The Issue The issues presented for determination are the following: Whether Respondent has violated rules of the School Board of Palm Beach County so as to constitute misconduct in office. If Respondent has committed misconduct in office, what penalty is to be imposed, including whether Respondent is entitled to back pay and in what amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Dr. James McCabe, was employed by Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, as the Assistant Principal for Student Services in charge of special education at Crestwood Community Middle School. In this capacity, Respondent's duties include the supervision of the students and teachers in special education. He is responsible for parent contact and involvement in addition to student discipline. He manages the dropout prevention and honors program. Additionally, he has other administrative duties which relate to the migrant and alternative education programs. Although he is primarily assigned to the special education program, he assists in other areas such as school-wide discipline. On December 14, 1989, in the early afternoon, Respondent was called to Mr. Mundt's shop class with Mrs. Satchel, another Assistant Principal for Student Services, by the school's walkie-talkies. Responden1t was informed by Mr. Mundt, the shop teacher, that a baseball card worth in excess of $50 was missing. The baseball card had been displayed in the same class during the beginning of the period. The period was split by a lunch break. It was after the students returned from lunch that Respondent and Ms. Satchel were called to investigate its loss. The parties stipulated that, "Presumably, it [the card] had been taken by someone in the class." According to Respondent, the card was owned by a student with cerebral palsy. The student was limited physically and could not participate in sports at the school. He collected baseball cards as his sport. When they arrived, Respondent took charge of the male students while Ms. Satchel assumed the responsibility for the female students, as the logical separation of duties. Respondent asked the boys to go to one side of the room and told them that he would like the baseball card to appear on the table. He told them he would turn his back to them, and that if the baseball card appeared, that would be the end of it. Respondent then turned his back, and the baseball card did not appear. Prior to this incident, thefts of other valuable merchandise had occurred around the area of the shop class. A wallet was stolen from a teacher's car which was parked immediately outside the shop class just a week prior to the incident at issue. Respondent did not think that a particular student had stolen the card. Instead, he reasonably suspected that someone in the group had taken it. The period was coming to an end and another class was due in the room. Respondent did not attempt a lesser method of searching the boys for the baseball card, nor was a lesser method of searching the boys proven at the hearing. Instead, Respondent, in accordance with the procedure at Crestwood, instructed the boys to all go down to the clinic which is not within the immediate vicinity of the shop class where they were temporarily detained. He chose to remove the boys from the classroom because he did not want to subject them to the confusion from the incoming class or to any unnecessary embarrassment which might be caused by questioning them in front of it. He also wished to protect the learning environment for the incoming students. The clinic is a three room complex. To avoid unnecessary embarrassment of the students, Respondent took one student at a time into one of the outer rooms of the complex. He then asked the student to remove his shirt. He felt the shirt and handed it back to the student. He then requested their shoes and socks and handed those back after searching them. He then asked for the students outer pants. He did not request that any student remove his undergarments; their underpants and undershirts or T-shirts, if any, remained on. As Respondent completed his check of each piece of clothing, he handed the article back to the student. If the student was slow in completing his dressing, he then asked that student to finish dressing in the back of the room. At times, while the slow student was completing his dressing, the next student was asked to come in and commence the disrobing procedures. At times, more than one student was in the room. One was tying his shoes while the other was handing his shirt to Respondent. Respondent believed that he had the right to search the students to the extent necessary after having received instruction to that effect from school security and after having read the school board rule on detention, search and seizure. He apologized to the group for having to perform the search in this manner which was necessary under the circumstances. According to Respondent, sometime during the search, a couple of boys came into the room and asserted that one of the boys, who had not been searched at the time, had the card. The boys suggested that Respondent search just this one student and stop the search of each student. In reply, Respondent said, "I don't want to embarrass him anymore than anybody else. I really don't want to put any suspicion on him. Let's just take him in the normal course of events, when his turn comes up," and continued the search of each student in his charge. Each student cooperated with Respondent. Out of the twelve or thirteen students involved, only one student objected to the search procedure. In response to the objection, Respondent gave the student the opportunity to call the school security or to call his mother and ask her to come to the school. The student chose neither option and participated in the search. As Respondent reached the last student, Mr. Hagan, the principal at Crestwood, came into the room and asked Respondent to step outside. He told Respondent that he did not see how the school could benefit from the search and told him to stop the search. The baseball card had not been located at that point. Respondent stopped immediately. If Mr. Hagan believes that a teacher or administrator is not effective at his school, there is a procedure for asking that teacher or person to be removed from the staff. Mr. Hagan chose not to commence the procedure in this instance. Prior to this incident, searches of students occurred at Crestwood, but no search had involved the removal of the students clothes. The guidelines for detention, search and seizure of students in the Palm Beach County School District is contained in Palm Beach County School Board Rule 5.18(5). The rule authorizes school personnel, such as Respondent, to temporarily detain students for questioning, upon reasonable indication of wrongdoing, and to search, to the extent necessary, students upon reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. The rule, however, does not establish the permissibility or impermissibility of any specific search procedure, i.e., pat down, strip search or other means of locating the missing items. Although the School Board gives periodic seminars, and Respondent has attended every seminar at which his attendance was required, no seminar has given specific instruction on the procedures to be used when searching students. Respondent had read the rule on detention, search and seizure prior to the December 14 incident. Also, prior to the incident, Respondent had requested the advice of the school security director assigned to Crestwood, Mr. Willie Noland, about his right to search and has discussed procedure relating to specific incidents with Mr. Noland. From Mr. Noland, Respondent was assured that he had the right to search students. One incident, in particular, on which Respondent sought Mr. Noland's advice involved a student who allegedly had threatened another student with a knife. Respondent was asked to look into the threat fifteen minutes prior to the end of the school day. When Respondent asked the student if he had a knife, he voluntarily emptied his pockets. Respondent did not ask him to remove his clothes. Unfortunately, the student did have a knife lodged in the mid-seam of his trousers. After that incident, Mr. Noland advised Respondent that students do not hide things in their pockets. Instead, Mr. Noland recommended checking down in the student's waistbands and in their shoes and socks for the missing items. Mr. Hagan had also informed the school personnel not to be alone with students and to avoid situations which could be embarrassing. His purpose in giving the admonition was to avoid the potential for child abuse allegations. It was with the direction given by Mr. Noland and Mr. Hagan, combined with Respondent's understanding of the governing rules, that he undertook the type of search he performed. With reasonable concern that he might be subjecting himself to a potential child abuse allegation and in a diligent attempt to locate the missing baseball card, Respondent chose to ask the students to remove their clothes, rather than search the clothes while on their bodies. Under the circumstances, the search procedure was necessary and reasonable. After the December 14 incident, Respondent, as was his usual behavior, cooperated completely with the directives of his superiors. He voluntarily completed an incident report in which he related the facts surrounding the search. An investigation into the incident by the School Board was performed, and a report from the investigation was given to the Superintendent of the Palm Beach County School District. Without performing a personal investigation, talking with Respondent or with Respondent's coworkers about the incident, the Superintendent suspended Respondent and recommended to the School Board that Respondent be suspended without pay and terminated. The Superintendent based his recommendation on his belief that Respondent's conduct violated the school board rule and the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for educators in Florida to the extent that his effectiveness in the school system was impaired. The School Board accepted Respondent's recommendation and this proceeding ensued. At the time of the incident, Crestwood had four assistant principals in addition to Respondent. At the hearing, three of the four, each of whom had worked with Respondent, had observed Respondent and had shared responsibilities with him, unanimously agreed that his performance in the school system up to the time of the incident was effective and each agreed that they would not object to his return to the school. The fourth was not asked the questions at the hearing. Also, approximately eighty signatures appear on a petition in support of Respondent's effectiveness from the faculty and staff of Crestwood to Petitioner dated January 17, 1990. l6. Since 1964, except for a brief period, Respondent has been involved in education and primarily working with, teaching about or studying exceptional students. His tenure in the Palm Beach County School District began as Director of Special Education in September 1, 1981 where he was assigned until June 30, 1983. From August 1983 to June 1986, Respondent served in the capacity of a Specialist in Education. In July, 1986, Respondent was appointed as an Assistant Principal at Gove Elementary School. At the request of Mr. Hagan, Respondent was transferred to the Crestwood Community Middle School in January, 1987 and has served in his present capacity since then. While employed as an assistant principal, Respondent has received nothing but outstanding evaluations. Respondent holds a regular instructional certificate in the area of administration and supervision. Respondent is a credible individual, and an experienced educator who has the interest of his students as his main concern. At no time during the incident in question, did Respondent intend to embarrass or disparage any of the students. Instead, in his best professional judgment, under the circumstances, he attempted to protect the students from unnecessary embarrassment and made reasonable efforts to protect the learning environment of all the affected students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County issue a Final Order reinstating Respondent with full back pay and benefits retroactive to January 24, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner or Board) has just cause to terminate the employment contract of Matthew Kane (Respondent or Mr. Kane).