The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 8., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Uncontested Facts by the Parties Respondent holds a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 1046827, covering the area of Biology, which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent to this matter, Respondent was employed as a Biology teacher at Miami Palmetto Senior High School (“MPHS”) in the Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent knew A.T. was a student at MPHS during the 2015-2016 school year and had tried out for the school’s lacrosse team in late January 2016. Respondent sent a text message to A.T. on December 19, 2016, stating, “How are you?” Respondent sent and exchanged text messages with A.T. in March 2017. Respondent met and engaged in sexual intercourse with A.T. in late March 2017. Respondent resigned from his employment with Miami-Dade County Schools on May 3, 2017, citing “personal reasons.” Additional Findings of Fact Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold Florida educator certificates, and are alleged to have violated provisions of section 1012.795. Respondent is a highly effective educator who, over the course of his ten-year career, has earned the respect of his former principal and science department head, as well as parents and students with whom he has come in contact. The allegations of misconduct in this case have not altered the high professional regard in which Respondent is held by Principal Victoria Dobbs; Science Department Head Pamela Shlachtman; parent and lacrosse team booster club president Nicola Rousseau; and former student, lacrosse player, and the daughter of Nicola Rousseau, Samantha Rousseau. Each of these witnesses testified that their knowledge, observations, and experience working with Respondent led them to believe that he never would have had any type of relationship with a woman he believed to be a high school student. Each of these witnesses testified that, to the best of their knowledge, they had never seen or heard reports of any inappropriate conduct between Respondent and a student. Principal Dobbs bragged in a letter about Respondent and the support of his peers in voting him Science Teacher of the Year. She testified that in her 12 years of service at MPHS, the last three of which she was principal, she had no concerns with Respondent regarding inappropriate relationships with students. To the contrary, she recalled him as a very good teacher, who participated in many school activities and field trips. He also served as coach for the girls’ lacrosse team. Principal Dobbs further testified that she was never informed that Respondent had been accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a student at her school. She was only made aware of a request by the school district for Respondent’s computer. She testified that if she had believed Respondent had an intimate relationship with a high school student, she would not have employed him. Ms. Shlachtman has been employed at MPHS since 2001 and has been a teacher since 1984. She affirmed her previously written statement supporting Respondent, and testified she had participated in the hiring and selection of Respondent ten years previously as a marine biology teacher. She stated that he had “the soul of an educator.” As a member of Ms. Shlachtman’s staff, Respondent had chaperoned multiple field trips, including extended travel with students and staff for the Enviro Team, and to state and national competitions in Montana and Toronto, Canada. Having seen Respondent react with both male and female students on seven- and ten-day trips, she never had a concern or received a complaint. She also knew girls on the lacrosse team and had never heard a concern reported from there. She noted that Respondent had the opportunity to be alone with students on multiple occasions, and no concerns or inappropriate behavior was ever reported. She would rehire Respondent on her staff again, if given the opportunity. Ms. Rousseau, the mother of three daughters who trained with Respondent at his CrossFit gym, also served as president of the girls’ lacrosse team booster club. She affirmed her previous letter of support for Respondent and testified about her commitment to Respondent as a trainer for her three daughters at his gym, which she said would continue. Additionally, Samantha Rousseau, Nicola’s daughter, and a full-time student at the University of Florida, confirmed her support for Respondent. While a student at MPHS, she had served as assistant captain of the girls’ lacrosse team during her senior year (2014), while Respondent was the team coach. She had known Respondent since she was a sophomore student in his Television Production class; she had traveled with Respondent to Los Angeles as part of his class; and had ridden numerous times on the team bus with Respondent. She testified that she believed Respondent would not have been involved with A.T. had he known she was a high school student. Respondent first encountered A.T. during MPHS lacrosse tryouts in late January 2016. A.T. was a junior at that time. Respondent had no further contact with A.T. until he sent her a December 12, 2016, text stating, “Hi! How was your weekend? You missed