-friend [sic] & did she like to swallow. With her brother on the team the info got back to her mom and she brought it to Mr. Shafer's attention and the word was put around school that this family was trouble-makers. This was done from the staff at Riverdale. When this was brought forward my sons were starting QB & running back in football, starting catcher (1 son) & starting shortstop (other son). It also maybe [sic] noted that Mr. Pringle picked & told me how great my boys are & would be for Riverdale-- they would start & play full-time over the boys that are now on the team playing. He would tell us how much "better" the boys were than the others. Why did this change? I coached in high school for football, baseball and took softball teams to the state finals. I know all these kids & their talents, since I've been coaching in Lee County for over 25 years. I also know my boys are not the best on the team, but they were chosen by another high school coach who took the best 15 boys in the whole county to the national finals! Top 15 in county, but not top 15 in their local school? There must be a reason-- there is [sic] you come forward and your family gets dumped on by the staff at school. My boys had teachers come up to them and tell them to watch their backs the staff said they will get them. The "good ole boy" network at Riverdale starts with Mr. Shafer and Mr. Gruhn the athletic director, the assistant principles [sic] and athletic coaches and staff hide and alter records to please their need. Were [sic] also told if we did not go forward with our complaints that our boys grades would be "fixed" to suit us. 40 yr. old men do not ask high school kids if they "swallow", are they "easy to lay", what positions they like, who and when they have "slept with". This investigation has been in the hands of administrators for 2 yrs., we have been continualy [sic] lied too [sic] & decieved [sic] by them. What Mr. Pringle has done is wrong! If he were not a teacher he would be in prison. Our kids need role models that know right from wrong. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. May the Lord be with you always. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller stood by everything in the above statement. Thus, Mr. Truckenmiller swore that: Mr. Pringle chewed tobacco and swore continually at school; Mr. Pringle took students to strip clubs; Mr. Pringle provided alcohol to students every week; Mr. Pringle made lewd remarks to female students and possibly even had sexual relations with them; and the entire Riverdale administrative staff, from Mr. Shafer down, was made aware of Mr. Pringle's actions and conspired to cover up his activities, going so far as to offer bribes in the way of altered grades to the Truckenmillers in exchange for their silence. The statement also implies, in an echo of the Rines' meeting with Mr. Shafer, that Mr. Truckenmiller nonetheless wanted his sons to play varsity baseball on Mr. Pringle's team. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller testified that, unlike Mr. Pringle, "I don't believe in abusing children . . . If a man wants to take kids to strip clubs and talk sexual innuendo with kids and ask them some of the things that he asks them, it's just totally inappropriate. You do not go up to a 16 year old girl and ask her if she swallows." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he had witnessed Mr. Pringle "curse and swear" hundreds of times at practices and games. He stated that it was "a continuous thing," that Mr. Pringle cursed, swore, and degraded players every three minutes. Mr. Pringle used the words "shit," "piss," "damn," "hell," and "God damn," among others. He used the word "fuck" "numerous, numerous, numerous times." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he saw Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco "basically every day for three years." Mr. Truckenmiller stated that he heard Mr. Pringle ask about a girl "swallowing" during a baseball practice with the entire team present. No other witness recalled this incident, and, when pressed during cross-examination, Mr. Truckenmiller could not name anyone else present who might confirm his story. Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he has heard 70 to 80 different people talk about the "fact" that Mr. Pringle takes students to strip clubs. He also heard "the boys" discussing the fact that Mr. Pringle supplied them with alcoholic beverages. No other witness confirmed these "facts." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that it was Mr. Shafer, the principal of Riverdale, who offered to "fix" his sons' grades in exchange for dropping his complaint. At the hearing, Mr. Shafer was shown Mr. Truckenmiller's written statement. Mr. Shafer credibly denied the allegation that he covered up anything regarding this matter and was visibly offended that such allegations were made against him. Mr. Shafer testified that none of the accusations against Mr. Pringle came forward until after the 2002 varsity baseball cuts. The administration spread nothing about the Truckenmillers being "troublemakers" and no one "dumped" on that family. He absolutely denied that anyone at Riverdale altered records or made any sort of offer to "fix" the Truckenmiller boys' grades. Mr. Shafer did recall that Ms. Caruthers had made such an offer to him, i.e., she would drop her complaint if her son were placed on the varsity baseball team and that he declined even to discuss the matter with her. In a letter dated January 18, 2002, Ms. Caruthers alleged that her son was cut from the baseball team in retaliation for an alleged incident between Tyler Caruthers and Dr. Christine Dollinger, an assistant principal at Riverdale. The allegations themselves are irrelevant and so absurd on their face that they do not merit discussion here. However, the story culminated in a scene in which Dr. Dollinger begged Ms. Caruthers not to report the incident and offered to change Tyler's grade in Spanish class in exchange for Ms. Caruthers' silence. Ms. Dollinger credibly testified at the hearing that Ms. Caruthers' letter was "offensive" and "full of lies" and that no such incident ever occurred. While no direct link was established, the similarity between Ms. Caruthers' story and that of Mr. Truckenmiller is notable enough to suggest that the former may have inspired the latter. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller adamantly denied ever coordinating with Ms. Caruthers or any other parents regarding the complaints against Mr. Pringle. However, Mary Rine admitted attending such a meeting with the Truckenmillers. She denied that Mr. Pringle was the subject of the meeting, but conceded that "Bob's name probably did come up" in connection with a discussion about the laxity of the Riverdale administration in "taking care of problems when they had them." Mr. Truckenmiller also denied contacting Sean Fox about his testimony in this proceeding and claimed not to know if his wife or sons had done so. Sean Fox testified that the Truckenmillers persistently phoned and e-mailed him, both at home and while he was away at college in North Carolina in the Fall of 2002. Mr. Fox stated: "They wanted to know what I knew, kind of as their inside man, if you want to say that, since I played around [Mr. Pringle] and with him for golf and baseball, and wanted to know anything I knew." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that neither he nor his wife had ever caused any trouble or conflict while their sons played Little League baseball. Several witnesses testified to the contrary. Fred Burson, a former junior varsity baseball coach at Riverdale, a ten-year district administrator for Little League, and a witness for the Department, testified that the Truckenmillers have a "long, storied history of causing trouble." He did not know Mr. Truckenmiller well, but has known Mrs. Truckenmiller for a long time, and stated that she has caused trouble at every level of baseball in which her children have participated. Mr. Burson testified that he would never be a part of anything the Truckenmillers were involved in. Justin Cook, the assistant varsity baseball coach at Riverdale, coached both Truckenmiller boys in Little League. He testified that Mr. and Mrs. Truckenmiller complained to him about their sons' positions, then took their complaint to the Little League officials when they were dissatisfied with his response. Fred Barker is the parent of a Riverdale varsity baseball player and a coach in the autumn "wooden bat league." He has coached both Truckenmiller boys. He testified that the Truckenmillers perpetually complained about the coaching if their children did not play where and when the Truckenmillers thought was proper. Elizabeth Parrish was player agent for the Little League, and her husband was the president of the Little League during the years when the Truckenmiller children played at that level. She testified that Mr. Truckenmiller was required to step down as an assistant coach in the Little League for telling a player he would "whip his ass" if the player didn't do as he was told. Diane Byrus' son, Greg, played one year of junior varsity and three years of varsity baseball for Mr. Pringle at Riverdale, and he was a contemporary of the Truckenmillers throughout their youth's baseball careers. Ms. Byrus testified that in 2001, when Greg was playing catcher for the varsity squad, the Truckenmillers told her that Greg was no good and that Mr. Pringle should make their son the starting catcher. Ms. Byrus had observed both Mr. and Mrs. Truckenmiller coach in the Little League and stated that she would not let either of them coach her son because of the way they treated the children. Mr. Truckenmiller was "very obnoxious" on the field, cursing in front of the players, even saying the word "fuck" while coaching teenagers. Mrs. Truckenmiller was belligerent and constantly belittled other peoples' children. Ms. Byrus did not want her children to be around the Truckenmillers. The above findings are sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Truckenmiller was a wholly unreliable witness, and his testimony has been disregarded as the basis for any finding of fact in this case. In his witness statement, Mr. Truckenmiller gathered every available scrap of hearsay and rumor about Mr. Pringle, magnified it, and presented it as "fact." For example, rumors that Mr. Pringle once suggested a trip to a strip club (discussed in Section V, supra) became, in Mr. Truckenmiller's telling, the "fact" that Mr. Pringle regularly smuggled underaged high school students into such places. Other accusations, such as Mr. Pringle's giving alcohol to students, were not even alleged by any other witness. To the Department's credit, its Administrative Complaint did not include Mr. Truckenmiller's wilder accusations regarding strip club attendance and providing alcohol to players, or his implication that Mr. Pringle may have molested high school girls. However, the Department knew or should have known that much, if not all, of Mr. Truckenmiller's testimony was fabricated, yet it chose to give him free rein to retell these stories as a witness for the Department in this case. Including Mr. Truckenmiller's inflammatory testimony in its case suggests that the Department engaged in this proceeding for reasons other than arriving at the objective truth of the matters at issue. Use of Tobacco The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "chewed tobacco at baseball practice, at baseball games, on trips to games and/or at school; allowed his players (students) to do the same . . . and/or provided chewing tobacco for students despite the fact that there was a rule for athletes at the school that they could be dismissed from the team for possession of tobacco." The Department called several witnesses who stated they had seen Mr. Pringle using dip on the baseball field. Fred Burson was the junior varsity baseball coach at Riverdale under Mr. Pringle from 1998 through 2000. In an April 4, 2002, letter to the Department's investigator, Shellie White, Mr. Burson wrote: "I have seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco on the field during practice and games." However, Mr. Burson's testimony at the hearing was much more equivocal. He testified that he never actually saw Mr. Pringle put tobacco into his mouth. Mr. Burson had seen the can of dip in Mr. Pringle's car, saw a bulge in Mr. Pringle's mouth, and assumed that it was dip. He never saw Mr. Pringle carrying the can of dip in his pocket and could not recall ever seeing Mr. Pringle spit tobacco juice. Mr. Burson was not sure if any students were ever present during those times he thought Mr. Pringle had dip in his mouth, which appears to conflict with his written statement that Mr. Pringle used tobacco during baseball games. Mr. Burson never saw Mr. Pringle offer dip to a student; to the contrary, Mr. Burson testified that Mr. Pringle discouraged his players from using tobacco. Despite the fact that he was called by the Department, Mr. Burson was plainly a reluctant witness. He stated that he "resent[ed] being here" because this case was a matter of "sour grapes" and a waste of time and money. Mr. Burson testified he was never offended by anything that Mr. Pringle did and never saw Mr. Pringle do anything in the presence of parents, students, or teachers that would embarrass Riverdale. Sean Fox graduated from Riverdale in 2002 and had played junior varsity baseball and varsity golf. His witness statement to Ms. White, dated May 7, 2002, stated as follows regarding tobacco: All of the alligations [sic] against Coach Pringle are true. I have witnessed with my own two eyes, everything dealing with chewing tobacco and profanity. I witnessed him telling another teammate that he did have chewing tobacco with him and that he could have some that it was "over on top of the crate." He has some of my friends hooked on chewing tobacco thanks to him sharing it. I have had him this past year for a golf coach and he did the exact same things on the golf course. On a golf trip to Clewiston, he was chewing tobacco in the van spitting it out in a 20 oz. bottle of Coke right in front of us. His chewing tobacco is an everyday thing for him at Riverdale. At the hearing, Mr. Fox's testimony was far less assured than was his witness statement. He continued to maintain that someone at practice had blurted out a request for tobacco, and that Mr. Pringle had indicated he had some on a crate or on the dugout bench. Mr. Fox could not recall who had asked for the tobacco, though he was "pretty sure" it was a student. He agreed that his recollection of the event was "pretty hazy." Mr. Fox admitted having no basis for alleging that Mr. Pringle had hooked his friends on tobacco. Rather than "an everyday thing," Mr. Pringle's tobacco use was "every now and then at practice." In his direct testimony, Mr. Fox stated that he had seen Mr. Pringle put tobacco in his mouth "maybe once or twice." However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he never actually saw Mr. Pringle put tobacco in his mouth and never saw him spit tobacco juice, except on the Clewiston golf trip. As to the Clewiston incident, Mr. Fox admitted that he "can't honestly say" that he saw Mr. Pringle spit tobacco juice into a Coke bottle. He saw the motion of the bottle to Mr. Pringle's mouth and assumed he was spitting tobacco juice. Curtis Rine, one of the players cut from the 2002 Riverdale baseball team, testified that he once saw Mr. Pringle openly dipping tobacco in his math class, and that Mr. Pringle openly dipped tobacco on the baseball field, both at practices and at games. He testified that Mr. Pringle allowed players to use tobacco, and they would all have it in their mouths, "pretty much" at every practice and every game. The players openly used and spat tobacco at games, in front of parents, school officials, and