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the District. Respondent has been employed by the District since September 25, 1997. Respondent was a teacher at the District’s Lakewood Ranch High School from fall 2003 through spring 2007. Respondent became an assistant principal at Manatee High School (MHS) for the 2007-2008 school year, and served in that position through January 1, 2012. On January 2, 2012, Respondent became the MHS interim principal for the rest of the school year. Respondent returned to his prior position of assistant principal at MHS on July 1, 2012, when Don Sauer was hired as the new MHS principal. Respondent was an MHS assistant principal for most of the 2012-2013 school year; six weeks before the school- year end, he was transferred to an assistant principal position at the District’s Southeast High School. At the time of hearing, Respondent held an annual contract for an assistant principal position for the 2013-2014 school year. As a teacher, assistant principal, and interim principal, Respondent was at all times required to abide by all Florida laws pertaining to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (adopted as State Board of Education rules), and the Board’s policies and procedures that have been promulgated as rules (hereafter Board policies).5/ On August 1, 2013, Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave during the pendency of an investigation that ultimately led to this proceeding. On August 14, 2013, Respondent was charged with felony failure to report known or suspected child abuse, and with providing false information to a law enforcement officer. The latter charge was subsequently dismissed. By letters dated September 25, 2013, and October 4, 2013, hand-delivered to Respondent, the superintendent provided written notice of his intent to recommend termination of Respondent’s employment. The Complaint, with allegations and charges against Respondent on which the recommendation was based, was delivered with the October 4, 2013, letter. Respondent was also informed that the superintendent would recommend to the Board that Mr. Kane be suspended without pay pending final resolution of the Complaint. On October 14, 2013, during a Board meeting at which Respondent was represented, the Board adopted the superintendent’s recommendation to suspend Respondent without pay pending the outcome of any administrative hearing requested by Respondent. On October 24, 2013, Respondent served a Request for Administrative Hearing and Respondent/Employee’s Answer to Administrative Complaint. At issue in this proceeding is whether Mr. Kane was informed of alleged improprieties with female students by an MHS paraprofessional, Rod Frazier, who was an administrative parent liaison handling student discipline and a football coach. If so, the issue then becomes whether Mr. Kane violated obligations imposed by Florida law and Board policies related to protecting students, including the obligations to report suspected child abuse and to report allegations of misconduct by instructional personnel affecting the health, safety, or welfare of students. The core allegations in the Complaint are that Mr. Kane was apprised of prior alleged inappropriate incidents involving Mr. Frazier and female students, yet he did nothing to intervene, which allowed Mr. Frazier to remain at MHS, placing the safety and well-being of students at risk. Following Mr. Kane’s stint as MHS interim principal, a new principal arrived for the 2012-2013 school year, Don Sauer. Others--not Mr. Kane--were instrumental in bringing some of the allegations of Mr. Frazier’s improprieties to the attention of the new MHS principal in November 2012. The person who coordinated the effort to bring these matters to Mr. Sauer’s attention was Steven Rinder. Mr. Rinder is the coordinator of the student assistance program, which offers advice and assistance to students and families regarding non-academic issues that can affect students’ academic performance. Mr. Rinder credibly testified that over the few weeks preceding his communication with Mr. Sauer, he was approached independently by several MHS teachers and other instructional staff, including Mike Strzempka (teacher), Lynn Aragon (teacher), Stephen Gulash (administrative parent liaison), Keltie O’Dell (teacher), and Jackie Peebles (teacher), regarding their concerns about Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate interactions with students. Mr. Rinder found these independent reports unusual, indicative of a problem needing attention, and significant enough that he went to Mr. Sauer about the concerns. Mr. Sauer told Mr. Rinder to make a list of the allegations, without names, and Mr. Sauer would do what ought to be done with a “hot potato”: pass it on. Mr. Rinder put together a list of the allegations that had been conveyed to him. In addition, he obtained a list from Mr. Gulash of the incidents he had observed or had been informed of, and Mr. Rinder added those items to his list. Mr. Rinder then gave the document to Mr. Sauer, who passed the “hot potato” on to the District’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS). As witnesses uniformly agreed, there was no question that the list, taken as a whole, raised serious concerns about Rod Frazier’s conduct with female students that would amount to, at the least, employee misconduct. Several allegations, standing alone, raised serious concern of inappropriate touching of female students, such as Mr. Frazier behind closed doors with a female student sitting on his lap feeding him cake, and Mr. Frazier shoving a water bottle between a female student’s legs. Upon receipt of the Rinder list on November 14, 2012, OPS initiated an investigation of Mr. Frazier. A letter from the superintendent notified Mr. Frazier as follows: “Effective Thursday, November 15, 2012, you are being placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of our investigation of possible misconduct on your part.” On Thursday afternoon, November 15, 2012, OPS specialist Debra Horne went to MHS and interviewed four of the persons contributing to the list of allegations. Ms. Horne spoke with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Gulash and got some information regarding the names of the sources for each allegation, and the names of the students involved in the alleged incidents. Ms. Horne also interviewed Mike Strzempka and Lynn Aragon, sources for several allegations. Ms. Horne did not interview Jackie Peebles that day, but learned that Ms. Peebles was the teacher who walked in on Mr. Frazier in his office and found a female student sitting on his lap feeding him cake. Ms. Horne also learned that the female student on Mr. Frazier’s lap was D.K., a senior, no longer at MHS, but at the District’s Palmetto High School. Ms. Horne did not interview Keltie O’Dell that day, nor Rod Frazier, nor D.K. or any of the other students whose names she had. After those four interviews, Ms. Horne met with MHS principal Sauer and assistant principals Kane and Greg Faller, in Mr. Sauer’s office. She called her boss, Scott Martin, a District assistant superintendent, and he participated by speaker phone. The purpose of the meeting was to bring everyone up to speed as to where Ms. Horne was in the investigation. Although the testimony was conflicting, the credible evidence established that during this meeting, Ms. Horne and Mr. Martin discussed the contents of the Rinder list, if not line by line, then item by item, and Ms. Horne reported that each allegation was either unverified or old. As to the old allegations, Ms. Horne reported that the concerns had been brought to the attention of either former principal Robert Gagnon or one of the assistant principals, and those administrators had already addressed the concerns with Mr. Frazier. When Ms. Horne made that statement, the two assistant principals present and listening--Mr. Kane and Mr. Faller--expressed agreement by nodding their heads. At that point, Mr. Martin told Ms. Horne to wrap it up and return to their office. Strangely, despite Ms. Horne having learned that “old” allegations had been reported to and addressed by administrators, Ms. Horne apparently did not interview the administrators about their knowledge of the allegations or what had been done to address those allegations with Mr. Frazier, either on that day or at any other time before she left OPS in late January 2013. There was no documentation in Mr. Frazier’s file of any kind of discipline for inappropriate interactions with female students-- no documentation of any conferences with administrators, directives, warnings, reprimands, or suspensions. Mr. Kane acknowledged that at the meeting with Ms. Horne, the Rinder list itself was there; he skimmed the document, he did not read it item by item. It is difficult to imagine that as an assistant principal, Mr. Kane would not have been more interested in the specific allegations made against an instructional staff member, particularly when Mr. Kane nodded in agreement with Ms. Horne’s report that the allegations were old and had been reported to and addressed by administration. Mr. Kane did not offer any information to Ms. Horne about the allegations he had skimmed. At hearing, he explained that he thought he was required to stay out of the OPS investigation. Inconsistently, he volunteered information about three staff members contributing to the list of allegations, stating at the meeting that Mr. Gulash, Ms. Aragon, and Mr. Strzempka all had grudges against Mr. Frazier. Ms. Horne left MHS and returned to the District office to meet with Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin testified that he pressed Ms. Horne regarding whether she had gone down every rabbit trail, with the implication that he was satisfied that Ms. Horne had exhausted her investigative options by conducting only four interviews in the span of a few hours. Ms. Horne testified that she asked to interview D.K. and the other students whose names she had obtained, and also suggested conducting random interviews of students at MHS. Mr. Martin cut her off from this notion, stating that since no student “victim” had come forward, there was no reason to interview any students. Prior to meeting with Ms. Horne, Mr. Martin discussed the investigation with Mr. Gagnon. Mr. Gagnon was MHS principal until January 2, 2012, when he was promoted to an assistant superintendent position in the District office and Respondent became MHS interim principal. Mr. Gagnon’s message to Mr. Martin was that Mr. Frazier had been the subject of rumors before that had allegedly ruined his marriage, and that it would be bad if Mr. Frazier was still suspended by the next evening (Friday, November 16, 2012), because there was an important football game, and rumors would fly if Mr. Frazier was not coaching at the big game on Friday night. Mr. Gagnon also told Mr. Martin that the investigation should proceed and that if Mr. Frazier did what he was alleged to have done, then the District should “bury him under the school.” Mr. Gagnon characterized this latter message as the primary message. Nonetheless, at best he was sending a mixed message by suggesting that the District should thoroughly investigate, as long as it did so in one day so the coach could return to work in time for the big game Friday night. Apparently keying on the game-night part of the mixed message, Mr. Martin made the decision after meeting with Ms. Horne that the investigation was going nowhere. He directed that Mr. Frazier be removed from paid administrative leave and returned to work the next day, Friday, November 16, 2012. Meanwhile, Ms. Horne went back to MHS on Friday to complete at least a few of the obviously missing steps in the investigation, by interviewing Jackie Peebles, Keltie O’Dell, and Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles credibly testified that in her interview, Ms. Horne made it clear that she only wanted to hear about recent incidents, not old matters that had been reported in the past. Ms. Peebles found Ms. Horne more interested in allegations of grudges against Mr. Frazier than in allegations of inappropriate interactions with female students. Ms. Horne testified that she was surprised to learn that Mr. Frazier had been taken off paid administrative leave and returned to work Friday morning, because she believed the investigation was still ongoing. However, since Mr. Frazier was placed on leave pending the investigation’s “outcome,” by taking Mr. Frazier off leave and returning him to work on Friday, November 16, 2012, the implication was that the investigation had reached its “outcome” and was concluded. Consistent with that implication, if the investigation was not formally closed it at least went dormant after November 16, 2012. The investigation got a second life in early January 2013, when a letter written by D.K. was delivered to Mr. Sauer, detailing some of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate interactions with D.K. while she was at MHS in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. D.K.’s letter corroborated some aspects of the Rinder-list allegations, and described additional incidents, such as more closed-door meetings in Mr. Frazier’s office, when Mr. Frazier would hug her, rub her upper leg, and grab her thigh and buttocks. Mr. Sauer immediately sent the letter to OPS. With an alleged student victim now having come forward, OPS was compelled to resume the dormant investigation, and finally interview D.K. Shortly after D.K. was interviewed, Mr. Frazier was put back on paid administrative leave. This time, the allegations were shared with the Bradenton Police Department, which initiated its own investigation, culminating in criminal charges against Mr. Frazier for battery and interfering with school attendance. The Board issued an administrative complaint seeking to terminate Mr. Frazier’s employment, but Mr. Frazier resigned in lieu of termination proceedings. As an outgrowth of both the Board’s investigation into Mr. Frazier’s alleged misconduct and the Bradenton Police Department’s investigation of Mr. Frazier, both the Board and the Bradenton Police Department initiated investigations into the actions and inactions of Respondent and others. What Did Respondent Know And When Did He Know It? As the prelude above suggests, the underlying matters involving Mr. Frazier must be described in order to address the core allegations against Respondent. However, the focus of this proceeding is not on whether there is proof of the allegations against Mr. Frazier, nor is the focus on how the investigations were handled; neither Mr. Frazier nor OPS personnel are on trial. Instead, as charged in the Complaint, the focus here is on whether allegations of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate interactions with students were brought to Respondent’s attention; if so, when; and if so, what he did or did not do in response. 