out on Saturday morning [referring to a workout designed for lacrosse players at CrossFit gym].” A.T., still a student at MPHS at the time of this text message, never replied to it. On March 15, 2017, Respondent sent another text message to A.T., stating, “Hey, what’s up? How have you been?” The remaining text messages sent by Respondent to A.T. were undated, but were sent between March 15 and their sexual encounter in late March. The text messages were sexually graphic. The messages sent by Respondent included explicit photographs, and while those sent by A.T. had explicit photographs, they were removed to protect her privacy. A.T. was a student at MPHS through December 2016. On January 12, 2017, the Miami-Dade School District conducted a conference to formulate an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for A.T. She was placed in a hospital/homebound program at that time and graduated from the virtual school in June 2017. She did not attend college during this time. Respondent never denied the one-time sexual encounter he had with A.T. On the day when the encounter took place, March 19, 2017, A.T. texted Respondent and asked if she could see him that night. A.T. was driven by a friend to Briar Bay Park where she met Respondent, who was already there and waiting for her in his car. She had sexual intercourse with him in his car. After their liaison, Respondent drove her home. A.T. and Respondent had no contact after that time. A great deal of testimony was elicited about whether Respondent texted or phoned A.T. and discussed her status as a student in March 2017. At different times during the investigation into the sexual encounter between A.T. and Respondent, he said he texted, instant messaged, or telephoned A.T. about her school. Respondent believed her to be taking courses at Miami Dade College (“MDC”) during the spring semester of 2017. In fact, she was a student at Brucie Ball Education Center (“Brucie Ball”), a virtual school where she took online courses to complete her high school education, graduating in June 2017. Respondent consistently believed, at the time of his interview by Detective Ochoa, during his deposition, and at hearing, that A.T. was in college and testified he was never told she was at Brucie Ball. A.T.’s memory is less clear. She testified she could not recall telling Respondent she was taking college courses, but there is no doubt she was enrolled at Brucie Ball during her final semester of high school and not at MDC. She remembers that she received a social media invite from Respondent to attend his CrossFit boot camp in December 2016. She recalls communicating back and forth via social media after that time, especially when Respondent texted her about missing her at boot camp. She and Respondent testified to multiple additional conversations via social media or texting, but many of those were not produced as evidence. When a three-month gap between their messaging occurred, Respondent testified that A.T. told him she had been backpacking in Africa with friends and, according to what he recalled she told him, she was taking courses at MDC. She did not recall having told him she was taking courses at MDC, but “guessed he knew” she was still a high school student because the previous year she had been a junior at MPHS. “It never came up,” she testified. While she could not recall having told Respondent she had been to Africa and was taking courses at MDC, A.T. testified she recalled many more text messages between Respondent and her that were not printed from her phone and introduced into evidence at hearing. According to A.T., she had not talked to Respondent about her upcoming 18th birthday on March 2, 2017. Yet, she invited him to the celebration at a club called “Do Not Sit on the Couch.” She also shared with him that she and her friends often visited another club called “Little Hoolies,” and invited Respondent to join them. Both of these clubs serve alcohol and are for adults over 21. Respondent did not join them at either club. A.T. did not recall any of these conversations at hearing. A.T. declined to be interviewed by Petitioner’s Professional Practices Services investigator. At hearing, she could not recall a request to be interviewed. Respondent assumed A.T. was older than 18 when they met at the park for sex, since he believed her to be taking classes at MDC; she hung out with her friends at two adult clubs; and she brought alcohol, a vapor pen, and THC oils with her when they met in the park. He did not believe this to be typical high school behavior. Respondent also believed A.T.’s absence from social media for three months before they had their encounter at the park was explained by her telling him she had been backpacking in Africa where he assumed she did not have readily available access to the Internet. He also believes this supported his understanding that A.T. was in college at that point, since three months of backpacking does not usually occur as part of a high school experience. Respondent consistently testified, from his statements to law enforcement to his appearance at hearing, that had he known A.T. was still a high school student, regardless of whether she was at the school where he taught, he would have never had an intimate