the umpires, who did nothing about it. Curtis Rine also testified that on a bus trip home from an away baseball game, two players were dipping tobacco in the back of the bus. They swallowed the tobacco, became sick, and hung their heads out of the bus window to throw up. Curtis Rine testified that Mr. Pringle laughed when he saw the two boys throwing up. No one else associated with the Riverdale baseball team, players or coaches, either in their written statements or their live testimony, claimed to have ever witnessed players hanging out of a bus window and throwing up. Assistant baseball coach Justin Cook pointed out that the Riverdale team rides a charter bus to away games and that the windows of such a bus cannot be opened by the passengers. Mr. Pringle also denied that anyone ever threw up on the bus and noted that the bus driver would have reported such an incident had it happened. No other witness ever claimed to have seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco in the classroom. As Mr. Hennebery testified, had Mr. Pringle openly used tobacco during a baseball game, he would have been ejected. Mr. Pringle was never ejected from a Riverdale baseball game. Any player using tobacco in a game would have been ejected from that game and suspended from playing baseball for two weeks. No Riverdale player was ever ejected for tobacco use under Mr. Pringle. Mr. Pringle strongly and credibly denied allowing any player to use tobacco under any circumstances. Curtis Rine's testimony on these points cannot be credited. Mary Rine, Curtis' mother, also testified that she witnessed Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco at Riverdale baseball games. She testified that he continuously spat tobacco juice throughout the games, even while standing in the third base coach's box in full view of the umpires. She also stated that on five or six different occasions at the baseball field, she saw Mr. Pringle with dip in his mouth at the concession stand. Mr. Pringle testified that he never went to the concession stand with dip in his mouth. Amy Cafaro-Dillon's son, John Cafaro, played junior varsity baseball at Riverdale in 2001. He tried out for the varsity team in 2002, but did not survive the cut. John Cafaro played golf on the Riverdale varsity team coached by Mr. Pringle. Ms. Cafaro-Dillon testified that she has spent a great deal of time around Mr. Pringle because of her son's participation in baseball and golf. When her son was on the junior varsity team, she helped run the concession stand at baseball games. She attended every practice. Ms. Cafaro-Dillon testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle use dip on school grounds. Elizabeth Parrish's son, Robby, played four years of varsity baseball at Riverdale for Mr. Pringle and graduated in 2000. Ms. Parrish "more or less" ran the concession stand for the four years her son played baseball at Riverdale. She attended every baseball game her son played in at Riverdale and continued attending some of the games in 2001 and 2002. Ms. Parrish testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle using tobacco. The only thing she ever saw Mr. Pringle spit was sunflower seeds. Justin Cook teaches business at Riverdale and has spent three seasons as assistant varsity baseball coach. He spends hours with Mr. Pringle every day during baseball season and sits less than a foot from Mr. Pringle during games. Mr. Cook confirmed that he has seen Mr. Pringle use Copenhagen dip when he is away from school, such as on a fishing trip. However, Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Pringle has never used dip at any school-related function, including baseball games and practices, and in fact, leaves the can of dip locked in his truck when he is at school. As did Mr. Hennebery, Mr. Cook pointed out that tobacco use at baseball games violates state and school rules and that officials will eject a coach or player caught with tobacco. Jason Scott has taught social studies at Riverdale for four years, and has served as assistant golf coach under Mr. Pringle for the past two seasons. He has also attended several baseball games as a spectator. Mr. Scott testified that he has never seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco products in front of students. Fred Barker's son, Brian, played three years of varsity baseball under Mr. Pringle. Fred Barker has assisted Mr. Pringle in running the autumn "wooden bat" baseball league. He attended nearly every baseball game, home and away, during his son's career at Riverdale. Mr. Barker testified that he had no idea Mr. Pringle used tobacco until these allegations arose after the 2002 cuts. Brian Barker testified that he knows what dip looks like in the user's mouth because his father used dip for years, but that he had never seen Mr. Pringle use dip. Brian also stated that he had never seen any of his fellow players use dip, in contrast to the testimony of Curtis Rine. James Simmons has two sons who played varsity baseball at Riverdale under Mr. Pringle: Justin played four years of varsity baseball and graduated in 2000; and Joshua played two years of junior varsity, two years of varsity, and graduated in 2002. Mr. Simmons attended every Riverdale baseball game, home and away, when his sons were on the team. Between 1998 and 2001, Mr. Simmons attended nearly every baseball practice. Mr. Simmons testified that he never saw Mr. Pringle use tobacco. Greg Byrus played three years of varsity baseball at Riverdale, graduating in 2003. He also played on the golf team for two years. Mr. Byrus testified that he has used dip for about a year and knew two other Riverdale players who used dip. However, he stated that none of the three players ever used dip at a practice or a game because it was not allowed. Mr. Byrus testified that he had once seen Mr. Pringle use dip at a fishing tournament, but that he had never seen Mr. Pringle use it during a school-related function. In response to Mr. Byrus' testimony, Mr. Pringle testified that he was unaware that Greg Byrus used dip. Mr. Pringle stated that he has never seen a student using tobacco products while that student was a member of the baseball team. He has seen former players smoking or dipping tobacco products after graduation. Diane Byrus is the mother of Greg Byrus. She is the athletic secretary at Riverdale and reports to Boyd Gruhn, the school's athletic director. She attended all but two games during Greg's four years at Riverdale and sat in a lawn chair at the fence near the Riverdale dugout, no more than five or six feet from Mr. Pringle. Ms. Byrus testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle use tobacco at a school activity, though she has seen him use it in social activities away from school. Richard Shafer, the principal of Riverdale for six years, testified that when he first came to the school, he had a concern about several coaches using tobacco. In 1999, he "heard something" about Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco on the field. He had a discussion with Mr. Pringle and William Hoke, then the athletic director about the matter. Mr. Pringle denied using tobacco on the field, and that was the end of the matter. Mr. Shafer heard no complaints about Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco until after the 2002 baseball cuts. Mr. Shafer has never seen Mr. Pringle with tobacco in his mouth. Mr. Hoke, the athletic director at Riverdale during the 1998-1999 school year, testified that when word got out in the community that he was going to Riverdale, he began hearing things about profanity and tobacco use among the coaching staff. People relayed such concerns to him because they knew of his activity in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and of his strong opposition to cursing and tobacco use. At the start of the school year, Mr. Hoke called a general meeting of the coaching staff to remind them of the rules. Mr. Hoke stated that if he ever discussed tobacco use or profanity individually with Mr. Pringle, it would have been at the "tail end" of a meeting on another subject and would have been a mere reiteration of the statements made in the general meeting. Mr. Pringle did not recall an individual meeting with Mr. Hoke about the subject of tobacco and profanity, though he did recall that Mr. Hoke "hit those topics hard" in the general meeting. Mr. Hoke testified that he watched the coaching staff "like a hawk" for objectionable behavior, and that he never witnessed Mr. Pringle using profanity or tobacco products during his tenure as athletic director. In his own defense, Mr. Pringle testified that he does use Copenhagen, a dip. He started using dip during his last year of college. Mr. Pringle fished in tournaments while in college and still fishes recreationally. He likes to put a dip in his mouth when he is out on the water fishing. He has a dip at night before he goes to bed, and occasionally when playing golf. However, when he is at school, the dip container is either locked in his truck or left at home. As a possible explanation for Sean Fox' claim that he saw a container of tobacco in the dugout, Mr. Pringle noted that the Riverdale baseball field is used by the community and by college teams. He quite often finds tobacco products, beer bottles, and other refuse at the field after outsiders have used it. Mr. Pringle flatly denied ever having offered tobacco to a student. He stated that he would never allow players to use tobacco products on the field and that he has never seen a current Riverdale player use tobacco. Mr. Pringle is a member of the FHSAA and of the Florida Athletic Coaches Association. Both associations prohibit profanity, tobacco, and alcohol at any athletic event. In high school baseball, the rules are enforced by the umpires. A player ejected for using tobacco or profanity is not allowed to play in another game for two weeks. Prior to the 2002 season, a coach ejected for tobacco or profanity was required to leave the school grounds and serve a one-game suspension. Mr. Pringle testified that the rule was strengthened in 2002 and now provides the same two-week penalty for coaches as for players. Mr. Pringle testified that in his ten years at Riverdale, no coach or player has been ejected from a baseball game or even warned by the umpires regarding tobacco use or profanity. Mr. Pringle stated that he runs a strict program. Players are not permitted to argue with or "show up" the umpires, or to throw bats or helmets. The same strict rules apply to practices as to games. Mr. Pringle testified that he has high goals for the Riverdale baseball program, and "there's no way I would allow myself or a player to jeopardize our goals" by using tobacco on the field. Mr. Pringle testified that he did use tobacco in front of Mr. Burson, when the coaches would go out for dinner after practices or especially after tryouts, to review the cut lists. Mr. Pringle stated that he will occasionally dip tobacco after dinner and likely did so on those occasions with Mr. Burson and the other coaches. Mr. Pringle recalled the golf trip to Clewiston, but denied using tobacco on that trip. He also denied ever using tobacco in the classroom. Mr. Pringle stated that he is an inveterate chewer of sunflower seeds and has chewed those on golf trips, bus trips, and even in the classroom when he is not actively teaching. If he is indoors or in a car, he spits the sunflower shells into a container. Mr. Pringle chews sunflower seeds at baseball practices and games. The assistant coach, Mr. Cook, confirmed that the coaches and some players chew sunflower seeds "all the time" during practices and games. Ms. Parrish testified that Mr. Pringle usually bought sunflower seeds from the concession stand before games. Mr. Pringle makes his own beef jerky, which he chews at practices and games. Mr. Pringle also chews gum. Any of those items could be mistaken, at a distance, for dip tobacco, particularly by someone who knows that Mr. Pringle does use dip on occasion. In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Pringle ever chewed tobacco at baseball practice, at baseball games, on trips to games, or at school. The Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Pringle ever provided tobacco to his players or allowed his players to use tobacco in his presence. Swearing The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "used profanity and/or demeaning language in front of students, including but not limited to words to the following effect: asking them what the hell they were thinking; telling them they were uncoachable motherfuckers; telling them they were worthless pieces of shit, sorry asses and/or fucking losers; and/or asking a student how he could be 17 years old and only be in the 9th grade." No evidence was presented that Mr. Pringle asked a student "how he could be 17 years old and only be in the 9th grade." No evidence was presented that Mr. Pringle called his players "uncoachable motherfuckers," "sorry asses" or "worthless pieces of shit." Thus, these allegations are deemed abandoned. The Department called several witnesses who claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle use profanity in front of students. In his May 7, 2002, statement to Ms. White, Sean Fox wrote: Profanity with him is an everyday thing. On the golf course, baseball field, anywhere outside of his classroom, every other word out of his mouth is profanity. On a couple of occasions in the classroom talking to him during golf season, in a quiet manner, he has used profanity in those little conversations. At the hearing, Mr. Fox testified that his written description was "pretty much accurate." Mr. Fox stated that to his knowledge this swearing occurred only in front of the athletes, not other students. Mr. Pringle would say "damn" and "hell" if the players did something wrong. Mr. Fox stated that Mr. Pringle said "fuck" once or twice in his presence. Willard Truckenmiller testified that he only heard Mr. Pringle curse a couple of times, after games. "Shit" and "damn" were the only words he could clearly recall Mr. Pringle using. He stated that Mr. Pringle might have said "hell" a couple of times, but he expressly denied ever hearing Mr. Pringle say the word "fuck." Curtis Rine testified that Mr. Pringle used profanity in front of the baseball players, either when joking around or when something happened in a game that made him mad. Mr. Pringle used "probably almost every single" curse word, including "hell," "shit," "fuck," "bitch," and "assholes." Curtis Rine stated that Mr. Pringle once called the entire team out onto the field, berated them for fooling around and not doing their jobs during the previous day's game, and called them "fucking losers." Mary Rine's older son, Tommy, played varsity baseball for Mr. Pringle in 2000 and 2001. Ms. Rine testified that Tommy would come home complaining about the swearing that occurred on the baseball field. She stated that in 2001, she wrote a letter to Mr. Shafer to complain about a variety of things, including the cursing and use of tobacco on the baseball field. Her husband delivered the letter to Ms. Dollinger, who told Mr. Rine that she would investigate the matters raised in the letter. The Rines did not retain a copy of the letter. At the hearing, Ms. Dollinger testified that she purged her files when she changed jobs a year later, and that the Rines' letter must have been destroyed at that time. She could not remember the exact substance of the Rines' complaint. She did recall bringing four baseball players into her office separately to discuss the allegations made by the Rines about Mr. Pringle and recalled being satisfied that there was no truth to the allegations. She then met with Mr. Pringle to discuss the allegations and her findings and to caution him that there were parents on the lookout for misbehavior on the baseball field. Ms. Rine coached cross-country at Riverdale for