2009-2010: Patting Behinds; Closed Door Meetings; Lingerie Party At MHS, assistant principals have a variety of duties; they may be assigned primarily to certain areas, with assignments changing from time to time. For the 2009-2010 school year, one of Mr. Kane’s primary duties was to serve as head of the MHS discipline office. The discipline office is staffed by administrative parent liaisons (liaisons). The liaisons are the school’s disciplinarians--they handle student disciplinary referrals, communicate with parents about student discipline, and teach/supervise students serving in-school suspensions and “time- outs.” The liaisons also monitor areas such as the courtyard, cafeteria, and parking lot. As discipline office head in 2009- 2010, Mr. Kane supervised the liaisons, including Mr. Frazier. L.S. has been a school bus driver for the District for ten years. In the 2009-2010 school year, L.S.’s daughter, R.S., was a senior at MHS and L.S. had an MHS bus route. On several occasions during the 2009-2010 school year, while waiting at MHS in her bus, L.S. observed Mr. Frazier patting female students on their behinds. Also during that year, L.S. occasionally went to Mr. Frazier’s office with student discipline referrals, and she would find Mr. Frazier in his office behind closed doors with female students. She found this conduct inappropriate, and reported it to Mr. Kane. L.S.’s daughter, R.S., frequently got in trouble, and was often in time-out. According to R.S., one day in February 2010, near Valentine’s Day, when she was in the time-out room supervised by Mr. Frazier, a female student, C.H., came in to ask Mr. Frazier if he would be attending her “lingerie party,” and Mr. Frazier responded that he would be there. The lingerie party discussion made R.S. uncomfortable, and she asked to go to the principal’s office. When Mr. Frazier refused, R.S. walked out and headed toward the principal’s office. R.S. testified that she was intercepted by Mr. Kane and Student Resource Officer Freddy Ordonez. R.S. said that she told them about the “lingerie party” dialog with Mr. Frazier, and Officer Ordonez told R.S. that she would be arrested if she kept making false accusations. R.S.’s testimony about her “lingerie party” report to Mr. Kane was inconsistent with a prior statement she gave during an investigation of Rod Frazier. In that prior statement, R.S. told the investigator that it was Robert Gagnon, then-principal of MHS, who was with Officer Ordonez when R.S. reported the “lingerie party” incident. Regardless of whom R.S. may have reported to that day, R.S.’s mother testified credibly that R.S. told her about the “lingerie party” incident when R.S. came home from school upset that day. L.S. then went to MHS to talk to Mr. Kane in his office to express her concerns about Mr. Frazier. In addition to relaying what R.S. had told her about the “lingerie party,” L.S. also told Mr. Kane about Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate conduct that she had personally observed on several occasions: L.S. told Mr. Kane that she had seen Mr. Frazier patting girls on their behinds, and that when she went to see Mr. Frazier in his office, she found him with female students and the door closed. Mr. Kane told L.S. that he would check into the allegations. At hearing, Mr. Kane testified that he has no recollection of the meeting L.S. described; he did not deny it occurred, saying only that he does not remember it and does not recall L.S.’s report about Mr. Frazier. Nonetheless, L.S.’s testimony was credible and is credited.6/ Mr. Kane’s testimony that he has no memory of L.S.’s allegations reported to him during the 2009-2010 school year means that, despite telling L.S. that he would look into her report about Mr. Frazier, Mr. Kane did nothing to document, investigate, or report the allegations. 2010-2011: Calling Girls Out Of Class; Cake Incident; Golf Carts Jackie Peebles has been a teacher at MHS for eight years. In the 2010-2011 school year, she taught remedial math. Ms. Peebles described how she noticed that Mr. Frazier tended to call female students out of class when they were dressed inappropriately. The students would leave for a while, and return wearing appropriate clothes. Ms. Peebles credited Mr. Frazier with doing his job to correct dress code violations. However, the calls increased in frequency, for one student in particular, D.K., in her remedial math class. Mr. Frazier would frequently call to ask Ms. Peebles to send D.K. to his office. At first, D.K. would leave class wearing short- shorts and return in sweat pants from lost and found, or she would leave wearing a tank top and return wearing Mr. Frazier’s football jacket. Again, Ms. Peebles thought Mr. Frazier was just doing his job, but she became concerned because D.K. had an attendance problem and needed to be in class. The problem got worse, with D.K. leaving when called to Mr. Frazier’s office and not coming back. Ms. Peebles confronted Mr. Frazier, telling him that she was going to keep D.K. in her classroom whether she was dressed right or not, because D.K. was falling further and further behind. Mr. Frazier stopped calling Ms. Peebles to release D.K. Instead, Ms. Peebles would hear D.K.’s telephone buzz, watch D.K. look at the phone, and then D.K. would announce that she forgot to tell Ms. Peebles that she has to go to Mr. Frazier’s office. Ms. Peebles reasonably surmised that Mr. Frazier was sending text messages to D.K. After this happened a few times, one day Ms. Peebles took D.K.’s phone, put it in her drawer, and kept teaching. The phone kept buzzing and buzzing. Ms. Peebles opened her drawer to turn off the phone, and saw a message on the screen asking why D.K. hadn’t come to his office yet, and that he heard she was wearing her short-shorts again. Ms. Peebles reasonably inferred that this message was from Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles testified that her concerns about Mr. Frazier calling girls (especially D.K.) out of class and texting were heightened by the rather alarming “cake incident,” which occurred shortly after the short-shorts text message. Ms. Peebles testified that one afternoon, she had broken up a fight between two students and escorted the students to the discipline office for referral to a liaison. Ms. Peebles found the discipline office’s secretary/receptionist, Aida Coleman, at her desk in the large outer area. Ms. Peebles looked around and found that the doors to the liaisons’ interior offices were all open and the offices empty, except that Mr. Frazier’s office door was closed. Ms. Peebles looked at Ms. Coleman with frustration because no one seemed available to help her with her disciplinary problem, but Ms. Coleman volunteered that it was all right, Mr. Frazier was in his office with a student. Ms. Peebles took this to mean that she could go in, so she left the two students in separated chairs, one by Ms. Coleman’s desk. Ms. Peebles walked the short distance (estimated at around twenty feet) to Mr. Frazier’s office door. She knocked and opened the door simultaneously, and stepped a few feet inside. She was shocked to find Mr. Frazier seated behind his desk with D.K. sitting sideways across his lap, feeding him cake. Ms. Peebles said that she yelled something like: “What the hell is going on in here?” Although she described it as a “yell,” when asked to gauge how loud she was by comparison to others speaking at the hearing, Ms. Peebles did not attribute a great deal of volume to her “yell”--it was more a matter of what she said than how loudly she said it. Ms. Peebles was troubled by the fact that Mr. Frazier and D.K. did not move, and both acted like nothing was wrong with their seating arrangement and activity. Ms. Peebles then told D.K. to “get off” Mr. Frazier’s lap. D.K. did so, but she only moved as far as Mr. Frazier’s desk, where she perched facing him. Ms. Peebles then told D.K.: “No, come around here and sit in a chair like a lady.” D.K. did as she was told. Ms. Peebles then told Mr. Frazier that she had a referral requiring his attention, with two students waiting outside. Mr. Frazier got up and went out with Ms. Peebles to address the awaiting disciplinary matter. Ms. Peebles reported this incident to Respondent the next day. Ms. Peebles had a clear recollection of her conversation with Respondent in which she described the cake incident, and Respondent assured her he would take care of it. Ms. Peebles was relieved, because she assumed she could count on Respondent to address the matter with Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles also told another liaison, Stephen Gulash, about the cake incident at some point shortly after it occurred-- her best recollection was that she told Mr. Gulash the next morning. Mr. Gulash corroborated that Ms. Peebles told him about the cake incident--he thought it may have been right after it occurred, because she seemed upset. Ms. Peebles does not recall being upset when she told Mr. Gulash about the incident. While Respondent suggests this is an inconsistency that undermines the credibility of both Ms. Peebles and Mr. Gulash, this minor difference in perception and recollection is immaterial and understandable. The incident itself was not a happy thing to observe or describe. Even a number of years later, Ms. Peebles seemed upset when describing the upsetting incident at hearing. When Ms. Peebles told Mr. Gulash about the cake incident, Mr. Gulash asked Ms. Peebles if she had reported the incident to Mr. Kane. Ms. Peebles told him either that she had just done so or that she was about to. The material details provided by Ms. Peebles--that the cake incident occurred as she described it, that she reported the incident to Respondent the next day, and that Respondent assured her he would take care of it--were credible and are credited. The most alarming aspect of the cake incident is that D.K. was sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap feeding him cake in the privacy of his office, a clearly inappropriate and suggestive intimacy between this MHS staff disciplinarian and the female student he frequently called out of class to come visit him behind closed doors. D.K. provided credible corroborating testimony of this most troubling aspect of the cake incident, acknowledging that she was sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap feeding him cake when Ms. Peebles walked in and was shocked. Respondent contends that Ms. Peebles’ testimony was undermined by D.K.’s testimony that she could not recall what, if anything, Ms. Peebles said when she opened the door and by Ms. Coleman’s testimony that she did not recall an encounter when Ms. Peebles was yelling at Mr. Frazier. Ms. Peebles’ verbal reaction to the shocking scene pales in significance to the scene itself. Moreover, the inability of D.K. and Ms. Coleman to recall did not effectively undermine Ms. Peebles’ clear, credible testimony. It is by no means clear that Ms. Peebles’ words to Mr. Frazier and D.K. (which D.K. might well want to forget or minimize), delivered while Ms. Peebles was standing a few feet inside the office with her back to the door, would have been heard by Ms. Coleman at her desk twenty feet away from the door, particularly since Ms. Peebles had deposited one of the fighting students in a chair next to Ms. Coleman’s desk. Respondent testified that he does not recall Ms. Peebles reporting the cake incident to him. He added that if she had reported the incident as she described it at hearing, he believes there is no way he would not have acted, by documenting the report in writing or having Ms. Peebles do so, bringing it to the principal’s attention, and confronting Mr. Frazier with what was plainly inappropriate, improper, unprofessional conduct. Ms. Peebles, however, was steadfast and credible in maintaining that she reported the cake incident to Mr. Kane the day after it occurred (corroborated by Mr. Gulash). Ms. Peebles also reported the cake incident to Mr. Faller a year later, after reporting another inappropriate Frazier incident to Mr. Faller (discussed below in school year 2011-2012).7/ Respondent attempted to undermine Ms. Peebles’ credibility by dwelling on the lack of clarity on insignificant points, including when the cake incident occurred, what Mr. Kane’s duties were at the time, and where Ms. Peebles and Mr. Kane were when she told him about the incident. Respondent’s attempt was not effective. For the purposes of this proceeding, it is enough to know that the cake incident took place either in the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year--the only two years that D.K. was a student at MHS. The incident most likely occurred in the 2010-2011 school year, when D.K. was in Ms. Peebles’ math class. Ms. Peebles could not recall exactly when the incident occurred; she volunteered early on in her testimony, and repeated often, that she has never been good at remembering dates.8/ Likewise, regardless of Mr. Kane’s duties at the time of the cake incident report, Ms. Peebles explained why he was an appropriate administrator for her to report to. Ms. Peebles testified initially that she thought Mr. Kane was head of discipline when she reported the cake incident to him. That was shown to be not true. Mr. Faller took over the assignment as discipline office head in the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. However, Ms. Peebles added that after Mr. Faller assumed that role, Mr. Kane became Ms. Peebles’ direct supervisor (not disputed by Respondent), and that she may have reported the cake incident to him for that reason. Later still, Mr. Kane was MHS interim principal, and if the cake incident occurred then, she might have reported it to him for that reason. Ms. Peebles credibly summed it up this way: “Mr. Kane never left the realm of being someone I thought that I would go to.” (Tr. 568). As to the setting where Ms. Peebles reported the cake incident to Mr. Kane, Ms. Peebles offered her recollection that they were in the discipline office, in the corner interior office assigned to the assistant principal serving as head of the discipline office. But whether Ms. Peebles reported the cake incident to Mr. Kane in the office assigned to the head of discipline, as she recalled, or in an office in the adjacent building when he became Ms. Peebles’ direct supervisor, the setting is insignificant and the lack of clarity does not undermine the credible testimony regarding the material details. Ms. Peebles was genuinely troubled to be offering testimony adverse to Mr. Kane. Ms. Peebles likes and respects Mr. Kane as an educator and administrator, and spoke highly of his performance as an assistant principal and as her supervisor. Her general regard for him is why she was relieved to report the cake incident to him--she trusted him to follow through when he assured her that he would take care of it. Mr. Kane was equally complimentary of Ms. Peebles, describing her as one of the good teachers, and as someone who would not set out to hurt him. Respondent’s testimony expressing no recollection of Ms. Peebles’ cake incident report to him and offering hindsight assurance that he would have acted on such a report was not as credible as Ms. Peebles’ testimony and is not credited. Instead, Ms. Peebles’ report was the second time Respondent was informed of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate closed-door sessions with female students--this time, with the added observation that Mr. Frazier was engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the female student in that particular closed-door session. As Respondent himself acknowledged, such a report should have spurred him to immediate action, but it did not. Moreover, because Respondent took no action in response to L.S.’s prior report, there was no record that this was the second report to Respondent of Mr. Frazier’s improprieties. As with L.S.’s report, this second report was also received and ignored, instead of being documented, investigated, and addressed with Mr. Frazier. Lynn Aragon is a teacher employed by the District. She taught at MHS for over ten years, until the end of the 2012-2013 school year, and is currently on a medical leave of absence. During the time period relevant to this proceeding, she served as the representative for the teacher’s union at MHS, and because of that role, teachers at MHS often would come to her with concerns. Ms. Aragon testified that during the 2010-2011 school year, a number of teachers came to her to express concerns about Mr. Frazier having female students in his office behind closed doors, calling female students to his office in the middle of class, texting female students in class, and going around in the courtyard on a golf cart with female students hugging him. Ms. Aragon testified that she reported these concerns to then- principal Bob Gagnon, but not to Mr. Kane.9/ Mr. Gagnon acknowledged that while he was still the MHS principal, he became aware of an issue with students on golf carts, although he did not say that Ms. Aragon was the source of his awareness or that Mr. Frazier was the subject of the “issue,” or complaint. Mr. Gagnon testified that he went out and told all of the staff using golf carts--not just Mr. Frazier--to stop allowing students on their golf carts. Several witnesses spoke generally about the legitimate use of golf carts by liaisons to monitor the parking lot and courtyard, and to transport a student when necessary. Often students congregate in the courtyard for lunch breaks, and it was not unusual, at least before Mr. Gagnon’s directive, for a student to sit on a golf cart with a liaison. However, as Ms. Peebles credibly explained, the student-on-golf-cart issue was decidedly different where Mr. Frazier was concerned. Whereas other liaisons and administrators might have a couple of students on a golf cart to sit and talk or to drive them someplace, Ms. Peebles described what she saw on Mr. Frazier’s golf cart: “[T]he students hanging around on Mr. Frazier’s golf cart mostly tended to be female students . . . more female students than could fit on the seats. There would be so many stacked on there that you literally couldn’t drive the golf cart anyplace.” 