six years. While running with her team across the baseball field one day, she stated that she heard Mr. Pringle yelling at the players participating in an off-season conditioning program, "What the hell were you thinking about?" Ms. Rine conceded that the players were in the dugout and that she could not see into the dugout from her position, but she was certain that she recognized Mr. Pringle's voice. Ms. Rine testified that Mr. Pringle would swear at baseball games if the game was going badly or a player made a bad play. She recalled hearing him say "shit," "damn," and "hell," though she could remember no particular instance of his swearing aside from the incident with her cross-country team. Fred Burson testified that he has heard Mr. Pringle say the word "fuck," but only under his breath in frustration. Mr. Burson could not say whether any student heard the word. He testified that this was not typical language for Mr. Pringle, but that, like anyone else, Mr. Pringle would occasionally become frustrated and say something he shouldn't. In three years of working with Mr. Pringle, Mr. Burson never heard Mr. Pringle curse at a student or direct such language at any other person. As noted above, Mr. Hoke watched the coaches "like a hawk" during his tenure as athletic director and never heard Mr. Pringle use profanity. Justin Cook, the assistant varsity baseball coach for the last three years, testified that he has heard Mr. Pringle swear a few times when they have been fishing together, but never when performing his professional duties. Mr. Pringle has used the word "hell" two or three times in game conversations with Mr. Cook. During games, Mr. Cook and Mr. Pringle sit very close together in folding chairs outside the dugout, and are not near the players. Mr. Cook stated that he did not believe the players could hear these conversations. Mr. Cook testified that Mr. Pringle has said to him, "What the hell is going on right now?" However, Mr. Pringle has never said that to the players. Mr. Cook also recalled Mr. Pringle meeting with him in the right field corner before a game, 200 feet from the dugout where the players were sitting and saying, "How in the hell are we going to beat this team today?" Mr. Cook has never heard Mr. Pringle shout a curse word. Jason Scott, the teacher who assists Mr. Pringle with the golf team, testified that Mr. Pringle's behavior has always been purely professional. He has heard Mr. Pringle curse while playing golf with a group of adults, but has never heard Mr. Pringle utter a curse in the presence of a student. Brian Barker, who played baseball for four years under Mr. Pringle, testified that he never heard Mr. Pringle use any vulgar or sexually explicit language. The worst thing Mr. Pringle might have said was "damn," and Mr. Barker could not say for certain whether Mr. Pringle had said that. He stated that Mr. Pringle "gets on to you when you do something wrong," but never says anything to put down or demean his players. Mr. Barker testified, "[Y]ou can't really get nothing done when somebody is cussing at you . . . Why would he cuss at us to get us to work harder for him? I mean, it just don't make any sense." Greg Byrus, who played three years of varsity baseball under Mr. Pringle, testified that Mr. Pringle did not say anything that he considered cursing or profanity. He stated that Mr. Pringle would occasionally use the word "damn" or "hell" when something went wrong on the field. Mr. Byrus did not consider "damn" or "hell" to be curse words. He stated that Mr. Pringle did not shout the words; only the players sitting on the bench could hear them. Mr. Byrus expressly denied that Mr. Pringle had ever called the players "losers" or otherwise demeaned the players. Diane Byrus, Greg's mother, stated that she did consider "damn" and "hell" to be curse words, but that she never heard Mr. Pringle utter even those terms. From where she sat at the baseball games, she could hear the players talking in the dugout and was certain she could have heard Mr. Pringle cursing had he done so. Ms. Byrus stated that, in her position as athletic secretary, she would have been obliged to report to the athletic director any misbehavior by Mr. Pringle. She never saw any such misbehavior. Mark Ryan and Fred Barker both testified that they had never heard Mr. Pringle utter a profanity. James Simmons testified, "I've heard him holler at them, but he didn't cuss them." The assistant principals, Don Trelease and Christine Dollinger, both testified that they had never heard Mr. Pringle utter a profanity at a baseball game. In his own defense, Mr. Pringle testified that he has never used profanity in a game situation or at practice, and had certainly never shouted profanity on the field or in the dugout. He conceded that he has softly said "damn" or "hell" to a coach sitting next to him. He denied ever turning to a student and saying, "What the hell were you thinking?" or anything like that. He noted that use of profanity is a cause for ejection from baseball games and that neither he nor any of his players had ever been cautioned or ejected for using profanity. He also noted that Riverdale plays 15 home games every year, with an average attendance of 100 people, yet no one complained about his alleged foul language or tobacco use until after the 2002 cuts. Mr. Pringle stated that he probably had used profanity in the presence of Mr. Burson, but only away from school and never when students were present. Mr. Pringle and Mr. Burson would exchange jokes that included ribald language, all the way up to the word "fuck." In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pringle used profanity and/or demeaning language in front of students. The only thing clearly and convincingly demonstrated is that Mr. Pringle would occasionally mutter an oath to the coach seated next to him. Of the student witnesses, only Curtis Rine claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle berate players with profanity, including calling the entire team "fucking losers." The Department's other two student witnesses, Willard Truckenmiller and Sean Fox, recalled no such berating of players, though they claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle utter curse words. Greg Byrus and Brian Barker denied hearing Mr. Pringle use profanity in front of the players, as did assistant coach Jason Scott. Mr. Byrus did recall Mr. Pringle occasionally saying "damn" or "hell." Fred Burson, who recalled hearing Mr. Pringle use the word "fuck" on the field, testified that he said the word under his breath. Of all the witnesses not directly involved with the baseball team, only Mary Rine claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle use profanity on the baseball field. Other adults who spent as much or more time with the baseball team as did Ms. Rine testified that they never heard Mr. Pringle use profanity. The weight of the credible evidence favors Mr. Pringle. At most, the evidence establishes only that some players may have overheard Mr. Pringle say the word "damn" or "hell" to a coach seated next to him at the edge of the dugout. No credible evidence established that Mr. Pringle ever directed such language at students, or that he ever used language that any reasonable person would consider demeaning to his baseball players. Sexual Innuendo The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "told coarse jokes and/or made inappropriate sexual comments in front of students, including but not limited to, comments about the following: blowjobs; lap dances; getting a piece of ass; asking a student how he would like to fuck the hell out of a certain female; asking a female student if her black eye was due to her boyfriend's penis having hit her eye while she was giving him oral sex; asking male students about their sexual relationships with their girlfriends; and/or discussing how much 'head' a student had received." In his May 7, 2002, statement to Ms. White, Sean Fox wrote the following: As far as sexual comments & gestures, he has set a world record in that department. He has made numerous sexually related comments to one of my good friends, Melissa Land. She has told me that he said "Damn, you look good in those shorts," and "If you ever need help raising a grade, I'm sure we can make a trade." Melissa didn't even have him for a teacher, so how could he help her raise her grade in another class? Melissa Nunez, Jackie Whitlock are two other cheerleaders I'm almost certain he has made sexually-referred [sic] comments to and probably even sexual contact with. On road trips with golf & baseball I have heard him make comments about the girls saying "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?" "Just let me know, I can make it happen." Every day he has a different sexual comment about a cheerleader. I have asked other cheerleaders (who request to remain anonymous) that Pringle has asked them to have sexual fun & sexual intercourse. He has done everything he has been accused of and denied everything during baseball season to keep his coaching job. He should not be a coach, nor a teacher before some more serious [sic] happens (i.e. rape, mollesting [sic]) He thinks that since he is a teacher, he can get away with this easier. He's not at this high school to teach, he's here to take advantage of girls that are 17 & 18 years old. Someone needs to get rid of him & out of this school before rape or mollesting [sic] occurs & the school board and school really get into a situation I'm sure they don't want to be in. Lee County School Board did a horrible job investigating him before. As a student, this scares me knowing a creep, a pervert like him is on the loose getting away scot- free. At the hearing, Mr. Fox considerably softened those portions of his statement that he did not expressly disavow. Mr. Pringle's actual comments about girls were "maybe not that extreme" when compared to those in Mr. Fox' written statement. Mr. Pringle would "just say something about how good a girl would look or how maybe the way she acted." Mr. Pringle's comments were "maybe not necessarily" about cheerleaders, but about some other unnamed girls. At the hearing, Mr. Fox could recall no particular statements Mr. Pringle made about girls. When questioned about the "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?" comment, Mr. Fox stated: I don't remember the whole "let me know" thing, "I can make it happen," but I'm sure once or twice-- I can't remember specifically, but the first statement would be true at some point. Mr. Fox testified that he wrote his statement "probably out of pure anger at the time and frustration" over being dragged into this matter at a time he was preparing for graduation and going through family problems. Graduation was supposed to be a good time, but this controversy was roiling the school and Mr. Fox was being pulled into it. He stated that, if he could, he would take back the accusations that Mr. Pringle was a "creep" and a "pervert." He testified at the hearing that Mr. Pringle was a good coach and a good role model for students. Mr. Fox admitted that, of all the girls named or referenced in his statement, Melissa Land was the only one he actually spoke with about these matters. His other allegations were based on the girls' "reputations and rumors that I have heard about them, and stuff like that." He admitted having no personal knowledge as to the truth of any of the allegations in his statement regarding Mr. Pringle and female students. Sean Fox never saw Mr. Pringle make any inappropriate comment to any female student. In a written statement to Ms. White dated April 3, 2002, Willard Truckenmiller alleged that Mr. Pringle talked to players about having sex with their girlfriends and whether the girls were "easy." He also wrote about a cheerleader, later identified as Melissa Land, who came to school with a black eye. Willard Truckenmiller alleged that Mr. Pringle asked Ms. Land "if her boyfriend miss [sic] her mouth and hit her in the eye." He alleged that Ms. Land did not come forward because she was threatened with being kicked off the cheerleading squad if she did. At the hearing, Willard Truckenmiller testified that Mr. Pringle made no sexual comments in his presence. As to Melissa Land, he disclaimed any personal knowledge of the incident, stating that he only knew what Ms. Land told him. For reasons set forth below, it is far more likely that Willard Truckenmiller's information about the incident came from Curtis Rine, the "boyfriend" referenced in the statement, than from Melissa Land. Curtis Rine testified that he was dating Melissa Land at the time of the incident. Melissa had received a black eye during a cheerleading practice. Mr. Rine testified that Melissa told him that she saw Mr. Pringle in the hallway, and that Mr. Pringle asked her, "What happened to your eye? Did your boyfriend, you know, miss your mouth and hit you in the eye with his dick?" Mr. Rine testified that this made him angry but that he did not report Mr. Pringle. Ms. Land testified that she did not know Mr. Pringle very well but that she would walk past his classroom and say hello every day during the change of classes. On the day in question, Mr. Pringle was standing outside his classroom with Mark Ryan, another teacher. Ms. Land recalled that Curtis Rine was with her as she walked past Mr. Pringle and Mr. Ryan. Mr. Pringle saw her black eye and "said something like, 'What were you doing with your boyfriend?'" Ms. Land testified that she did not take the remark as referencing sex. She simply took it as a joke and laughed, "blew it off." Later, however, Curtis Rine told her that he thought Mr. Pringle was making some kind of sexual remark. Mr. Ryan recalled the incident. He knew Melissa Land as a former student of his. She walked past Mr. Pringle and him during change of classes, and they noticed she had a black eye. Mr. Pringle said something like, "What happened to you?" This was in the context of a brief, lighthearted conversation about whether cheerleading is a "sport," a running joke in the hallways of Riverdale. The entire conversation lasted no more than twenty seconds. When asked directly whether Mr. Pringle made any kind of sexual remark to Melissa Land, Mr. Ryan testified: Absolutely not. I mean, I have been a teacher for 15 years in Lee County, and any remark of a sexual nature would be something that would be imprinted in my memory. And no. I mean, nothing like that has ever happened. You know, I mean, this conversation, if it’s a conversation that becomes something out of the normal teacher- student, in passing, joking type of conversation, you would remember that. Absolutely not. That would be something that... it would just... it would absolutely stick. Mr. Pringle testified that he and Mr. Ryan were standing in the hallway when Melissa Land came walking by. Curtis Rine was not with Ms. Land. Mr. Pringle asked Ms. Land what happened to her eye, and she explained that another girl accidentally hit her during cheerleading practice. Mr. Pringle jokingly asked how she could get hurt in cheerleading, since it was not a sport. At the hearing, Mr. Pringle explained that this was a running joke at the school because Riverdale's cheerleading team is highly competitive and nationally ranked, yet receives no money from the school's athletic budget. Melissa Land laughed, and that was the end of the conversation. It is clear from the testimony of all involved that the sexual content of this incident derived from the mind of Curtis Rine, not from anything Mr. Pringle said to Melissa Land. Any fair-minded investigation could only have led to the conclusion that this allegation was, if not utterly devoid of merit, then certainly one that could not be proven by clear and convincing evidence when no one who was actually present recalled Mr. Pringle saying anything like what was alleged. The fact that such a vile and improvable allegation was included in the Administrative Complaint again raises questions as to the Department's intent in bringing this case against Mr. Pringle. In his written statement to Ms. White dated April 3, 2002, Curtis Rine wrote: Now about the strip clubs and sexual coments [sic]. One night we had a baseball game in Miami and on the way home, there were a couple of us in the front of the bus and [Mr. Pringle] asked if we were gonna go to Lookers with him (strip club) and we said no. I also heard him ask Matt Howerton how many blow jobs has he got now. At the hearing, Curtis Rine stood by the text of his statement, though he noted that he believed Mr. Pringle was joking about taking the boys to a strip club. Matt Howerton was another player on the Riverdale baseball team. It was well known, at least among the baseball players, that Matt's older sister was a dancer at "Lookers," the strip club allegedly mentioned by Mr. Pringle. Curtis Rine stated that Matt laughed when Mr. Pringle suggested they go there. Brian Barker was one of the Riverdale players on the charter bus to the Miami game. He never heard Mr. Pringle make a comment about going to Lookers or any strip club, on that trip or at any other time. Mr. Barker stated, "I definitely would recall something like that, yeah." Greg Byrus was another Riverdale player who rode the bus to the Miami game. He never heard Mr. Pringle say anything about going to Lookers, though he qualified his statement by noting that he was in the back of the bus and Mr. Pringle was sitting in the front. Assistant coach Justin Cook sat next to Mr. Pringle on the bus coming back from Miami. Mr. Cook testified that Mr. Pringle never said anything about going to Lookers and has never made any comment of the kind to students in Mr. Cook's presence. Mr. Pringle testified that he never made any comment about going to Lookers. He stated that he would never make such a comment, if only because it was a "very touchy subject" due to the fact that Matt Howerton's sister worked at the club. Other kids gave Matt "a hard time" about it, in a teasing manner. Mr. Pringle did not approve of the teasing and disallowed it on the baseball field. Mr. Trelease testified that the Lookers allegation was raised by the Rines at their meeting with him, Mr. Shafer, Boyd Gruhn, and Mr. Pringle on February 18, 2002. Mr. Trelease stated that when the school's administration investigated the matter, it could find no substantiation for the allegation from any player on the bus. Thus, on the record produced at the hearing, Curtis Rine is the sole witness to Mr. Pringle's alleged invitation to a bus full of students and coaches to join him at a strip club. This allegation has not been proven. Other sexual comments were attributed to Mr. Pringle by Sean Fox, Willard Truckenmiller and Curtis Rine: asking "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?"; asking whether certain girls were "easy"; asking how often they had sex with their boyfriends; and asking a student how many blow jobs he'd had. Mr. Pringle denied ever making any such comments. No other coach ever heard him make such comments. Brian Barker and Greg Byrus denied ever hearing Mr. Pringle make such comments. The District's investigation concluded there was no reason to give credence to these allegations. Mr. Trelease noted that no such allegations had ever surfaced against Mr. Pringle until the 2002 baseball cuts were made. Mr. Hennebery noted that even after the allegations against Mr. Pringle had reached the District level, the charges of sexual innuendo did not come up until the investigation was nearly complete, as a sort of afterthought. In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pringle told coarse jokes and/or made inappropriate sexual comments in front of students. Conclusions The Department produced not a single disinterested witness to support any of the allegations brought against Mr. Pringle. In some cases, this would not be of overriding significance. However, in this case, the accusations regarding Mr. Pringle alleged that his behavior was open and notorious. He cursed freely and often, in front of the entire baseball team and any parents who happened to be in the vicinity. He chewed tobacco at Riverdale baseball games, in full view of the fans, school officials, and umpires. He offered to take a bus load of minors to a strip club. Yet the only persons who witnessed these acts were those who had been cut from his baseball team or their parents. To give credence to these allegations, one must be prepared to believe that the entire Riverdale baseball team, their parents, several Riverdale teachers and all of its administrators, and the Lee County School District either lied or acted in bad faith to protect Mr. Pringle. The undersigned was not persuaded that such a conspiracy existed and is at a loss to understand how the Department could have been so persuaded. The testimony of two of the Department's own witnesses, William Hoke and Melissa Land, tended to support Mr. Pringle's version of events. Department witness Fred Burson testified that this case was "a waste of time," and could not say whether any student ever witnessed Mr. Pringle's tobacco chewing and cursing. Mr. Pringle testified that he had indeed cursed and dipped tobacco in Mr. Burson's presence, but never in the presence of a student. Sean Fox, author of some of the most sordid accusations against Mr. Pringle, retracted the bulk of them on the witness stand. He now regretted the vitriol of his written statement and testified that Mr. Pringle was a good coach and a good role model, though in January 2002, he had told teacher Jason Scott that he was not trying out for baseball "because I hate Pringle." The Rines and the Truckenmillers carried clear grudges against Mr. Pringle because of the 2002 baseball cuts. The Rines' dissatisfaction with Mr. Pringle actually dated back to their elder son Tommy's experiences on the Riverdale baseball team, having nothing to do with cursing or tobacco use. The parents believed that Tommy had the potential to pitch at the University of Florida. Mr. Pringle and his assistants did not share that opinion. The Rines were angry that Tommy pitched only sporadically for Riverdale and that the coaches would not risk their own credibility by recommending Tommy to college and professional scouts. As Curtis Rine put it, Mr. Pringle had "screwed over" Tommy, and his parents believed that Mr. Pringle was going to "screw me over, too." The local newspaper and television stations ran stories on the allegations against Mr. Pringle while the District was conducting its investigation. John Hennebery and Bill Shoap both testified that the District has a strict confidentiality rule regarding ongoing investigations, and both testified that the District was not the source for these stories. Mr. Pringle credibly testified that a television reporter indicated to him that the sources for the story were Mary Rine, Kim Caruthers, and one of the Truckenmillers, all of whom sought to create a public scandal that would lead to Mr. Pringle's dismissal. When the news was released that the District had cleared Mr. Pringle of the charges against him, Tom Rine, the father of Curtis and Tommy, flew into an obscenity-laced tirade against Mr. Pringle in the presence of two female Riverdale students who were visiting the Rine home. In front of these girls, Mr. Rine threatened violence against Mr. Pringle in explicit terms. Mr. Rine's behavior was so extreme and threatening that one of the girls reported the matter to Deputy Stevens, who filed an incident report and let it be known that Mr. Rine should stay away from the Riverdale campus. Mary Rine testified that her husband assured her that he did not engage in this tirade. Both of the female Riverdale students testified that he did. The Department listed Mr. Rine as a witness, but elected not to call him. These facts are recited not to further discredit the Department, but to point out that the Department knew or should have known of these facts before it elected to proceed against Mr. Pringle, or at least before this matter ever reached the point of a formal hearing. As far as Riverdale High School and the Lee County School District were concerned, this matter was concluded on February 14, 2002. For reasons not apparent to the undersigned, the Department of Education elected to revive these charges and extend Mr. Pringle's ordeal for an additional year and a half. The Department did not come close to carrying its burden in this case. Moreover, the Department should have known that it could not carry its burden long before this case came on for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 6th day of November, 2003.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2014), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(b)3. and (2)(c)1., as charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1028169, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching, which was valid through June 20, 2016, and Physical Education, which was valid through June 30, 2017. At all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a physical education (P.E.) teacher at Deerfield Beach Middle School (Deerfield) in the Broward County School District. In addition to his teaching duties, during the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent coached the girls’ flag football team and the track team. Ferreta Kelly, a retired teacher and coach, assisted him with the girls’ flag football team, which insured that there was a female coach, as well as a male coach. Coach Kelly did not know Coach Flowers outside her interaction with him coaching the girls’ flag football team. Flag football has a relatively short season, beginning in February and ending in March. Prior to the season, in February 2015, Coach Flowers and Coach Kelly attended a district- wide meeting for the coaches that took place at Stranahan High School. There was some indication at hearing that one of the “Allen Brothers” (twins who both coached sports at the school) also attended, but neither of the Allens testified at hearing. Coach Carol Cannariato, the athletic director at Deerfield, did not attend the meeting. The meeting was one where the coaches were briefed about issues related to the rules, schedules, referees and the like, related to the upcoming season. Mike Roland, who at the time was in charge of the athletic directors district-wide, directed the meeting. Mr. Roland, who is now retired, did not testify at hearing. During this meeting, the coaches were told about reversible Miami Dolphins jerseys donated by the Miami Dolphins football team. Jerseys were donated to each middle school team in the school district, and were to be used for a tournament that would take place between the division leaders at the midpoint of the season. The jerseys could also be used for other purposes, at the discretion of each school’s athletic director. Both Coach Flowers and Coach Kelly, the only witnesses present at the meeting and testifying at hearing, stated that a coach from another school asked what they were to do with the jerseys once the season was over, and that Mr. Roland stated he did not care what they did with the jerseys, and that they could give them to the players if they wanted to. Their testimony is credited. While the statement attributed to Mr. Roland is clearly hearsay, the clear and convincing evidence presented by the only people to testify is that both coaches, who attended the meeting, believed that it would be acceptable to give the jerseys to the players at the end of the season. Coach Cannariato asked Coach Flowers about the meeting, and he told her about the jerseys. He also told her that they could give the jerseys to the players at the end of the season, and she indicated to him that she was not sure that was accurate. At this point in time, the jerseys had not been distributed to the schools. About week three of the season, Coach Cannariato picked up 40 of the Dolphins jerseys for the school, which were to be distributed to the boys’ coach and the girls’ coach. She could not say how many jerseys went to each coach, but believed that she had given Coach Flowers 26 of the 40 jerseys. The girls’ team was scheduled to play a team that they had not played before, and Coach Cannariato thought that the other team’s colors were the same as or similar to Deerfield’s. Coach Cannariato considered using the Dolphins jerseys for the game and discussed this possibility with Coach Flowers. Ultimately, it was determined that the opposing team’s colors were not similar, and while Coach Cannariato gave Coach Flowers the jerseys, she instructed him not to give them out for that game. He left the jerseys in his office and did not give them out at that time. Deerfield finished about third in its division for flag football, and did not use the Dolphins jerseys for any game that season. The last game of the season took place in March, and was an away game. For away games, the boys’ and girls’ teams traveled together, along with their coaches and any other chaperones, by bus. Coach Cannariato did not ride the bus with them. While all students rode the bus going to a game, sometimes players would ride home after the games with their parents, rather than riding the bus back to the school. Coach Flowers took the Dolphins jerseys on the bus to the final game. All 17 eligible players on the girls’ team rode the bus to the game, and all but one rode the bus back. After the game, consistent with his understanding from the district- wide meeting, he distributed the jerseys to his players, telling them the jerseys were a reward for a job well done. The girls were excited to get the jerseys. While at least one of the Allen brothers were also on the bus, there was no indication that any of the boys’ coaches objected to or commented on Coach Flowers’ distribution of the jerseys.1/ The following day, Coach Flowers gave a jersey to “M,” the player who had not ridden the bus home the day after the final game, leaving him with three jerseys still in his possession. Later that day, M came to Coach Flowers and told him that one of her teachers really liked the Dolphins jerseys and would like one.2/ Consistent with his belief that the jerseys could be given away, Coach Flowers gave her a size small and a size medium jersey, and told her to return the jersey her teacher did not want. M returned later in the day with one of the jerseys and $10 that she tried to give Coach Flowers. While he accepted the jersey, he told M that he did not want the money. M left at that point, but returned later with the money and another student. Coach Flowers again told M that he did not want any money for the jersey, but M insisted that her teacher really wanted him to accept the $10. Coach Flowers shared an office with Coach Aguilar, another P.E. teacher. Coach Aguilar was present for at least one of the times M came to see Coach Flowers. While he did not see a jersey exchange hands, he saw M try to give Coach Flowers money, and heard Coach Flowers twice refuse it. Ultimately, Coach Flowers took the money from M, just to end the exchange. The money she gave him was a $5 bill and five ones. Coach Flowers gave $2 to each of the two girls and stuck the remainder in his desk drawer. Coach Flowers testified credibly that he often gave money to his students, so that they could buy a drink or snack from the vending machine. He also testified that it was his intention to find out who the teacher was and return her money directly, but did not do so right away because he had other things on his plate at the time. It is found that Coach Flowers never intended to sell the Dolphins jersey to anyone, but rather, intended to give it away, believing it was permissible to do so. On or about March 30, 2015, Coach Cannariato went to Coach Flowers and asked about the team’s jerseys. Coach Flowers told her he had collected all but a couple. Coach Cannariato