2011-2012: Groping At A Bar; More Golf Cart Issues; Horseplay Ms. Peebles testified that the year after the cake incident, another incident involving alleged inappropriate physical contact by Mr. Frazier was reported to her by MHS female student, A.P. Ms. Peebles told Mr. Faller about the allegations. When Mr. Faller seemed not interested, she told him about the prior cake incident, and she also told him that she had reported the cake incident to Mr. Kane. Ms. Peebles’ testimony was credible. Mr. Faller did not testify. Ms. Peebles did not say that she reported the A.P. incident to Mr. Kane. Nonetheless, Respondent offered A.P.’s testimony, apparently in an attempt to undermine the credibility of Ms. Peebles’ overall testimony. Instead, just as was the case with D.K., A.P.’s testimony corroborated the material facts, as reported by Ms. Peebles to Mr. Faller, regarding another troubling incident with Mr. Frazier. As A.P. testified, she snuck into a bar using fake identification, when she was still underage. She had a few drinks and was tipsy. Mr. Frazier approached her and grabbed her in “too friendly” a hug, putting his arms around the lower region of her back, or further down. Mr. Frazier had “his hands down there;” he was groping her and hanging all over her. Respondent attempted to elicit testimony from A.P. that she never told Ms. Peebles about being groped in a bar by Mr. Frazier. Instead, A.P. testified that although she could not say with certainty that she went to Ms. Peebles about this incident, it would make sense that she would have gone to Ms. Peebles: “I could see myself going to her[.]” A.P.’s testimony varied in some of the details from Ms. Peebles’ description of what A.P. told her. Ms. Peebles testified that she does not recall the word A.P. used in lieu of “erection,” she understood A.P. to be saying that Mr. Frazier had an erection and was rubbing himself against her buttocks. A.P. testified that she did not tell Ms. Peebles that Mr. Frazier had an erection; Ms. Peebles agreed that that was not the word A.P. used. Ms. Peebles also recalled A.P. showing her inappropriate text messages from Mr. Frazier regarding A.P.’s private body parts that Mr. Frazier inappropriately groped at the bar; A.P. denied receiving text messages from Mr. Frazier. Their testimony was in sync regarding Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate groping of A.P., who, at the time, was a minor and a student at MHS. Several years after the fact, the testimony by Ms. Peebles and A.P. is considered substantially and materially consistent. The variances do not undermine Ms. Peebles’ credible testimony. Not only was Ms. Peebles’ testimony regarding the bar- groping incident and her reports to Mr. Faller credible, but it highlights the problem of serial undocumented “isolated incidents.” An incident is reported to one administrator who ignores the report and takes no action; then when the next “isolated incident” is reported, the administrator receives that report as if nothing has ever been brought to his attention before, and again, takes no action; then when the next “isolated incident” is reported to a different administrator, there is nothing documenting that similar incidents had ever occurred before. Despite this pattern, Mr. Kane and Mr. Faller were the two administrators in the room nodding their heads in agreement when Ms. Horne reported to Mr. Martin that the allegations in the Rinder list were old news that had been reported to and handled by administrators. Two of the incidents on the Rinder list were the cake incident and the bar encounter. If brushing the allegations under the rug can be called handling them, they were, indeed, handled. While Mr. Kane was interim principal in 2012, two separate matters regarding Mr. Frazier were reported to him. In February 2012, Ms. Horne from OPS called Mr. Kane to inform him of an anonymous complaint received by the superintendent’s office regarding female students riding with Mr. Frazier on his golf cart and that it “didn’t look right.” At the direction of Ms. Essig, who was Mr. Kane’s immediate supervisor, Ms. Horne relayed the complaint to Mr. Kane, and asked him to look into it and speak to Mr. Frazier about it. Ms. Horne did not hear back from Mr. Kane within a reasonable time, so she called him back. Mr. Kane told Ms. Horne that he issued a verbal directive to Mr. Frazier to be professional in his dealings with students at all times. As Mr. Kane described it, he told Mr. Frazier to stop riding around with girls on his golf cart because others might perceive it to be inappropriate. Mr. Kane did not document his verbal directive to Mr. Frazier. The only evidence that there was a verbal directive comes from the hard-to-decipher scribbled note Ms. Horne made of her phone call to Mr. Kane to find out if he had responded to her request that he look into the complaint. There was no credible evidence that Respondent looked into the 2012 complaint at all, in the sense of trying to find out whether Mr. Frazier had conducted himself, with females on his golf cart, in a way that “did not look right” (such as by allowing so many female students to pile onto the golf cart with him that he and the females necessarily would be sitting on top of each other, as Ms. Peebles described). Instead, Mr. Kane apparently did not ask Mr. Frazier what he was doing with girls on his golf cart. Mr. Kane explained that because the complaint lacked details (such as names, dates, times, locations, or what exactly did not look right), he could not ask Mr. Frazier about the details because Mr. Kane did not have them. That explanation is unreasonable; a reasonable interim principal performing the duty of looking into a complaint asks questions to find out details. An absence of documentation about prior golf cart issues with Mr. Frazier resulted in yet another “isolated incident.” The absence of documentation of Mr. Gagnon’s student- on-golf-cart issue that caused him to tell all staff operating golf carts to stop letting students on the golf carts meant that the 2012 complaint about Mr. Frazier on his golf cart with female students and that it did not look right was never investigated as insubordination, for not following Mr. Gagnon’s prior directive. Also while Mr. Kane was interim principal, Mr. Gulash reported to Mr. Kane that Mr. Frazier shoved a water bottle between D.K.’s legs at the softball field. Mr. Kane had no recollection of Mr. Gulash reporting this incident to him. Mr. Gulash acknowledged that he mentioned the incident to Mr. Kane while they were walking together into the cafeteria; that he described the incident to Mr. Frazier as “horseplay”; and that he did not make a big deal of it. Nonetheless, one would expect that a description of “horseplay” involving a male liaison/coach placing anything between the legs of a female student would not only get the interim principal’s attention but also trigger immediate action. D.K. corroborated the occurrence of bottle-between-the legs “horseplay” by Mr. Frazier. She testified that Mr. Frazier had shoved water bottles or Gatorade bottles between her legs on more than one occasion, both at the softball field and while D.K. was hanging out with Mr. Frazier on his golf cart. While there were discrepancies in the details offered by Mr. Gulash and D.K., once again, their testimony was in harmony with regard to the troubling aspect of the incident they described--that Mr. Frazier engaged in a form of “horseplay” with a minor female student that involved him putting a plastic bottle between the student’s legs. Respondent claimed that Mr. Gulash was biased and not credible for several different reasons; Mr. Gulash responded with explanations. On balance, the undersigned accepts Mr. Gulash’s testimony, notwithstanding the attacks on his credibility. But even if Mr. Gulash did not tell Mr. Kane about the bottle- between-the-legs incident, those incidents should have, and would have, come to light much sooner than they did if Mr. Kane had responded appropriately to the reports of Mr. Frazier’s improprieties when they were made to him. D.K.’s credible testimony that one of these bottle-between-the-legs incidents occurred when she was on a golf cart with Mr. Frazier underscores the significance of the patterned failure to document or act on reports of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate conduct with female students on golf carts. Likewise, D.K.’s description of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate physical contact during closed-door sessions in his office underscores the significance of the patterned failure to document or act on reports of Mr. Frazier’s inappropriate closed-door meetings with female students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent, Matthew Kane. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2014.
The Issue Respondent is charged in a five-count Administrative Complaint with violations of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude); Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes (personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board); Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes (violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as prescribed by the State Board of Education); Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code (intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has continuously held Florida Educator's Certificate 734274, covering the area of English, since 1996. It is valid through June 30, 2006. Respondent was first employed by the Holmes County School District in November 2000 and served as a language arts teacher for seventh and eighth grades at Poplar Springs School for the remainder of the 2000-2001 School Year. During the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent disciplined students in her seventh and eighth grade language arts (English) classes as more specifically described below. All instances of Respondent's discipline were employed in response to male students talking inappropriately or "cutting up" in her classroom so as to detract from the educational process. On one occasion, Respondent placed two pieces of masking tape over the mouth of student C.R. because he was talking in class. C.R. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period (approximately fifteen to twenty minutes). A science teacher saw C.R. in the hall, en route to his next class, and told him to take the tape off his mouth. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student J.F. when he laughed out loud after being warned not to continue talking in class. J.F. had the tape over his mouth for approximately twenty minutes, until the bell rang to go to his next class. Respondent directed student T.J. to place tape on his own mouth after he had talked in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or for approximately fifteen minutes. Respondent placed tape over the mouth of student W.W. because he was talking in class. W.W. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period, which ended approximately thirty minutes later. W.W. experienced difficulty breathing with the tape over his mouth, because he had a cold at the time and was having trouble breathing through his nose. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student C.B. for talking in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or approximately thirty minutes. All of the foregoing five students admitted that Respondent had warned them at least once not to continue talking, before she resorted to taping their mouths, but each of these students also was embarrassed as a result of sitting through the remainder of the class, surrounded by other students, while their mouths were taped. Also during the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent required student C.R. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of three or four heavy dictionaries for approximately fifteen minutes. This method of punishment caused C.R. to experience physical distress in his back. Respondent also required student J.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of seven or eight heavy dictionaries, stacked to his chin, for approximately twenty minutes. This method of punishment caused J.C. to experience physical distress. His knees were buckling, and he was slumping against the wall. Respondent initially required student L.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of twelve dictionaries. However, because the books were stacked almost two feet higher than L.C.'s head, Respondent removed four of them from his arms. L.C. was then required to hold the remaining eight dictionaries for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Respondent also required student J.H. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries stacked up to his eyes, for approximately twenty minutes. Respondent required student E.M., who had talked out of turn early in the class period, to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. At one point during this ordeal, Respondent came out of the classroom and felt E.M.'s forehead to see if he were sweating. When she found that he was not sweating, she returned to her classroom, leaving E.M. outside, still holding the dictionaries. Most students who testified indicated they were disciplined toward the end of a class period, and accordingly, their discipline was automatically ended by the change of classes' bell. However, the foregoing incident, when E.M. was disciplined with books, suggests that Respondent's theory concerning that type of discipline was that once a misbehaving student began to sweat, he had experienced enough punishment. A teacher saw E.M. in the hallway and went to fetch the Principal, Jerry Dixon. Mr. Dixon observed E.M. to be "in a strain," tired, and drooping. When Mr. Dixon discovered what was going on, he told E.M. to go back into Respondent's classroom and take the books with him. Each of the five students disciplined with books was embarrassed by the process, and the posture of holding the dictionaries caused most of them discomfort. After the incident with E.M., Mr. Dixon counseled with Respondent. He advised her that disciplining students as E.M. had been disciplined with the dictionaries was unacceptable and that if she felt future situations were bad enough to warrant punishment, she should send the misbehaving child to his office for him to administer appropriate discipline. In early April 2001, Respondent approached student T.W. at his desk, got down "in his face," and told him that if he did not behave, she would paddle him as hard as she had paddled student C.R., and that was "pretty damn hard." C.R. testified that Respondent had, in fact, actually paddled him, but apparently he was not intimidated or concerned over the paddling. Also, T.W. was not intimidated by Respondent's threat, because he smiled and laughed. However, T.W. was so concerned about Respondent's use of profanity that he approached Principal Dixon in the cafeteria that day and asked the principal if it were "right" for a teacher to curse at a student. Subsequently, in the principal's office, T.W. explained to Mr. Dixon the situation concerning Respondent's use of profanity. Principal Dixon also then learned for the first time that Respondent had been taping her students' mouths as a form of discipline. Mr. Dixon investigated further by talking with other students who verified all or some of T.W.'s account. Mr. Dixon testified that he also believed the incident of Respondent disciplining J.C. with dictionaries in the hallway (see Finding of Fact 11) had occurred after he had told Respondent not to use that procedure. On April 5, 2001, Mr. Dixon met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. In their meeting, Respondent admitted placing tape over students' mouths. She also admitted cursing at T.W. She told Mr. Dixon she had been mad and upset at the time. On April 10, 2001, Mr. Dixon issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for her conduct. In this letter he reminded her that he had, at the time of E.M.'s discipline, told her she was supposed to send students to the office for discipline, not undertake it herself. On June 6, 2001, Mr. Dixon notified Respondent that he would not recommend her reappointment for the 2001-2002 School Year. His decision to not recommend Respondent's appointment was based, at least in part, upon Respondent's admitted inappropriate discipline and use of profanity. There is no evidence Respondent's disciplinary method of causing students to hold heavy books while excluded from the classroom learning environment was effective in improving their behavior in the classroom. There is no evidence this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, Principal Dixon, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, it was not sanctioned, and it is certain that the boys being disciplined were not being taught any curriculum while they were in the hallway. There is no evidence Respondent's method of taping her students' mouths shut and deliberately embarrassing them in the classroom before their peers was effective in teaching them to be quiet in class. There also is no evidence that this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, the principal, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, the evidence is contrary. The disciplinary methods employed by Respondent were not approved or condoned by the Holmes County School Board or by the Poplar Springs School Administration. Her methods were inappropriate. Her inappropriate discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students exposed them to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement at a time in their development when they were particularly emotionally vulnerable. Her methods of discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Holmes County School Board. Respondent failed to take reasonable efforts to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental health and/or physical safety by employing these inappropriate methods of discipline.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order which: Finds Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.2615(1)(f)and (i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code; Suspends Respondent's Educator's Certificate for a period of one year; Requires that, as a condition precedent to Respondent's re-employment as an educator in Florida following the suspension, Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation by a qualified provider as required by the Recovery Network Program; Requires that Respondent follow the recommended course of treatment, if any, resulting from her evaluation and that she provide written verification to the Department of her successful completion of the evaluation and/or treatment; and Provides that if Respondent is reemployed as an educator in Florida, she be placed on three years' probation, upon such terms as the Education Practices Commission deems appropriate, including but not limited to successful completion of a college level course in the area of classroom management. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, 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 12th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Crawford Post Office Box 573 Ashford, Alabama 36312-0573 J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2007)1/, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate, numbered 1003139, covering the area of athletics coaching. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2008. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the certification and regulation of teachers, pursuant to Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as an in-school suspension teacher and a track coach at Hernando High School in the Hernando County School District. The allegations in this proceeding involve events that occurred during the 2007-2008 school year, and deal with three separate incidents: Respondent's conduct in connection to the prom; his actions toward M.G.; and his actions toward A.H. The Prom The prom for Hernando High School was held on or about April 5, 2008, at the Glen Lakes Country Club in Hernando County. Joy Nagy was a coordinator for the prom, and Vicelia Azzarelli was the administrator on duty. Teachers who desired to chaperone the prom signed up in advance. They were given specific responsibilities, including a schedule for monitoring students' behavior. Volunteers' duties did not include dancing with the students. Those teachers who were not volunteering but wanted to stop by and see the students dressed up in their prom attire were also expected to get prior authorization. According to Joy Nagy, Respondent neither signed up to volunteer nor sought permission to attend the prom. Respondent came to the prom with Mr. Mobley, a long-time substitute teacher. Both men were present for a short time, approximately twenty minutes. During their appearance at the prom, they were seen on the dance floor dancing with the students. Assistant Principal Azzarelli observed Respondent while he was at the prom, and he appeared to her to be under the influence of alcohol. He had the smell of alcohol on his person and on his breath, his eyes were dilated and his gait was unsteady. She and another administrator requested that Respondent and Mr. Mobley leave the dance, and they did so. After the prom, a group of students chose to continue celebrating, and rented rooms at a hotel in Clearwater Beach. Respondent and Mr. Mobley went to the hotel where the students were staying, and socialized with the students. The students were drinking alcohol at the hotel, and the presence of alcoholic beverages was evident. The next week, some students came forward asserting that Respondent and Mr. Mobley were partying with students in Clearwater Beach following the prom. During a subsequent investigation into the partying, Respondent admitted to Ms. Azzarelli that he went to Clearwater Beach after the prom, and had a couple of drinks at a club there. He also admitted that he went to the hotel room of some of the students. As a result of the investigation into the events surrounding the prom, school officials also received information regarding possible conduct by Respondent with respect to two female students at Hernando High School. M.G. M.G. is currently a student at Valencia Community College. At the time of the events in this case, she was a senior at Hernando High School, and was, along with a few other students, a manager for the track team. At some point during the 2007-2008 school year, M.G. was sent to the in-room suspension room for a dress code violation, because she was wearing a skirt that was too short. She was the last student to leave the room. As she was leaving the classroom, Respondent came up behind her and reached around, putting his hand underneath her skirt, over her underpants. M.G. immediately left the room. She did not report the incident to anyone initially, because there were no witnesses to the conduct and she did not think anyone would believe her. She thought that by staying out of in-school suspension and working with the other track managers, she would not be in a position where the situation could be repeated. However, there was a subsequent occasion where M.G. was taking inventory of the uniforms for the track team. She was again alone with Respondent, and he again came up behind her and touched her in the crotch area, over her clothes. On this occasion, M.G. was wearing capris pants. She left the room and, as before, did not tell anyone because she did not want to be in a position where she reported the behavior and no one believed her. She only came forward after hearing about another incident involving Respondent's alleged conduct with a female student.3/ A.H. A.H. was also a student at Hernando High School at the time of the events in question. She graduated in 2009, and is now a student at Pasco-Hernando Community College. There was an occasion during the 2007-2008 school year when A.H. was alone with Respondent in the portable where he taught. Respondent kissed her, and she tried to walk out. He grabbed her arm, pulled her back to him and kissed her again. Respondent also sent A.H. inappropriate text messages. For example, he would text her that he did not want to have sex with her because he knew she was a virgin, but that "I'll go down on you and show you a good time." Like M.G., A.H. did not want to tell anyone about the incident with Respondent because she did not want anyone to know about it. When questioned initially by school officials, she denied it for the same reason. Both girls were interviewed by Detective Morrell of the Hernando County Sheriff's Office during her investigation stemming from the conduct related to prom. The information given during the investigation by Detective Morrell and the information provided during the hearing was consistent. Unfortunately for both girls, after the conduct was investigated, there was significant publicity regarding the incidents. Information was published in both the print and electronic media. Consistent with her fears, M.G. was subjected to ridicule and the publicity related to the investigation made it difficult for her to finish her senior year. Neither girl wanted to press charges as a result of Respondent's conduct, because they did not want to have to deal with the publicity associated with criminal charges. Neither girl wanted to testify in this proceeding. However, both girls were candid and credible, despite their obvious reluctance to appear. On or about May 5, 2008, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his position with the school district.