asked him about the Dolphins jerseys, and he told her that he had given the jerseys to the girls. She told him he was not supposed to do so, and that he needed to get the jerseys back. He testified that he told her that he would do so. That afternoon, Coach Cannariato instructed Ms. Peta, secretary in the front office, to make an announcement over the intercom that the flag football team members needed to return the Dolphins jerseys. She received a telephone call from Ms. Robinson, who is Ms. Peta’s supervisor, asking to confirm that she wanted the announcement to be made. Coach Cannariato understood that Coach Flowers had told Ms. Peta not to make the announcement, but Coach Cannariato did not hear any conversation between Coach Flowers and Ms. Peta or Ms. Robinson. She confirmed to Ms. Robinson that the announcement was to be made and it was.3/ Coach Flowers testified that when he walked through the office that day, Ms. Peta asked him about the jerseys and the announcement. He responded, “what announcement?” When she explained that Coach Cannariato had asked her to make the announcement, he commented that he had just spoken to Coach Cannariato about the jerseys, and did not believe an announcement was necessary. He denied telling her not to make the announcement, stating he did not have the authority to do so. Coach Flowers is the only participant in the conversation to testify, and his testimony that he stated his opinion, but did not direct Ms. Peta not to make the announcement is credited. A couple of weeks later, Coach Cannariato asked Coach Flowers about his team’s jerseys. He had gotten all of the Deerfield jerseys, washed them, and returned them to their container, and he gave the container filled with jerseys to Coach Cannariato. She asked him about the Dolphins jerseys, and he reminded her that he had given them to the players. She, in turn, reminded him that he was to get the jerseys back, and he said he would do so. She told him never mind, that she would get them. Coach Cannariato said at this point she believed he would try to get the jerseys, but did not know what effort he actually made. Given the timeline, it is likely that it was not Coach Flowers’ primary priority at this point. He testified that he spoke to the players he saw and asked them to return the jerseys. Some complained and asked why, and he said he was instructed to get them back. How much of the delay is due to his lack of effort and how much is related to the reluctance of the girls to return the jerseys is unknown. He did retrieve a couple of jerseys and returned four to Coach Cannariato. On or about April 14, 2015, Coach Cannariato spoke to Mr. Atwood, the assistant principal to whom she reported, about the Dolphins jerseys, who directed her to notify Ms. Baugh, the principal. She did so the next day. While Coach Cannariato was speaking to Ms. Baugh, Coach Flowers passed by on his way to his duty assignment, and Coach Cannariato asked him to explain the situation to Ms. Baugh. Coach Flowers told Ms. Baugh that he had given the jerseys out to the players because Mr. Roland had said at the district-wide meeting that he could do so. Coach Cannariato reminded him that she had told him otherwise, and he stated that she had told him after he had already given out the jerseys. Ms. Baugh asked him if he could get the jerseys back, and he said he would do so. The timing of the conversation wherein Coach Cannariato told Coach Flowers that Mr. Roland had told her that the jerseys could not be given to the players and were considered school property is one of the few factual issues truly in dispute. Coach Cannariato testified that she told Coach Flowers in February that he could not give the jerseys to the girls, and that she called Mr. Roland in his presence to confirm the fact. Coach Flowers testified that he first realized that he could not give out the jerseys after he had already given them to the players. Petitioner introduced a series of emails from Mr. Roland that confirms that the jerseys were to be retained by the school. The emails (which are hearsay) are dated April 14th, 17th, and 20th, well after the jerseys were given out, and are from someone who did not testify. Coach Flowers’ actions are consistent with his testimony at hearing, corroborated by Coach Kelly, that he believed from the district-wide meeting that he could give the jerseys to the girls, and that he did not realize that was not the case until after he had given the jerseys to his players. Whether his misapprehension was because he did not listen to Coach Cannariato, did not understand that she was talking about the Dolphins jerseys, did not understand that she was talking about after the season as opposed to the game where she decided not to use them, or because no February conversation ever occurred, is not clear from this record. Given that confusion, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Coach Cannariato told him in February not to distribute the jerseys and that he deliberately ignored her. After the exchange between Ms. Baugh, Coach Cannariato, and Coach Flowers on April 15, 2015, Ms. Baugh believed that the distribution of the jerseys was simply a mistake. She changed her mind about the matter, however, when one of her teachers reported to her that Coach Flowers had sold one of the jerseys to another teacher, Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar is the teacher for whom M had gotten the jersey. On Friday, April 17, 2015, Ms. Baugh asked both Coach Cannariato and Coach Flowers for statements, which they provided. Coach Flowers’ statement does not mention the jersey given to Ms. Escobar. However, there is no indication in the record that Coach Flowers had been asked about this particular jersey at this point, and the conversation he had with Ms. Baugh previously was about giving the jerseys to the players. Coach Flowers still intended to find out Ms. Escobar’s identity, return her money and retrieve the jersey. On Thursday, April 23, 2015, Ms. Baugh recommended that Coach Flowers be terminated during his probationary period, or he could exercise the option to resign. When Ms. Baugh met with Coach Flowers and explained his options, she told him the basis for her decision was that he had sold school property. Coach Flowers admitted to receiving the money from M, and told Ms. Baugh the remaining $6 was still in his desk drawer. He volunteered that he had given some of the money to the students, and offered to go get the rest and return it to her, which he did. It was still his intention to get the rest of the jerseys and return the money to Ms. Escobar. Given Ms. Baugh’s decision to terminate him, he opted to resign. It is found that Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage, or that he failed to maintain honesty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2018.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to suspend Respondent, George Young (Respondent), as alleged in the letter of the superintendent of schools dated June 9, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Indian River County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, George Young, was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to teach at Sebastian River High School and served as head baseball coach for the varsity team. For purposes of this case, all acts or omissions complained of were in connection with Respondent’s responsibilities as a baseball coach. By way of background, the allegations of this case evolved from an underlying incident that must be disclosed in order to put the proper perspective on Respondent’s role and responsibility in connection with the allegations. During March of 2008, Respondent scheduled his team to participate in a baseball tournament held in Broward County, Florida. The tournament location and schedule made it convenient for the team to remain near the site for one night of the tournament. This was not the first over-night venture for Respondent and the teams he coached. Prior to tournaments it was Respondent’s policy to instruct the team that they were representatives of the school. Respondent encouraged the students to refrain from horseplay, roughhousing, or misbehavior that could discredit them or the school. In short, the team members were to conduct themselves as gentlemen. Nevertheless, some of the students did engage in poor conduct. More specifically, several of the players began to wrestle in one of the hotel rooms. Some unspecified number of the players turned on their teammate, H.C. Without Respondent’s knowledge or consent, the players wrestled H.C. (the victim) to a bed, pulled down his pants, and placed a plastic soda bottle at or near his rectum. It is unknown whether the bottle actually penetrated the victim, but the fact that an assault was perpetrated by the student players is certain. After the assault, the victim escaped the room and fled to another hotel room. Several team players observed the victim to be quite upset. Moreover, at least one player believed that the student was so upset he was crying. Word spread among some of the players that something bad had happened to the victim. The details of the assault were not general knowledge. At least two adults who accompanied the team on the trip were also made aware that something untoward had occurred to the victim. At least one of the parents told Respondent that night that something had occurred. No specifics of the incident were disclosed to Respondent. He knew, however, that wrestling had occurred and that someone was upset. Respondent made no effort to personally discover what had happened to the victim that night. Presumably, he chalked it up as adolescent roughhousing. The next morning Respondent called a team meeting before the team left the hotel. It was his custom to speak to the team before checkout but on this morning he had the additional task of attempting to find out what had occurred the night before. Not surprisingly, no one disclosed the full details of the assault. From the hotel the team went on to a meal and played in the tournament. Respondent did not pursue further inquiry into the assault. Respondent did not question anyone individually regarding the events. Approximately one week later the victim's parents heard about the assault. A parent telephoned them to share information that something had occurred on the tournament trip. They were stunned and surprised to learn of the incident. They questioned their sons (both of whom were on the tournament trip) and decided something needed to be done to punish the students who committed the assault. To that end, they went to Respondent's home and asked him about the incident. Respondent was surprised to learn of the details of the assault and represented that something would be done to appropriately discipline the perpetrators of the deed. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that on the night of the parents' visit to Respondent's home, Respondent knew that the victim had been wrestled to the bed, had had his pants pulled down exposing his buttocks, and that a bottle may have been involved at or near the student's rectum. The bottle portion of the assault was stated as a possibility as the victim's parents at that time had not confirmed whether or not the bottle was used or merely threatened. Nevertheless, when Respondent reported the incident the next day to the athletic director, the possibility of a bottle being involved in the assault was omitted. Since Respondent did not disclose the full details of the assault, including the fact that a bottle may have been involved, to the athletic director, the punishment initially to be administered to the student perpetrators did not satisfy the victim's parents when they learned what would be imposed. Instead, they demanded that more harsh consequences befall the students who were involved in the assault. Their report of the incident conflicted with Respondent's story to the athletic director. It soon became clear that while the parents may have been willing to spare their son the embarrassment of the bottle portion of the story when they believed the penalty imposed against his attackers would be great, they were not going to let the perpetrators skate by on the penalty initially chosen. Thus Respondent's willingness to leave out the bottle portion of the assault became critical to the matter. In fact, the omission of the bottle portion of the incident became the key allegation against Respondent. The superintendent's letter setting forth the allegation against Respondent stated, in part: On April 8, 2008, you told Athletic Director, Michael Stutzke, that an incident occurred during an out of town baseball tournament that involved wrestling with someone's pants being pulled down. When you made that statement you knew that was not the complete story, because the night before, you met with a student's parents who told you their son's (the victim) pants were taken down and a bottle put near his rectum during the course of this incident. This is the same incident you described to Mr. Stutzke as mere wrestling and someone's pants pulled down. The credible weight of the evidence supports the finding that Respondent knew he had not given Mr. Stutzke the complete story of the incident. Although Respondent at that time may not have known for a fact that a bottle was used in the commission of the assault, he knew that the rumor of the bottle's use was in question. An investigation of the matter would have proved or disproved the bottle portion of the story. Respondent did not, however, reveal that portion of the allegations to school authorities. Although Respondent may have entertained the misguided notion that he was protecting the victim from embarrassment by not disclosing the full details of the assault, his failure to make school officials aware of the incident and the potential allegation of the bottle demonstrates a failure to fully and honestly conduct himself professionally. Respondent has enjoyed a long, successful, and popular run as a baseball coach in the district. At the end of the day, however, responsibility for the safety and well-being of his team rested with him. That job is unrelated to the success of the team or their desire to play in tournaments. Moreover, school authorities must be able to rely on a coach's veracity to completely and accurately report any incident that may occur during a school-sanctioned event. The stipulated facts of the parties provided: On March 31, 2008, George Young was the head coach for the Sebastian River High School Varsity Baseball team. On March 31, 2008, the Sebastian River High School Varsity Baseball team attended a baseball game in Plantation, Florida. Kevin Browning, Director of Human Resources, investigated allegations of an incident that occurred on March 31, 2008 involving the baseball team. Browning released his Report and Recommendation on June 26, 2008. Young was given a three day suspension, which is the subject of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent and denying his claim for salary reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 325 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4349 Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Harry J. La Cava, Ed.D Superintendent Indian River County School Board 1900 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3150