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and permanently revoking his teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2010, 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 10th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent, Seneka Rachel Arrington, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1012300, which is valid through June 2009. Respondent was employed as a Language Arts Teacher at Matanzas High School in the Flagler County School District during the 2006/2007 year. On or about October 9, 2006, Respondent was terminated from her teaching position with the school district. On or about April 3, 2007, Respondent removed merchandise from a retail establishment without paying for it and with the intention of converting it to her own use. Respondent was arrested and charged with one count of retail theft. On or about May 29, 2007, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the state attorney's office with regard to the charge of retail theft. Findings of Fact Based Upon Evidence Presented at Hearing Dr. Hugh Christopher Pryor is the principal at Matanzas High School (Matanzas). Dr. Pryor hired Respondent in May 2006 for a position as an English teacher, to begin work in August 2006. During her employment at Matanzas, Respondent also worked as an assistant cheerleading coach. K.M. was a freshman at Matanzas during the 2006-2007 school year. She was on the cheerleading squad and knew Respondent as one of her coaches. She was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. M.H., K.M.'s boyfriend at all times material to the allegations in this case, was a 14-year-old freshman on the Matanzas football team and a student in one of Respondent's classes. C.J. was another freshman member of the football team and a friend of M.H.'s. He was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. Respondent was well-liked by students at the high school. Although K.M. testified that she was authoritative and strict with the girls on the cheerleading squad, she got along with all of the girls and "kind of was like us." K.M. regarded her more as a friend than as a teacher. On occasion, K.M. used Respondent's cell phone. On October 6 or 7, 2006, Donald Apperson Jr., the school's resource officer, was approached by a friend at a social outing who suggested he check into whether "the black cheerleading coach" at Matanzas was having a sexual relationship with some of the football players. Respondent was the only teacher who could fit this description. On Monday, October 9, 2006, Mr. Apperson reported this information to Ken Seybold, who was an assistant principal and the athletic director at Matanzas. The principal was notified and an investigation was initiated. Respondent was notified of the allegations, which she denied, and was sent home pending completion of the investigation. The investigation consisted of speaking with several members of the football team and was completed in a single day. At the end of the day, the principal determined that Respondent's employment would be terminated because she was still under a 97- day probationary period wherein she could be terminated without cause. Respondent was notified of the decision to terminate her employment the next day, October 10, 2006. Because she was terminated within the statutory probationary period for the initial contract for employment, no cause was listed. While Dr. Pryor testified that he was generally dissatisfied with her performance, his testimony regarding why was sketchy at best, and there was nothing in her personnel file to indicate that she was counseled in any way with respect to her performance. Teachers in the Flagler County School District are generally admonished not to transport students in a teacher's personal vehicle. Transporting students is only condoned where the student's parent has been notified and permission granted, and where an administrator has been notified of the need to transport the student. This procedure is apparently covered during orientation for new employees. However, no written policy regarding the transport of students was produced or cited, and Dr. Pryor indicated that Respondent was late to the orientation session prior to the beginning of the school year. It cannot be determined from the record in this case whether Respondent was aware of this policy. Respondent transported students in her personal vehicle on two occasions. On the first occasion, Respondent took K.M. and one other cheerleader to the Volusia Mall in order to look for dresses for a dance at school. K.M. testified that her mother had given permission for K.M. to go with Respondent on this outing. Respondent and the two girls were accompanied on this outing by Respondent's mother and sister. The second outing also involved shopping for clothes for the school dance. On this trip, Respondent took K.M. as well as M.H. and C.J. in her car after football and cheerleading practice. The four went first to the St. Augustine outlet mall and then to the Volusia Mall to shop for clothes. K.M. testified that her mother had given her permission to go with Respondent, but probably would not have given permission if she had known the boys would also be going. Neither M.H. nor C.J. had permission from a parent to ride in Respondent's car. The boys testified that they both drove Respondent's car while on this trip, although the testimony is inconsistent as to who drove when, and is not credible. Neither boy had a learner's permit to drive. No evidence was presented regarding the dates of these two shopping trips, other than they both occurred prior to September 29, 2006, which was the date identified for the dance. This same date is identified as the date for a football game in Cairo, Georgia, discussed below. After the conclusion of the second shopping trip, Respondent dropped K.M. off at her home. At this point, the boys testified, and stated as part of the district's investigation, that Respondent offered to take them back to her apartment to spend the night. According to M.H. and C.J., they went with Respondent back to her apartment where they ate fast food and watched television. They claimed that Respondent told them they could sleep in her bed while she slept on the couch. At some time during the night, Respondent allegedly crawled in the bed between the two boys, ground her hips against M.H.'s crotch, and took his hand and placed it outside her shorts against her vaginal area. M.H. claimed this made him uncomfortable and he moved to the floor, while Respondent continued to sleep in the bed with C.J. In the morning, the boys claim that Respondent woke them up and drove them to school. M.H. testified that he was in Respondent's English class and that she treated him differently than the other students. He, along with other boys at school, fantasized about the "fine, black English teacher." He thought it was cool to spend extra time with her and led others to believe he was having sex with her until one of his friends questioned the propriety of doing so. He testified that he "freaked out" while on a bus going to an out-of-state football game September 29, 2006, because Respondent kept calling him on his cell phone and he did not want to talk to her. Juxtaposed against the testimony of C.J. and M.H. is the testimony of Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders. Monica Arrington, Respondent's younger sister, testified that during the period of time Respondent was employed at Matanzas, she shared Respondent's apartment and sometimes helped her out with the cheerleaders. Monica was a freshman at Bethune Cookman College and did not like living on campus, so instead lived with her sister. Ms. Arrington did not have her own transportation and relied on her sister to drop her off at school each day. Ms. Arrington confirmed that she went with Respondent, her mother and two female students to Volusia Mall to shop for clothes on one occasion, but did not identify any other time where students were at Respondent's apartment. Karastan Saunders also testified that during the fall of 2006, he lived at Respondent's apartment in exchange for paying a portion of the utilities. Mr. Saunders testified that he spent every night at the apartment because he did not have the funds to go elsewhere, and that he did not recall anyone coming over to the apartment other than family and mutual friends. After considering all of the evidence presented, the more credible evidence is that while Respondent took students shopping on at least one occasion, the testimony of M.H. and C.J. that they spent the night at Respondent's apartment is not credible. M.H. admitted that he has lied to his dad "because everybody lies to their dad sometimes." He claimed he lied to Respondent to avoid going to Orlando with her and about having a learner's permit to drive, and that he lied to his father about where he was the night he claims to have been at Respondent's apartment. M.H. also insinuated to his friends that he had a sexual relationship with Respondent, and that all of the boys thought she was the prettiest teacher at the school. However, he did not want Respondent to be arrested and would not cooperate with authorities. Even during the course of the hearing, his testimony was inconsistent regarding whom he told about his relationship with Respondent and what he told them. Significantly, C.J.'s testimony did not corroborate the alleged inappropriate touching M.H. claimed. C.J. did not witness any inappropriate touching or M.H. and Respondent having sex. While M.H. claimed that Respondent kept calling him while on the bus to Georgia for a football game, no phone records were produced and no one else's testimony was presented to support the claim. K.M. admitted that M.H. has lied to her on occasion and that he has had some issues with drugs and alcohol.1/ C.J.'s testimony is also not very credible. Like M.H., C.J. lied to his father about his whereabouts on the night in question. While he testified that he sometimes drove his dad's car to school without permission, his father testified that he only has one car and uses it every day to get to work. While M.H. claimed C.J. told him that Respondent and C.J. had sex the night they were allegedly at the apartment, C.J. denied it. He also stated that he was suspended for five days for bringing a laser to school during the timeframe related to this case, a suspension that his father knew nothing about. Likewise, C.J.'s claim that he went with Respondent on some unspecified weekend to Orlando while she got her cheerleading certification is not credible. By contrast, both Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders were candid, consistent, calm and forthright while testifying. While both C.J. and M.H. were not where they were supposed to be on the night in question, they were not at Respondent's apartment. After Respondent was terminated from her employment, the allegations that she engaged in an appropriate relationship with a student were reported by local media. The publicity was extensive. Because the allegations involved alleged sexual conduct with a minor that would have occurred in Volusia County as opposed to Flagler County, the matter was referred to authorities in Volusia County. However, no criminal charges were ever brought against Respondent because neither M.H. nor his father wished to cooperate with authorities.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 1, and dismissing Counts 2-7 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission reprimand Respondent, impose a $500 fine and place her on one year of probation in the event that she works as a teacher in a public school setting. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2009, 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 24th day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact During times pertinent to this consolidated proceeding, the Respondent, Eugene Lamar Moore, has held teacher's certificate number 271828 issued by the State of Florida Department of Education for the subject areas of English and Bible studies. The Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Escambia County School District at Washington High School during times pertinent to the facts in this proceeding. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, as they relate to licensure of teachers and regulation - and enforcement of the practice standards which teachers are required to observe in the practice of that profession in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, Escambia County School Board, is a local government agency charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating the practice and practice standards of teachers and professional conduct of teachers in its employ in the Escambia County school system. The Respondent was employed at times pertinent hereto by the Escambia County school system as a teacher at the Washington High School. He began teaching in the County under an annual contract of employment in 1970. At the conclusion of the 1973-74 school year, the Respondent was awarded a continuing contract of employment by the County School Board and has been employed by Escambia County as a continuing contract teacher ever since. On May 27, 1985, during a change of classes in his classroom, at a time when other students were present, the Respondent kissed student Rebecca Cleveland on the cheek. He had known her for approximately one year and eight months at the time the incident occurred. He felt he knew and understood her personality well enough to have no fear that lightheartedly kissing her on the cheek would embarrass her or offend her. It was not his intention to derive personal benefit or gratification by hugging or kissing Rebecca Cleveland on the cheek nor did he intend to offend, embarrass or expose her to disparagement in any way. Rebecca Cleveland acknowledged that the Respondent had never attempted to kiss her before that day and also acknowledged that she did not really believe Respondent intended to hurt her or to intentionally embarrass her. Michelle Clawson was another female student at Washington High School and contended in her testimony that the Respondent put his arm around her, attempted to kiss her and attempted to "french kiss" her. Indeed, the Respondent had put his arm around Michelle Clawson on a number of occasions for the purpose of generally encouraging her and encouraging her to take tests, but had not attempted to kiss her on any occasion. Ms. Clawson additionally contended that Mr. Moore was trying to maintain a good personal relationship with her by giving her undeserved high grades and stated that she asked several boys in the class to stay with her in Mr. Moore's room after class on the day he allegedly attempted to kiss her (presumably for protection). She also stated that Mr. Moore requested that she go to a football game with him, presumably as his date. This testimony is not credited, however, for a number of reasons. Firstly, Ms. Clawson's claim that Respondent tried to "french kiss" her was a recent addition to previous and different versions of the alleged kissing incident related in her previous statements. Concerning her charge that he was giving her undeserved good grades, it was established unequivocally that indeed Mr. Moore had actually given her an "F" during the grading period in question. Concerning her staying in his class after others had left and asking several boys to remain with her, Ms. Clawson was unable to explain why she remained in Mr. Moore's room in the first place, especially after the "boys" supposedly informed her that they could not stay with her. Concerning the alleged "football game date," she conceded that the entire class was present when the conversation occurred. It is very implausible that Mr. Moore would have asked Ms. Clawson for a date, had he been inclined to do so at all, in the presence of any other students, especially not the entire class. If such an incident had occurred it seems likely that there would have been at least one other witness to verify the nature of the conversation in question. It was also established by independent, uncontradicted proof that the Respondent was in charge of arranging buses and other logistics for football game trips and other school trips and served as a chaperone on some occasions for such events. The Respondent's version of this conversation to the effect that, if it occurred, he was merely trying to determine if Michelle Clawson would be able to attend the football game and offering to obtain permission for her from her parents, is accepted over Ms. Clawson's version. Ms. Georgette Floyd is another ninth grade English teacher at Washington High School, like Respondent. Michelle Clawson had been in Ms. Floyd's class the year previous to the one when the alleged incident supposedly occurred in the Respondent's class. Ms. Clawson did not pass Ms. Floyd's freshman English class and was required to repeat the course. She was thus assigned to repeat freshman English in the Respondent's class the year after she was in Ms. Floyd's class. Prior to the time Respondent had Michelle Clawson enter his class, Ms. Floyd warned him that Ms. Clawson might present some problems. Ms. Floyd had found that Ms. Clawson, on occasion, would attempt to provocatively expose parts of her body by sitting in a suggestive or provocative fashion and had been known to spread false comment about teachers, particularly Ms. Floyd. In summary, it is concluded that Michelle Clawson's testimony is not credible and is not credited herein. Her version of the events is simply not plausible in the face of the Respondent's and Ms. Floyd's testimony; further, she was shown to have a motive for giving an untruthful version of the events in question, to wit, her poor academic performance and failing grades in Respondent's and Ms. Floyd's classes. Ms. Floyd's testimony that Ms. Clawson had previously made a false accusation against her was uncontradicted. 1/ Concerning the charges about the Respondent's alleged loss of effectiveness in the school system, Mr. Sherman Robinson, the principal of Washington High School testified that he did not believe Mr. Moore was any longer an effective teacher at Washington High School. Mr. Robinson based this opinion on his belief that the Respondent's effectiveness was diminished as a result of the Rebecca Cleveland incident of May 1985. He conceded, however, that the Respondent had taught school at Washington High School for the entire following 1985-86 school year and indeed for a portion of the 1986-87 school year. The Respondent's formal teaching evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was prepared after the incident became known concerning Rebecca Cleveland. That evaluation covers areas involving professional responsibility (encompassing the types of conduct in question) as well as academic performance. The Respondent's evaluation for the 1984-85 school year demonstrates that he received the highest possible score in four out of five sub-categories. He received the next highest score in the remaining sub-categories. No part of that evaluation was unsatisfactory. The Respondent's formal teaching evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was prepared after the incident concerning Rebecca Cleveland became known. The Respondent's 1985-86 evaluation demonstrated that he received the highest possible score on that part of the evaluation that deals with professionalism or professional responsibility. All of the Respondent's teaching, after the Rebecca Cleveland incident occurred, was at Washington High School, and he received all satisfactory or higher evaluations on each category for that period of time after the Rebecca Cleveland incident.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing the complaint by the Department of Education against the Respondent, Eugene Lamar Moore, in its entirety. It is Further RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Dismissal filed by the Superintendent of Schools for Escambia County should be denied and that the Respondent, Eugene Lamar Moore, should be reinstated to his position of employment as a continuing contract teacher with full back pay from the date of suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1987.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nancy S. Lowery ("Respondent"), violated Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2001),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 365470, issued by the Department of Education. The certificate covered the area of family and consumer science and was valid through June 30, 2002. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Oakridge High School ("Oakridge"), a school in the Orange County School District ("School District"), and taught exceptional education students. On February 1, 2002, while employed as a teacher at Oakridge, Respondent showed the movie, "Jaws III," in her classroom to the students in her fourth-period class. That day there were about ten students in Respondent's fourth-period class. Prior to or soon after starting the movie, Respondent turned off the lights in the classroom, and the lights remained off while the movie was playing. While the movie was playing, the students in Respondent's class sat at their desks. However, at some point during the movie, D.C., a female student in the class, asked J.G., another student, if she (J.G.) gave "head." In response, J.G. answered in the affirmative. After J.G. responded, D.C. and G.J., a male student in the class, then coaxed J.G. to perform oral sex on G.J. Then, G.J. unzipped his pants and told J.G. to put her head "down there," and she did so. At or near the same time, G.J. put his hand in J.G.'s pants. For most of the class period, J.G.'s head was in G.J.'s lap. While J.G. was performing oral sex on G.J., some of the students in the class positioned their desks so that Respondent could not see what J.G. and G.J. were doing. At all times relevant to this proceeding, B.D. was about 16-years-old and a student at Oakridge. B.D. was in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, and observed the events and incident described in paragraphs four through six. Petitioner was in the classroom during the entire fourth period while "Jaws III" was playing. However, once the movie began playing, Petitioner was at the computer in the classroom "working on" or "typing" something. Petitioner was working at the computer most of the class period and did not see J.G. and G.J. engaging in the inappropriate sexual conduct described in paragraph five. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Kari Sperre was the chairman of the Exceptional Education Department at Oakridge, the department in which Respondent worked. On the morning of February 1, 2002, Ms. Sperre took her class on a field trip. Ms. Sperre and her class returned to the school during the fourth period. As Ms. Sperre walked by Respondent's classroom, she noticed that the lights in that classroom were out. Later that day, it was reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. had told another student, L.C., that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. Upon hearing this report, Ms. Sperre investigated the matter. Ms. Sperre first talked to L.C., a female student in the ninth grade at Oakridge. L.C., who was not in Respondent's fourth-period class, reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. told her (L.C.) that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. After she spoke with L.C., Ms. Sperre then talked to J.G. Although initially reluctant to talk to Ms. Sperre, J.G. eventually told Ms. Sperre what had happened that day in Respondent's class. J.G. told Ms. Sperre that she had only recently transferred to Oakridge, that she was in Petitioner's fourth-period class, and that the lights in the class were out during class that day. J.G. also reported to Ms. Sperre that two students in the class, D.C., a female student, and G.J., a male student, encouraged her to perform oral sex on G.J. According to J.G., D.C. and/or G.J. told her that all she had to do was put her head underneath G.J.'s jacket and nobody would know what was going on. J.G. also told Ms. Sperre that G.J.'s pants were open and admitted that, "I just bent down and did it." J.G. told Ms. Sperre that this incident occurred while the class was watching the movie and while Respondent was working on the computer. At all times relevant to this proceeding, J.G. was classified as an exceptional education student, having been classified as educable mentally handicapped. A student classified as educable mentally handicapped has an IQ of below 70, well below the average IQ of 100. After the February 1, 2002, incident that occurred in Respondent's class, J.G. was suspended from school for engaging in inappropriate conduct at school. Also, since the incident, J.G. withdrew from school and is no longer enrolled in the School District. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated several policies of the School District. First, the School District requires that teachers supervise their students at all times when they are in the classroom. In order to do this, the teacher should have the students within sight. This is especially important with regard to exceptional education students, who have special and unique challenges. Respondent did not supervise her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, although she was in the classroom. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent was working at the computer most of the class period and was unaware of what the students were doing. Clearly, Respondent was not supervising her students, as evidenced by her failure to ever notice or observe the sexually inappropriate conduct by students in her class. By failing to properly supervise her class on February 1, 2002, Respondent failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and/or physical health and/or safety. The incident that occurred on February 1, 2002, in Respondent's class could have a negative impact on both the students who observed the incident, as well as the student who was encouraged to perform oral sex on the male student. The educable mentally handicapped student who was coaxed into performing the act could be the victim of teasing as a result of her involvement in the incident. According to Ms. Sperre, those students who witnessed the incident could also be negatively impacted by being exposed to and observing the incident. For example, many of the students in the exceptional education class could also be encouraged to engage in the same type of activity that they witnessed in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002. The School District has a policy that prohibits teachers from turning out all the lights in their classrooms during class time. This policy is for safety reasons and requires that even if there is a need to turn off the classroom lights, at least one "bank" of lights must remain on at all times. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy discussed in paragraph 22, by turning off all the lights at or near the beginning of the fourth period, and they remained off while the students were watching the movie. This violation contributed to Respondent's failure to supervise the students because with all the lights out, even though she was in the classroom, Respondent was unaware and unable to see what the students, including J.G. and G.J., were doing. During the 2001-2002 school year, Oakridge had a policy that allowed teachers to show only movies that were educational or had some relevance to the lesson being taught in the class. At the beginning of every school year, including the 2001-2002 school year, teachers at Oakridge are given faculty handbooks, which include various policies and procedures that they are required to read. In addition to these written policies and procedures, Oakridge administrators would "discuss" various "oral procedures" with teachers at facility meetings. It is unclear if the policies or procedures regarding the kinds of movies that could be shown at Oakridge and the prohibition against having all the lights off in classrooms at Oakridge were written or oral policies and/or procedures. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy related to the kind of movies that are allowed to be shown in the classroom by showing the movie, "Jaws III." "Jaws III" is not an educational movie, nor was it relevant to any lesson being taught by Respondent at or near the time it was being shown to the students. The School District investigated the February 1, 2002, incident, and thereafter, the committee reviewed the incident and voted unanimously to recommend that Respondent be terminated as a teacher in the School District. Despite the unanimous recommendation of termination, because Respondent's teaching contract for re-appointment was to be considered soon, instead of terminating Respondent, the School District decided that it would simply not recommend her for re-appointment for the 2002- 2003 school year. On February 20, 2002, after the February 1, 2002, incident was investigated, Oakridge's principal, J. Richard Damron, issued to Respondent a letter of reprimand and a letter of directives regarding the incident that occurred in Respondent's classroom on February 1, 2002. The letter of reprimand specifically referenced the February 1, 2002, incident and stated that Respondent had "failed to use reasonable care in supervising" the students in her class. Next, the letter of reprimand stated that a directive would be issued in a separate correspondence that outlines the School District's expectations regarding Respondent's conduct in the future. Finally, the letter of reprimand noted that "should there be another incident of a similar nature in the future[,] discipline, up to and including dismissal could be recommended." On February 20, 2002, Principal Damron issued written directives to Respondent which required her to do the following: (1) establish a safe, caring, and nurturing environment conducive to learning and the physical and psychological well- being of students; (2) refrain from showing films that are not directly associated with lessons that contribute to the education of children; (3) keep children under her [Petitioner's] direct supervision at all times and not leave students alone, with other teachers, or be absent from her duties unless she makes prior arrangements with the principal or one of the assistant principals; and (4) comply with all district and school directives, policies, rules, and procedures. Respondent's job performance as a teacher at Oakridge for the 2001-2002 school year was evaluated in March 2002. The results of the evaluation are reported on the School District's form entitled, Instructional Personnel Final Assessment Report ("Assessment Report"). The Assessment Report dated March 25, 2002, noted two areas in which Respondent "Needs Improvement": (1) Professional Responsibilities; and (2) Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was rated as "Effective" in four areas: (1) Curriculum Knowledge; (2) Planning and Delivering Instruction; (3) Assessment of Student Performance; (4) Development and Interpersonal Skills. On March 25, 2002, the same day the Assessment Report was completed, Principal Damron notified Respondent that he was not recommending her for re-appointment for the 2002-2003 school year. According to the letter, Principal Damron decided to not recommend Respondent for re-appointment "based upon performance- related reasons and the temporary contract" that she held at that time. Alfred Lopez, a senior manager with the Orange County School District, testified that by failing to supervise the students in her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the School District had "definitely" been reduced. Ms. Sperre testified that she would not ever want Respondent employed in a school in Orange County in which she (Ms. Sperre) was employed. Notwithstanding the beliefs of Mr. Lopez and Ms. Sperre, based on the letter of reprimand and the letter of directives issued on February 20, 2002, it appears that Respondent continued to teach at Oakridge after the February 2002 incident through the end of the school year. Furthermore, no evidence was presented which established that after the incident, Respondent was reassigned, relieved of, or otherwise removed from her position as an exceptional education teacher at Oakridge after the incident.