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education with the Education Practices Commission on June 10, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as the Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, is authorized to enter complaints against persons holding teaching certificates in the State of Florida. Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, has held at all times relevant to this proceeding Florida Teaching Certificate No. 660581. The certificate was issued by the Department of Education and is valid through June 30, 2002. Mr. Sanders is authorized to teach in the areas of physical education and general science. (Stipulated Facts). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Sanders was employed by the Escambia County School District (Stipulated Fact). During the 1995-1996 school year1, Mr. Sanders served as a teacher and coach at Pensacola High School (hereinafter referred to as the “Pensacola High”) (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Sanders was assigned responsibility for the supervision of an in-school suspension class (hereinafter referred to as the “ISS Class”) (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Sanders was assigned to serve as the ISS Class teacher for each class period except for one period, which was his planning period. ISS Class students went to a physical education class taught by Jack Jackson during Mr. Sanders’ planning period. Pensacola High’s ISS Class was a disciplinary program established for students who have exhibited behavior warranting suspension from school. Rather that suspending the student from school, the student is assigned to the ISS Class so that he or she will continue to attend school and receive academic instruction. Deans at Pensacola High responsible for disciplinary actions determine whether a student’s conduct warranted referral to the ISS Class and the length of the referral. Students assigned to the ISS Class would continue to receive academic assignments from their teachers. They were required to work on those assignments while in the ISS Class. While students were in the ISS Class, they were not allowed to talk or to sleep. Mr. Sanders wrote the in-school suspension program for Pensacola High, so he was familiar with the purpose of the program. Class periods at Pensacola High were one and one-half hours in duration. There were seven class periods, numbered 1 through 7. On even days, i.e., October 4, class periods 2, 4, 6, and 8 were held. On odd days, i.e., October 5, class periods 1, 3, 5, and 7 were held. Class period 7 was the last class period held on odd days and class period 8 was the last class period held on even days. A “varsity sports” class was scheduled for the last school period, period 7 or 8, of the school day. The varsity sports class consisted of two combined physical education classes. The teachers responsible for these classes were Mr. Jackson and Toby Peer. During the fall of 1995, students in the varsity sports class engaged in weightlifting. Mr. Sanders wanted to act as the instructor. Mr. Sanders was not, however, scheduled to participate in the varsity sports class. His responsibility was to supervise the ISS Class. Early during the fall of 1995, Mr. Sanders, Horace Jones, the Principal of Pensacola High, and David Wilson, the head football coach at Pensacola High, met to discuss allowing Mr. Sanders to supervise the weight training program for the varsity sports class. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Wilson explained to Mr. Jones that weightlifting would only be taught every other day, on odd days. They asked Mr. Jones for permission for Mr. Sanders to go the football stadium where the varsity sports class was held to supervise the weightlifting. Mr. Jones agreed to allow Mr. Sanders to go to the football stadium during class period 7 to supervise weightlifting. Mr. Jones did, however, indicate that Mr. Sanders’ ISS Class should be supervised. The testimony in this proceeding concerning the conditions, if any, that Mr. Jones imposed on Mr. Sanders and/or Mr. Wilson, was contradictory. Mr. Jones indicated that he did not give Mr. Sanders permission to take his ISS Class to the stadium or otherwise remove them from their normally assigned classroom. Mr. Sanders testified that Mr. Jones was aware that Mr. Sanders was taking the students to the stadium on the days that he supervised weightlifting. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Jones either gave express permission for the ISS Class to be taken to the stadium when Mr. Sanders was supervising weightlifting or was aware that the ISS Class was being taken to the stadium. Mr. Sanders’ ISS Class was assigned to room 30-A, which was located on the second floor of the main classroom building of Pensacola High. Room 30-A is located on the west end of the main classroom building. Subsequent to obtaining permission to supervise weightlifting for the varsity sports class, Mr. Sanders took his ISS Class to the football stadium during class period 7. Mr. Sanders left the students in the bleachers of the stadium above the weightlifting room. The weightlifting room was located in a room just below the bleachers where he left the students. While the students were in the bleachers, they were not directly supervised by any teacher or adult. There were assistant football coaches on the football field in the stadium supervising athletes engaged in football drills some of the time that the ISS Class was left in the bleachers, but they were not assigned the responsibility to supervise the ISS Class. Mr. Sanders would usually, but not always, inform Mr. Wilson that he had arrived to supervise the weightlifting training. Mr. Sanders did not, however, insure that the students in his ISS class were actually being directly supervised by another teacher or adult. Nor did Mr. Wilson tell Mr. Sanders that any arrangement had been made to provide supervision for the ISS Class on October 17, 1995, or on any other occasion. On October 17, 1995, Mr. Sanders had eight students assigned to the ISS. For class period 7, Mr. Sanders escorted his class from classroom 30A to the stadium (Stipulated Fact). When the ISS class arrived at the stadium, Mr. Sanders directed the eight students to sit in the bleachers and told them to remain seated there. Mr. Sanders then left the eight students, went around the side of the stadium and went into the weight room located just below where he had left his students. Mr. Sanders could not see or hear the eight students that he left in the bleachers from the weight room. When Mr. Sanders left the eight students, there were no other teachers or adults left to supervise the eight students. Mr. Sanders left them unsupervised despite the fact that the eight students had evidenced disciplinary problems and, therefore, had evidenced a need for close supervision. Some of the students were in the ISS Class due to truancy, but were left unsupervised by Mr. Sanders. Although there were other assistant coaches present to supervise students in the stadium area, the evidence failed to prove that any of those coaches, including Mr. Core, who was on the stadium football field part of the time that the ISS Class was sitting in the bleachers, were in charge of supervising the ISS Class. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Core or any other teacher present that day had been given such an assignment. Because Mr. Core was engaged in supervising passing drills with the football team, even if it had been proved that he was in charge of the ISS Class, he could not be expected to provide reasonable supervision of the ISS Class and supervise passing drills. Despite Mr. Sanders' testimony that supervision of the ISS Class was the responsibility of Mr. Wilson, he also testified that he left the weightlifting room on several occasions to check on the students. The evidence failed to support either explanation. At some time after Mr. Sanders left the ISS Class students in the stadium, a 15 year-old female student (hereinafter referred to as “Student X”) that had been assigned to the class that day left the other students to go to the ladies’ restroom under the stadium (Stipulated Fact). She was gone approximately 45 minutes. Student X had been determined to have a Specific Learning Disability and was in the exceptional student education program. While Student X was under the stadium stands, she performed oral sex on several male students in the ladies’ bathroom (Stipulated Fact). Eight male students were subsequently arrested, charged and prosecuted for committing an unnatural and lascivious act with Student X. Seven students pled no contest to the charge, and one was tried and acquitted (Stipulated Fact). Five of the male students were supposed to be in the varsity sports class. At or close to the end of class period 7, an assistant coach came into the weightlifting room and told Mr. Sanders that he had heard that there was a girl underneath the stadium and suggested that Mr. Sanders “might want to go check.” Mr. Sanders left the weight room and began searching under the stadium from the north end where the weight room was located, to the south end. Mr. Sanders eventually found Student X and a male student in a small room in the back of the boys’ junior varsity locker room under the south end of the stadium. Mr. Sanders found Student X and the other student talking. He instructed the male student to return to his drivers' education class. Mr. Sanders took Student X back to the bleachers and the ISS Class. Mr. Sanders did not report the incident nor take any action against Student X or the male student he found her with. The next day, Student X reported that students in ISS Class were teasing her about having done something bad. Although not known by teachers at the time, Student X was being teased about what had happened to her on October 17, 1995. She reported the teasing to the Dean's office. Richard Souza, the head of the exceptional student education program, talked to Student X and concluded that Student X should not be sent back to the ISS Class. 38. Student X was teased further on the bus and in other parts of the school about the incident. What had happened to Student X on October 17, 1995, was not discovered until several days after the event took place. Student X was ultimately transferred to another school. Mr. Sanders' was issued a written reprimand for his involvement in the October 17, 1995, incident by the Superintendent of Schools, School District of Escambia County. Mr. Sanders was subsequently transferred to Workman Middle School as a physical education teacher. Mr. Sanders contested the suggestion in the reprimand that he was required to "provide direct supervision" of the ISS Class. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Sanders breached his responsibility to the ISS Class when he failed to make reasonable effort to protect the students of the ISS Class from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental and/or physical health and/or safety. He breached his responsibility when he left the students unattended and unsupervised. Until he knew that another teacher or adult had taken over the supervision of the ISS Class, it was unreasonable for him to abandon them. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sanders "intentionally" exposed any student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The evidence in this case proved the following facts concerning the aggravating and mitigating circumstances required to be considered in disciplinary cases by Rule 6B-11.007(3), Florida Administrative Code: The offense is this case was severe. Mr. Sanders breached one of the most important duties of a teacher: to insure that the students under his charge were properly supervised. The offense did not constitute a danger to the "public." The evidence only proved one repetition of Mr. Sanders' offense. It has been almost four years since the incident. Mr. Sanders has not been disciplined by the Education Practices Commission. Mr. Sanders has been an educator for approximately ten years and was, and still is, well thought of by some in the Escambia County School Board. He has been an educator in Florida since the 1989-1990 school year and was an educator in Alabama for one year prior to that. The actual damage as a result of the lack of supervision of the ISS students was severe. One student was severely harmed and the other students, who had evidenced a great need for supervision, were left unattended. The penalty will not be as effective a deterrent as the publicity concerning the incident. If Mr. Sanders is suspended, as recommended by Petitioner, it would have a serious impact on his livelihood. The evidence failed to prove any effort at rehabilitation by Mr. Sanders, nor is there any rehabilitation reasonably necessary in this matter. Mr. Sanders was not forthright concerning his responsibility in this matter. Mr. Sanders did not admit his responsibility to stay with the students at a minimum until he knew they were supervised. Instead, he attempted to lay the blame elsewhere. Mr. Sanders is currently employed as a teacher for the Escambia County School District. He is employed at Tate School. There was only one violation. Therefore, there was no need for any "[a]ttempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the licensee to correct or stop the violation." There have been no related violations against Mr. Sanders in another state, including findings of guilt or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served. Mr. Sanders was negligent in his actions, but he did not commit any violation independent of his neglect. There were no penalties imposed for related offenses. No pecuniary benefit or self-gain enured to Mr. Sanders. The degree of physical and mental harm to Student X was great. No physical and/or mental condition contributed to Mr. Sanders' violation, including recovery from addiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Kevin R. Sanders has violated the provisions of Section 231.29(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that he violated Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Count One and Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count Three of the Administrative Complaint alleging that Mr. Sanders violated Rule 6b-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Sanders' teaching certificate be suspended for a period of six months, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1998.
The Issue Respondent's alleged immorality and misconduct in office on March 29, April 5, 6, 8 & 13, 1976, under Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, as set forth in letter to Respondent from James E. Maurer, dated June 18, 1976.
Findings Of Fact During the academic year 1975-1976, Respondent was a classroom instructor in science at the Coconut Creek High School, Broward County, Florida. In the fall of 1975, Marcia Vulpis, a 14 year-old student at the school, was assigned to his class. He noticed during the ensuing months that she stared at him frequently which made him somewhat uncomfortable. About December, he spoke to Pamela Quianthy, Attendance Clerk at the school, about Marcia's behavior. Quianthy, who had observed Marcia on several occasions because of her presence in the office as a student aide, agreed that she was a rather strange girl and that she, Quianthy, also felt uncomfortable in her presence. In March, 1976, Marcia came into another class that Respondent was teaching and somewhat hysterically told him that she needed to see him right away. Respondent sensed the urgency in her request and was pleased that she had sought him out since she had seemed somewhat hostile during prior months. They thereafter had a long discussion at his office during which she informed him that a young man who lived next door to her had raped her and that she was bleeding inside. At this time, she also expressed past and present suicidal ideations and thoughts of murdering certain persons. She said that she had not told her mother or the police about the rape and did not wish to do so. He urged her to see a physician about her condition and determined that she was willing to have her 21 year-old aunt take her for such purpose. Respondent asked Quianthy to talk to her concerning the matter and she did so. During this conversation, Marcia told her that she had been raped and had not told anyone about it. Quianthy recommended that she inform her parents and also advised her to see a doctor. The next day the aunt came to the school to take Marcia to a doctor and Respondent sent them to the school dean for necessary permission to leave the grounds. (Testimony of Respondent, Quianthy) During the third week of March, 1976, Marcia, who sat at a desk directly in front of Respondent in his classroom, began writing notes to him during class in which she expressed love for him. On one occasion, after class, she told him that she wanted to go to bed with him. He reprimanded her for her statement. She pursued her request by subsequent notes and he penned some responses thereon advising her to come to his office to talk about it or to call him at home. He was concerned for her welfare and wished to help her. He did not refer her to the school counselor because she refused to talk to anyone else about her problems and he felt capable of providing necessary counseling because of his past experience as a Baptist minister and handling work experience programs in the school system. He made arrangements with Quianthy for her to phone him at his office during Marcia's visits in order that he would have an excuse to leave if necessary because he feared what the student might do on these occasions and wanted some means of leaving gracefully. The meetings in his office were held usually before afternoon classes commenced, and were at the request of Marcia. At one of these meetings, she told him that he was "driving her crazy" and attempted to kiss him. He pushed her away and cautioned her against such demonstrations. On another occasion, she remained after class and kissed him on the cheek, telling him that she loved him. He also admonished her at that time for her conduct. The above-mentioned incidents were the only times when there was physical contact between Respondent and the student. (Testimony of Respondent, Quianthy Petitioner's Exhibits 3-8) Respondent showed Marcia's notes to his wife and they discussed them a number of times. He also showed the notes to Quianthy and Regina Howard, a friend. Mrs. Howard had previously sought out Respohdent to assist her daughter with adolescence problems because she knew of his background as a minister and youth counselor. He discussed Marcia's situation with her and was serious about his concern for the girl. He requested that Howard get in touch with Marcia. She tried to do so several times, but was unable to contact her. (Testimony of Respondent, Ruth Barnett, Howard) During the school Easter vacation in April of 1976, Marcia called Respondent's home and his wife answered the telephone. Marcia asked to speak to "Ronnie" and during a subsequent conversation with Mrs. Barnett, learned that Respondent had shown her notes to his wife. Marcia was quite upset at learning this fact and said, "I'll show him." She also acknowledged to Mrs. Barnett that she had kissed the Respondent in his office and that she would assume the blame for that incident. Respondent attempted to speak with her at this time but she was too upset. The next day her aunt called him and said that Marcia had told her of certain sexual advances that had been made by Respondent. He informed her that this was not true and asked her to have Marcia call him. She did so and they agreed to meet at Fort Lauderdale Beach because she was staying with her father there. They subsequently met at a prearranged place where Respondent picked her up in his car and, after driving around a few minutes looking for a parking space, parked in a vacant motel parking lot. Respondent explained to her that he had retained her notes against her wishes and shown them to others because he did not feel confident to counsel her concerning female problems. There was no physical contact during this meeting. (Testimony of Respondent, Mrs. Barnett) After Easter vacation was concluded, Marcia informed Respondent that her mother had found her diary and that he would have to be careful or she (Marcia) would "put a noose over his head." Her mother, after discovering the "diary" (consisting of several sheets of notebook paper) that contained matters concerning Respondent, took Marcia to their church, Jehovah's Witnesses, where she told the elders of the church about her association with Respondent. Her father, who was divorced from Marcia's mother, was present and heard Marcia relate her alleged experiences with Respondent. He thereafter reported the matter to the authorities at Coconut Creek High School, taking with him one or two pages of Marcia's diary which contained entries for the last week of March. These included references to several of her visits to Respondent's office during which he had purportedly kissed her and fondled her breasts. (Testimony of Respondent, John Vulpis, Petitioner's Exhibit 11) A school investigation ensued during which Marcia initially declined to cooperate, but eventually made a written statement in which she,stated generally that she trusted and respected Respondent, that he was a good man and she did not wish anything to happen to him. Respondent was questioned by school security personnel and he related the two incidents when Marcia had kissed him on one occasion and had attempted to do so on the other. He also told them about the incident at the beach which had not been known to the investigators at the time, and he turned over Marcia's notes to them. Later, Marcia made another written statement in which she said that she and the Respondent had kissed each other three different times in his office and that on at least two occasions, he had put his hands on her breasts inside her blouse and kissed her breasts. Her statement also related that they had kissed one another during the beach incident and that he had kissed her breasts and had put his hands down her pants and that she had touched his "privates." In this statement she also said that he had made certain suggestive statements to her during classes earlier in the school year and that, although she had informed him of a sex experience with a "guy I loved," she had not told him she was raped. (Testimony of Respondent, Stearns, Patterson, Petitioner's Exhibits 9 & 10) Marcia Vulpis testified at the hearing and her version of the relationship with Respondent and their meetings differs in material respects from that of Respondent which is set forth in the foregoing Findings of Fact. She testified that Respondent made several suggestive remarks to her during the school year. She admitted seeking him out to discuss the incident with the boy next door and that he had advised her to see a doctor. She stated that, although she had disliked Respondent at first, she later changed her views and began writing notes to him. She admitted asking him to go to bed with her, but testified that while discussing this request in his office on March 29, 1976, Respondent pulled her in the corner and kissed her. She also testified that during other visits to his office on April 5, 6 & 8, they kissed one another, and Respondent kissed her breasts and touched her on the vagina, and that she touched him on the penis through his trousers. She stated that similar acts occurred during their meeting on the beach in mid-April. After her mother discovered the diary and her father had reported the relationship with Respondent to school authorities, she asked the Respondent what they were going to do and he replied that they were in a lot of trouble. Although conceding that she was upset after discovering that Respondent had showed her notes to his wife and others, she said that she did not tell anyone she would seek revenge for his disclosure. She also conceded that she had taken LSD and "pills" from nine to eleven years of age and had had a few "trips". She testified that she attempted to kill herself when she was ten years old with a needle when she was "freaked out." She further stated that she had thought about suicide a lot of times and that the last time she harbored these thoughts was in early March and that they were prompted by her failure to get along with her mother. Although she had loved Respondent, she decided after the investigation that she loved him no more. (Testimony of Marcia Vulpis) School policy at Coconut Creek High School which is announced to all teachers at the beginning of each school year, is that an upset or disturbed child should be referred by an instructor to the school guidance staff, that included a full-time psychologist. This policy was also contained in a handbook issued to instructional personnel. (Testimony of Weatherred, Roesch, Larson) Respondent is 45 years old and posseses a bachelor of arts degree in theology and linguistics and a masters degree in elementary education. He additionally has completed approximately 90 hours of post-graduate study. He served as a Baptist minister for five years in Lowell, Massachusetts and three years in another pastorate in Newton, New Hampshire. His prior experience includes service as an elementary school principal at Turner Falls, Massachusetts. He entered the teaching profession because of family obligations that required greater remuneration than received in the ministry. He has four children. He entered the Broward County school system in 1970 working with low- achievers at the Pines Middle School in a work experience program for two years. He served one year at Plantation doing the same type of work and in 1974 was transferred to the Coconut Creek High School where he set up a work experience program. He has done extensive work in counseling young people with their problems both as a minister and teacher. Respondent admitted that he had had marital conflicts with his wife in the past and that he had lived alone in Florida for a period of time, but that their marriage relationship was good at the present time. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3) Although denied by Respondent on cross-examination, evidence was received that he had patted two female office employees of the Coconut Creek High School on their posteriors in a "friendly" manner while walking by them in the office, and that he had also ran his finger down the back of their dresses. (Testimony of Ivell, Herter) Respondent was suspended without pay by Petitioner on June 18, 1976 pending final action on the charges involving Marcia Vulpis. (Exhibit l)
Recommendation That the School Board of Broward County, Florida reinstate Ronald R. Barnett as an instructor and restore all back pay and other benefits that have been withheld during the period of his suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1976.
The Issue Is Respondent school teacher guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, by failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety? Is Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kelly L. Bradley, Florida Teaching Certificate 768569 (expiration date June 30, 2000), is a certificated teacher in the State of Florida and held a teaching certificate in 1998-1999. She taught at Lola M. Culver Elementary School during the 1998-1999 school year and was an employee of Petitioner Duval County School Board. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner from January 1996 through October 1996, as a substitute teacher at several elementary schools and was employed full time at Lola Culver commencing October 1996, teaching emotionally handicapped students. This was her first full-time job as a teacher. She received satisfactory evaluations with favorable comments for each of her three years at Lola Culver. She has no record of prior discipline. During most of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent and Kristy L. James, another certificated teacher, were co-sponsors of the School Safety Patrol at Lola Culver. Respondent volunteered to replace another co-sponsor who left in mid-year. This was her first experience as a Safety Patrol co-sponsor. A "reward" trip near the end of each school year was traditional for Lola Culver's Safety Patrol members. Ms. James had been a co-sponsor of the Safety Patrol for the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 school years, but neither she nor Respondent had received any significant instruction in the duties and responsibilities of sponsors. Near the end of the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. James and Respondent planned an overnight trip to Orlando for Safety Patrol members for June 4-5, 1999, a Friday and a Saturday. Ms. James exclusively handled the paperwork for approval of the June 4-5, 1999, field trip by Lola Culver's current principal, Carolyn Davis. She also exclusively handled the permission slips and medical authorizations signed by parents and all arrangements for "chaperones." Swimming had been on the agenda sent home by Ms. James and approved by the prior principal in each of the previous school years. Swimming was also on the 1999 agenda, which instructed students to pack a swimsuit. For the 1999 trip, Ms. James also sent another document, outlining the cost of the field trip for students and soliciting chaperones, and permission slips/medical releases to all the children's parents. Only the agenda mentioned swimming. The permission slip did not expressly mention swimming or solicit information about a child's ability to swim. It solicited only health information and authority to treat in an emergency. Eight fifth grade students (boys and girls) went on the trip, including Litoria Gibson, a non-swimmer, who ultimately drowned while on the field trip. Nowhere on the signed permission slip returned to Ms. James did Litoria's parents state that she could not swim or should not swim. Unbeknownst to anyone concerned, Litoria's mother had instructed Litoria "not to get in the water" during the field trip.1 Respondent and Ms. James went on the trip as co- sponsors and as chaperones. Respondent invited a personal friend and substitute teacher, Eric Lee, to go on the trip as a chaperone. Ms. James' husband, Joey, came along in the same capacity, and two parents, Gail Brown and Hazel Morningstar, also went on the trip. Hazel Morningstar testified that she had considered herself present on the trip only to watch her own son and, based on an oral promise to Rita Whorten's parents, to watch Rita Whorten. In a conversation during the planning stages, Ms. James stated that Rita Whorten would be "with" Ms. Morningstar and her son. At no time material did Ms. Morningstar affirmatively notify anyone she would not act as a group chaperone. In fact, she considered herself to be a chaperone. Gail Brown is the mother of Marcus Brown, one of the Safety Patrol students. Ms. Brown testified that she only went on the trip because she does not allow her son to go on trips involving water by himself, even though Marcus knows how to swim. She further testified that she did not feel any chaperoning responsibility toward any child but her own. However, she knew the teachers would assume that she was going to chaperone all the children, and she never affirmatively notified anyone that she would not act as a group chaperone. The group traveled via a school bus, driven by Petitioner's approved bus driver, Patricia Benton. Ms. Benton was paid for driving the bus, but personally paid for her teenage son, whom she brought along on the trip. Ms. James had asked Ms. Benton to drive the bus, and Ms. Benton's son's inclusion in the trip was in the nature of a "perk" for Ms. Benton. Ms. Benton's son was never considered either a responsible adult or a chaperone. Ms. Benton had accompanied Ms. James and the Safety Patrol on a similar field trip at the end of the 1997-1998 school year and had participated in watching over the children at that time. However, herein, Ms. Benton testified that on the 1999 trip she considered herself only along to drive the bus and watch over her own son. Indeed, neither Ms. James nor Respondent counted Ms. Benton as a "chaperone" in calculating the "one chaperone per every ten children" that they understood to be