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(a), but did not violate Subsections 231.2615(1)(a) and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(e). It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order impose the following administrative sanctions on Respondent: Upon employment in any public or private position requiring an educator's certificate, Respondent shall be placed on two years' probation with the conditions that during this period, she shall: Notify the Education Practices Commission, upon employment and immediately upon termination of employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate; Have her immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the Education Practices Commission; Violate no law and fully comply with all School District regulations, school rules, and the State Board of Education; Satisfactorily perform assigned duties in a competent, professional manner; and Bear all costs of complying with the terms of this probation. Enroll in and successfully complete a three-hour college course in classroom management within the first year of probation and submit to the Bureau of Education Standards an official college transcript verifying successful completion of the course with a grade of "B" or higher. This course must be taken in person, and a correspondence or on-line course will not satisfy this requirement. Issue a letter of reprimand, with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent used inappropriate discipline techniques when he pushed an unruly student against a wall and back into his seat, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educators Certificate No. 725455. He is an assistant principal at Riverview High School. He has been a teacher for 18 years. He is in his seventh year in the Sarasota County School District. Prior to his employment with Sarasota County, Respondent was a physical education teacher and then an assistant principal in Illinois. He has never previously been the subject of disciplinary action. The principal at Riverview High School testified that Respondent enjoys good rapport with the students. Respondent is required to deal with disciplinary issues, and the principal testified that he has always done so professionally. The principal testified that Respondent maintains his composure when disciplining students. The Administrative Law Judge credits the testimony of the principal. On February 20, 1998, Respondent was summoned to a classroom being taught by Francis J. Baad, a teacher since 1948. A substitute teacher, Ms. Baad was teaching a freshman English class that had become disruptive, so she asked someone to summon an administrator to her room. Ms. Baad was showing a film of Romeo and Juliet. Part of the class was trying to watch the film, but part of the class was misbehaving. Several students were talking loudly, and one student was playing with a red laser pointer. The misbehaving students ignored repeated entreaties from Ms. Baad to settle down. When she threatened to summon an administrator, some of the students told her that she could not do so. When Respondent entered the classroom, the students quieted down. Respondent asked Ms. Baad to tell him the names of the students who had been misbehaving. Identification was slowed by Ms. Baad's unfamiliarity with the names of the students and the fact that several students had sat in seats assigned to other students and had given wrong names. As Respondent was writing down the names of the students who had disrupted the class, C. H. objected to the listing of another student, G. B., whom C. H. claimed had done nothing wrong, even though Ms. Baad had named him as one of the students who had misbehaved. Respondent replied to C. H. that it was none of his business. C. H. rose from his seat, and Respondent told him to sit down. Instead, C. H. said that he did not have to listen and began to walk up the aisle to leave the classroom. Respondent stepped toward C. H. and told him to return to his seat and be quiet. C. H. replied that Respondent could not tell him what to do. Saying, "Yes, I will tell you what to do," Respondent approached C. H. and backed him to his desk. Respondent then grabbed C. H.'s arms or shoulders and forced him down to his seat. At one point, Respondent threatened to call the school resource officer and have C. H. arrested. However, Respondent never did so, nor did he or anyone else discipline C. H. for this incident. Instead, Respondent remained in the classroom until the bell rang. Respondent did not disrupt the classroom; he restored order to the classroom so that learning could take place. Respondent did not endanger C. H.'s physical health or safety. Respondent did not disparage C. H. Respondent did not unnecessarily embarrass C. H.; C. H. embarrassed himself. Respondent gave C. H. every opportunity to behave himself. Rather than do so, C. H. unreasonably defied Respondent's authority.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Attorney Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Robert E. Turffs Brann & Turffs, P.A. 2055 Wood Street, Suite 206 Sarasota, Florida 34237
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for a Florida educator's certificate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for a Florida educator's certificate from the Florida Department of Education. On May 19, 1997, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. She was sentenced to six months' probation. She was also required to perform 50 hours of community service and to pay $1,245 in fines and court costs. Her driver's license was revoked, and she was required to attend DUI school. Petitioner is the mother of two sons. On July 31, 2000, William was eight years of age and Jeffrey was 12 1/2. William and Jeffrey had lived primarily with Jo Kathryn Crawford, Petitioner's mother and their grandmother, since the middle of 1998. During the weekend prior to Monday, July 31, 2000, Petitioner had called her mother's home a number of times during which she was drunk and belligerent. Even so, arrangements were made for Petitioner to pick up William Monday morning to take him to a doctor's appointment after which she would take both William and Jeffrey to her "new" home. Her new home was a home which Jacksonville Habitat had built for her and had deeded to her in October 1999. She did not move into the home at that time but had continued to live in a trailer park. She wanted to spend her first night with William and Jeffrey in the home and wanted them to help her with the moving-in chores. On Monday, July 31, 2000, she picked up William and took him to his medical appointment. When she brought William back to his grandmother's home, William was hungry, and his grandmother insisted on fixing lunch for him. Petitioner was annoyed at having to wait, but she did. She then left with William and Jeffrey, saying that she would return them the next morning, Tuesday. While Petitioner and her sons were eating dinner that evening at her new home, Petitioner became angry because William crawled under the table and was shaking it. When William got out from under the table to go to the bedroom he would be sharing with Jeffrey, he knocked over a pile of clothes. Petitioner became highly irritated and then enraged, yelling and chasing William down the hallway. She caught up with him at the doorway to the bedroom, grabbed a belt, and started swinging it indiscriminately at William with the buckle end toward the child. William was crying and begging her to stop. He was also trying to get away from her. Petitioner was using severe blows with the full range of motion of her arm, and the belt buckle hit William multiple times. The belt was moving fast, and Petitioner was inflicting severe blows, while still screaming at William. Jeffrey, who was also in the bedroom, could even hear the belt hitting William but felt powerless to do anything to help his brother. During this episode Petitioner remained enraged and lacked any self-control. When the beating was over, Petitioner did not attend to William. Jeffrey was the one who rendered comfort to his brother and put a Band-Aid on his brother's finger, where the stem of the belt buckle had pierced or cut it. Petitioner did not return the boys to their grandmother's home until Wednesday. The grandmother asked William about the Band-Aid on his finger. William did not want to tell her what happened to his finger, but over the course of the afternoon he told his grandmother what had happened at Petitioner's home. Jeffrey confirmed what William told his grandmother. The grandmother raised William's shirt. He had marks and bruises on his back and front. There were long, red welts on his back and on his side. Some marks were large, some were small, some were round, and some were distinctively the shape of a belt buckle. There were dark blue and purple bruises on his lower buttocks on both sides and on his elbow. There was a round mark like a pencil eraser above his right knee. There were longer bruises in his front groin area. On his upper leg were round, large, black and red bruises. The grandmother took pictures of the marks on William's body. The next day, August 3, 2000, she consulted an attorney to find out what she should do. She then went to the Jacksonville Beach Police Department, where she spoke with Detective Tommy Crumley and showed him the pictures. Crumley contacted the abuse hotline. He then went to the grandmother's home, looked at William's bruises, took pictures, and talked to both boys separately. At final hearing, he described the bruises, categorized them as severe, and thought they appeared to be painful. Prior to July 31, 2000, Petitioner beat William when he made her mad. Although William was unable to quantify the number of times, he described the number as being "a lot." He did not tell his grandmother about the source of the bruises he had from those occasions. Prior to July 31, 2000, and as far back as Jeffrey can remember, Petitioner also beat Jeffrey. She beat him twice on some days and not at all on other days. It depended upon her mood and her temper. When beating him, Petitioner used her hands, a belt, or a wooden spoon. Prior to July 31, 2000, Petitioner beat her sons whenever they did something that made her angry, even for spilling a drink. The beatings were severe, and she did not care where her blows landed. Although the beatings left bruises, the children told no one for fear of being hit even more. On August 4, 2000, Petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated child abuse, a felony. She was also later charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, on August 14, 2001, the charge of aggravated child abuse was dismissed, and Petitioner pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She was placed on probation with special conditions for a period of 12 months. Petitioner completed her probation early. Both of Petitioner's sons were in psychological therapy throughout high school. Until they saw each other at the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner had not seen either of her sons since she returned them to the grandmother's house on August 3, 2000. The grandmother has had legal custody of Petitioner's sons since August 7, 2000. They continue to live with their grandmother. Jeffrey, who is now 20, is a junior in college, majoring in chemistry. He also works at Marsh Landing Country Club. William, who is now 16, was, at the time of the final hearing, temporarily residing at Impact House, a juvenile detention facility, where he had been for 10 days for violation of probation. Even though Petitioner does not possess a teaching certificate, she has been employed as an ESE teacher by the Duval County Public Schools in Jacksonville since March 2007. She is assigned to middle-school exceptional student education classes. She has been re-appointed for the coming school year. Petitioner explains the marks she made on William's body by suggesting that maybe he got the bruises from playing or roughhousing with his brother or maybe his grandmother hit him with a wooden spoon. She explains the cut on William's finger by saying the belt slipped out of her hand while she was "swatting" him and fell, hitting him on the finger. It is clear that, even after eight years, Petitioner does not understand the shocking and inappropriate nature of her behavior. Further, she has still not accepted responsibility for her actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a Florida educator's certificate, permanently barring her from re-applying in the future, and providing that the Department may refuse to consider a subsequent application from her. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 11th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