Petitioner's requirement for field trips. Nonetheless, both teachers considered Ms. Benton to be another responsible adult. Ms. Benton admitted that at times on this trip she was prepared, if necessary, to discipline any disrespectful children. Neither teacher inquired of Ms. Benton if she could or would swim. Respondent and Ms. James considered themselves, Joey James, Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Morningstar to be chaperones. Neither teacher ever inquired of Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, or Ms. Morningstar whether they could or would swim. This was Respondent's first overnight field trip. As teachers and Safety Patrol co-sponsors, Respondent and Ms. James regarded themselves as jointly responsible and in charge. Everyone else appears to have looked to Ms. James for leadership. The bus departed from Lola Culver Elementary School at 7:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 1999. After arriving in Orlando, the group spent most of the day at Sea World. While the group was at Sea World, Respondent and Ms. James assigned responsibility for specific children to specific adults, except for the bus driver, Ms. Benton. No adult protested the assignments. At Sea World, Respondent and Eric Lee were responsible for Litoria Gibson and Makia Hicks. These assignments were essentially designed to keep everyone together and to keep the children under supervision in the amusement park, but they were not intended to last beyond the Sea World portion of the trip. However, no reassignment of responsibility for any child occurred after the group departed Sea World. In the late afternoon, the group was bused to Howard Johnson's South International, a motel. After they checked in, the students were allowed to go swimming in the motel pool. Upon arrival at the motel at approximately 5:45 p.m., room keys were distributed, and it was agreed that adults and children would meet by Ms. James' room, which fronted on the pool area. The children were instructed not to go to the pool until the adults were ready. The pool at the motel was a very large one located in an interior courtyard. The water was 3.5 feet deep at the shallow end and 5.5 feet deep at the deep end. No lifeguard was provided. Nonetheless, the pool had been used safely for the 1998 Safety Patrol field trip, and Ms. James and Ms. Benton were familiar with the motel layout and the pool. Ms. James considered herself a good swimmer, having been a swimmer since childhood. She was comfortable around water. Respondent was an experienced swimmer and athlete. She had learned to swim in early childhood, had had formal lessons during high school, and had done a lot of pool training in connection with playing college volleyball. She had continued to swim regularly in her adult life. She was trained in CPR. Some of the adults, including Respondent, and all of the children met as agreed and proceeded to the pool area. Prior to going to the pool, Respondent briefed all the children on not running or wrestling in the pool and pool area. Initially, Ms. James remained in her room to make a telephone report to Lola Culver's principal, Carolyn Davis. Joey James and Ms. Morningstar arrived at the pool dressed to swim. Litoria Gibson went to poolside wearing a red jumpsuit which would not be considered an unusual item for a child to wear to go swimming. The children entered the pool for the first time at approximately 6:00 p.m., under the direct supervision of Joey James and Ms. Morningstar, who got into the pool's shallow end with some of them. Ms. Morningstar asked who could not swim. Litoria Gibson and another girl raised their hands. Litoria said, "I can't swim." She never volunteered that she was not allowed in the water. Ms. Morningstar told the two girls that they should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Litoria Gibson was tall for her age, approximately the same height as Ms. Morningstar. Ms. Morningstar invited Litoria into the pool and spent 15-30 minutes with her in the pool's shallow end. They squatted to get wet and acclimated to the water. Ms. Morningstar showed Litoria how to stand so that the water only reached her chest and how to doggie paddle and told Litoria that if she got in trouble she could lie flat on her back and float. Litoria then felt comfortable in the water and, giggling happily, entered into dunking games with the other children. When Ms. Morningstar left the pool for the sauna, she warned Litoria to stay in the shallow end of the pool, only chest-high in the water, or get out of the pool altogether. Ms. Morningstar assumed that all the parents' respective permission slips would have alerted the teachers as to which children could or could not swim, so she did not tell anyone which students could not swim. At various times before 7:30 p.m., Joey James and Ms. Morningstar disciplined students by taking away water toys and calming rowdy behavior. Eric Lee arrived at the pool dressed to swim and able to swim shortly after the children entered the pool, but he stayed on the sidelines at the deep end and would not enter the pool. Respondent arrived at the pool dressed to swim and swam a little while Ms. Morningstar was in the shallow end and Joey James was in the deep end. Makia Hicks got into the pool with Respondent and said "Can you stand in here with me?" Respondent questioned Makia, and determining that Makia indeed could not swim, Respondent told her, "Well, you can come in here and I'll show you how to kick your feet." Respondent did not overhear the similar conversation between Litoria and Ms. Morningstar. (See Finding of Facts 33- 34). Later, Respondent got out of the pool and took Makia and Jessica Hayes to the hot tub. She made sure Makia got out of the pool at that time. Respondent, Makia, and Jessica then returned to the pool and were playing around. Ms. James, dressed to swim, arrived at the pool about the time Ms. Morningstar first went to the sauna. Mesdames Brown and Benton arrived poolside sometime after everyone else and remained there for most of the time until 7:30 p.m., in adjoining chairs and approximately midway between the deep and shallow ends of the pool. During this period, Ms. Benton made several trips to and from the jacuzzi and Ms. Brown made at least one trip to and from her room. Neither woman was dressed to swim. By their own accounts, both women were adequate but not trained swimmers, and neither of them intended to swim. When Ms. James arrived poolside, Respondent got out of the pool and she and Ms. James chatted in adjoining poolside chairs on the side opposite from Mesdames Brown and Benton. Makia sat on the edge of the pool with her feet in the water. Fifteen to 20 minutes after arriving poolside, Ms. Brown overheard that Litoria and one other child (she was not sure which child) could not swim. When Ms. Brown heard this, Litoria was already "walking the wall" (moving via her hands on the lip of the pool wall) into the deep end of the pool. Ms. Brown asked Litoria if she could swim and when Litoria said she could not swim, Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end of the pool. At least twice more before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end from the deep end, but Ms. Brown did not alert anyone else that Litoria was venturing into the deep end. She also assumed that Litoria's parents had informed the teachers that Litoria could not swim, so she did not tell anyone that information either. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Ms. Benton overheard or otherwise figured out that Litoria could not swim. She also assumed that Ms. James and Respondent knew Litoria could not swim and therefore, she did not mention it to them. After being poolside for awhile, Ms. James and Respondent went to Ms. James's room to telephone for pizza for everyone's dinner. Where, precisely, each of the other adults were during this brief period of time is in some dispute, and it may be that Ms. James and/or Respondent came and went from Ms. James's room more than once. Ms. James and Respondent did not specifically designate any adult to be in charge at the pool in their absence(s). Nonetheless, by all accounts, Mesdames Brown and Benton were fully dressed in poolside chairs most of this time and Joey James, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Morningstar were in and around the pool most of this period of time. Later, when it was anticipated that the pizza delivery man would be arriving, Ms. James and Respondent again left the poolside together. As they walked past Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton, Ms. James said, "We're going for the pizza." Neither Ms. James nor Respondent gave any specific instructions concerning the students. Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton acknowledged that they had heard Ms. James say that both teachers were leaving the pool area. Ms. James and Respondent left the pool area and entered a motel corridor off a door leading to the pool area. The children and pool area could not be adequately observed and monitored from this motel corridor. Joey James and Mr. Lee arrived in the corridor simultaneously with the two teachers. Ms. James gave the men instructions to go to the bus and retrieve a cooler of soft drinks and take the cooler to the picnic area at the far end of the pool. Ms. Morningstar arrived in the corridor in time to hear the foregoing instructions concerning the cooler. This meant there were now five adults not watching the children. Respondent then gave Ms. Morningstar enough specially-printed T-shirts for all members of the party, told her the T-shirts would be distributed during dinner, and asked her to take the T-shirts to the picnic area and set up for dinner. Respondent also asked Ms. Morningstar to "check on the kids."2 Ms. James and Respondent assumed the foregoing instruction meant that a third adult (Morningstar) would then be joining the two adults (Brown and Benton) already poolside to watch over and protect the eight students. Ms. Morningstar immediately went to the pool area, carrying the T-shirts. Ms. James, who had the money to pay the delivery man, and Respondent immediately went up an interior hallway toward the hotel lobby to await the pizza delivery man. The six pizzas Ms. James had ordered would require two people to carry them all, but additionally, Respondent wanted to talk to Ms. James alone because she had a concern and planned to defer to Ms. James's field trip experience as a long-time Safety Patrol sponsor.3 On her way to the picnic area, Ms. Morningstar found all the children, including Litoria, in the deep end of the pool. Most were playing dunking games. Apparently, Litoria sometimes participated in dunking, but when Ms. Morningstar spotted her, Litoria was holding onto the pool wall. She was blowing bubbles in the water between her outstretched arms and occasionally pushing off a few inches, floating on her face, and then grabbing the wall again. Ms. Morningstar said, "Litoria, are you sure you feel comfortable? Because you don't know how to swim." Litoria replied, "No, ma'am, I feel comfortable. I'm here with everybody and everybody's beside me." Ms. Morningstar did not consider Litoria in danger as close to the wall as she was, with children near her in the pool, and with Ms. Brown, Ms. Benton, and other adult strangers nearby. She proceeded to the picnic area, passing Brown and Benton in their chairs, and telling them she was going to set up for pizza. At about this time, a few minutes before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown was approached by a little girl who wanted to get her pool shoes from her room. Ms. Brown told the child to get her key and she would go with her so that the child would not be alone in a motel room. As they rounded a corner of the deep end of the pool, Ms. Brown spotted another little girl clinging to the side and sobbing, "She tried to drown me!" Then there was a clamor from the other children and Ms. Brown noticed that Litoria, in her red outfit, was floating face down, only inches from the edge of the pool. Just then, Ms. Benton approached and also saw Litoria. Both women screamed. Ms. Morningstar and Mr. Lee, who were in the picnic area, heard the screams and ran to the deep end of the pool to help. With the help of two of the boys and Eric Lee, Ms. Brown hauled Litoria out of the pool. The adults peeled away from Litoria's face a plastic mask designed to cover the wearer's eyes and nose, but not the mouth. The face mask's breathing tube had been lost. Blood came profusely from Litoria's mouth.4 The teachers were notified where they were waiting for pizza in the motel lobby. They returned immediately to render aid. A qualified bystander rendered CPR. Medical attention was summoned via "911." Although Litoria's pulse and breath sounds were revived at poolside, she ultimately died of drowning Christine Arab, General Director of Human Resources for the School Board, holds Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Elementary Education, and is a doctoral student in curriculum and education. She has been a certified elementary and exceptional student education classroom teacher. In her opinion, Respondent did not take reasonable efforts to protect her students in that she failed to determine which children could and could not swim and left the pool area without making sure that at least one of the adults was prepared to be in the pool with the children, was able to rescue the children, and had agreed to accept the responsibility to oversee and rescue the children from the water if necessary. It was the absence of these precautions by Respondent that mattered to Ms. Arab, not the length of time that Respondent was absent from poolside. Ms. Arab stated, concerning the other adults' behavior on the field trip that, "[G]iven what they each understood their role to be or commitment to be - I think there's a lot of blame to go around . . .." She also described various acts and omissions of the other adults as either reasonable or unreasonable. However, I do not assign the weight to her personal opinions on these subjects that I do to her professional opinion as an educator concerning Respondent's duty of supervision and effectiveness as a teacher. There is no School Board policy defining the duties of "chaperones." The School Board did not prove that it had any specific written policy against swimming on field trips. Ms. Arab conceded that if Ms. James's prior principal had approved swimming for the previous year's field trip and the current principal, Ms. Davis, had not disapproved swimming in 1999, there was no way the teachers could have divined there was any "no swimming on field trips" policy. Principal Davis was disciplined by a 21-day suspension without pay for her flawed oversight of the field trip. This is a very severe penalty for an administrator. Ms. Arab had input into the School Board's decision to prosecute this case. In her opinion, the severity of a termination recommendation against Respondent was warranted because Respondent's flawed oversight of the field trip itself was such that the public and the School Board could have no future confidence in Respondent. Ms. Arab felt the only way the School Board could trust Respondent henceforth would be under the closest supervision and that would be ineffective teaching in the School system. However, Ms. Arab also conceded that had Litoria not drowned, Respondent's failures would not have risen to the level of a terminable offense.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, through her failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety, and of a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office, suspending her without pay for six months, and requiring her to repeat her supervised one year of beginning teacher training upon her return to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 27th day of June, 2000.