relationship with her. Moreover, law enforcement never asked Respondent for his phone at the time of the investigation. After he learned A.T. had been a high school student in March 2017, when they had their one-time sexual relationship, on May 3 of that year he resigned his position as a teacher at MPHS for “personal reasons,” based upon advice he received from union representatives and an investigator, and to spare embarrassment to his school, colleagues, and family. At the time A.T. had entered into an IEP with Miami- Dade, her school was listed as South Miami Senior High School, not MPHS. This explains why Respondent never saw her again at MPHS in her final semester. There was no evidence presented that Respondent knew A.T. had not graduated from MPHS or that she had enrolled in either South Miami High School or Brucie Ball when she did not return to MPHS for the spring semester of 2017. Respondent’s assertion that he was unaware of A.T., an 18-year-old, still being in high school at the time of their March 2017 encounter, along with his cooperation with the investigation and admission at all times pertinent to it that he had a sexual relationship with A.T., renders his testimony more credible than A.T.’s concerning what Respondent knew about her status as a student. No evidence was produced that Respondent ever had an improper relationship with A.T. while she was under the age of 18. A.T.’s lack of candor and lack of cooperation with Detective Ochoa, the investigator on the case, as well as her incomplete memory of the various text messages with Respondent bring into question her truth and veracity when testifying against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 23rd day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner's, Orange County School Board, suspension without pay of Razzi Lee Smith from his position of classroom teacher is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing briefs and memoranda, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During times material to the allocations herein, Respondent, Razzi Lee Smith, was employed by the Petitioner, School Board of Orange County, Florida, as a classroom teacher at Rock Lake Elementary School. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay from his position as a teacher pending a hearing. Respondent requested a hearing pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 120.57(1) and 231.36, Florida Statutes (1979). The charges upon which the suspension is based are, in summary fashion, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office. The specific charges are based upon the following grounds: On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent twice refused a lawful and reasonable order of his Principal. On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent threatened his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent evidenced in the presence of others, a continuing belligerent and hostile attitude towards his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent failed to follow the established written procedures for calling in if he was to be late or not present. 5. On September 2, 19, 22, 24 and 25, 1980, Respondent failed to report to the school by 8:00 o'clock a.m. as required in the Faculty Handbook. Additionally, Respondent was charged with misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty based upon the following grounds: On August 29, 1980, Respondent was absent from his assigned work location at Rock Lake Elementary School. On September 12, 1980, Respondent took sick leave for one half day claiming that he was too sick to finish the school day at Rock Lake Elementary School but later attended a football game in Tampa, Florida. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave claiming to be too sick to teach at Rock Lake Elementary School but attended football practice at Jones High School as a coach. On September 26, 1980, Respondent provided the Superintendent with a false oral statement, to wit, that he did not leave to go to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, until approximately 7:00 o'clock p.m., arriving at the game around half time at 8:30 p.m., when in fact Ice left to go to the game with the Jones High School football team. Lois Begley has been the acting principal at Rock Lake Elementary School since approximately February, 1980. Upon assuming the duties of acting principal, Ms. Begley immediately advised teachers at Rock Lake to report for work at 8:00 o'clock a.m. and leave at 3:30 p.m. Petitioner has a policy whereby teachers who find it necessary to be absent must report such intentions by 6:30 a.m. by notifying either Ms. Begley or an office employee at Rock Lake, Caroline Johnson. Respondent was advised of this policy; was warned of his breach of said policy on two occasions during February and March of 1980, and admitted that he was aware of the policy. (Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5) Ms. Begley stressed the need to know of a teacher's intended absence prior to 7:00 o'clock a.m. in order to recruit a substitute teacher. Subsequent to March, 1980, Respondent was again advised of Petitioner's policy respecting timely reporting for duty at Rock Lake Elementary School. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6) During a faculty meeting held during the afternoon of the last day of preplanning, August 29, 1980, Ms. Begley observed that Respondent was not present. She inquired of Respondent's whereabouts and was advised by an office employee that Respondent had called and reported that he was experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley observed Respondent at Jones High School later that same afternoon. During the last week of August, 1980, Respondent advised Ms. Begley that he had been leaving Rock Lake approximately one hour early each day during the preplanning week to assume coaching duties at Jones High and that this was cleared prior to Ms. Begley's tenure as acting principal at Rock Lake. Ms. Begley reluctantly agreed to Respondent's early departure during that school year, however, she made clear to Respondent that he would be expected to teach a full day the following year. Respondent and Ms. Begley made an agreement whereby he would report to work one half hour early, i.e., at 7:30 a.m., in order to make up for one half of the time lost due to his early departure from Rock Lake to coach at Jones High School. Respondent failed to report for duty at 7:30 a.m. as was his agreement with Ms. Begley. September 2, 1980, was the first school day for students at Rock Lake. Respondent reported for work at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980, and several students were observed milling around in the hallways attempting to find Respondent to enter their homeroom class. Respondent called the office at Rock Lake at approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 2, and advised that he was again experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley offered to assist Respondent in getting a ride to school. Within minutes, Ms. Begley had located a ride for Respondent. Ms. Begley called to so advise Respondent, whereupon Respondent told Ms. Begley that he had found a ride. As stated, Respondent reported for duty at 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980. Ms. Begley counselled Respondent regarding his claimed transportation problems again and stressed the reasons for her need to be alerted when he would be reporting late for work. Respondent generally discussed his problems with Ms. Begley on September 12, indicating that he was encountering personal problems that he did not care to divulge and that there were rumors about him being circulated around the school amongst other faculty members. Ms. Begley later discussed the problem regarding that fact that he had failed to make up 150 of the 300 minutes that he owed the School due to his early departure to coach at Jones High Sclcool during the week of preplanning. Ms. Begley did not take disciplinary action against Respondent due to his lateness in reporting for duty on the first day of school. Respondent requested the services of a substitute teacher to "fill in" for him during the afternoon of September 12, 1980, because he was ill. Respondent initially refused to divulge to school officials the nature of his illness. He attended and coached a football game between Jones High School and a local high school in Tampa that night. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. As late as 8:30 a.m. on that day, several students were unable to get in class and Respondent failed to call to advise Ms. Begley or the designated official that he would report for work late. When questioned as to the reason for his tardiness by Ms. Begley, Respondent replied that he had earlier advised her that he was having transportation problems. Ms. Begley again counselled Respondent regarding his continued tardiness in reporting to work. At that time, he was also directed not to use school supplies to photocopy football plays for use at Jones High School without proper authorization. On September 19, office aides, Ann Green and W. Oliver, work situs was in the immediate area where Respondent was counselled by Ms. Begley and were in earshot of the conversations. Respondent balked and became vocal about being counselled by Ms. Begley for reporting late. Ms. Begley reported the incident to Dr. Skaggs, Superintendent in charge of employee relations and Ron Blocker, Area Superintendent, who serves as a liaison between the superintendent and individual school principals. During the conference with Ms. Begley on September 19, Respondent voiced displeasure about the working conditions at Rock Lake and expressed a desire to transfer when Ms. Begley reported what she termed to be threatening remarks by Respondent to Dr. Skaggs. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. and was summoned for a conference with Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. During the conference, Respondent expressed disagreement or displeasure regarding the atmosphere in which he was being questioned and indicated that he preferred to leave. Respondent was warned of the consequences that might flow from his acts and conduct which could include either disciplinary action by way of a suspension or a failure to be reappointed for another term should he not heed the advice and warnings given him by his Principal, Ms. Begley. 2/ On September 22, 1980, Respondent reported for duty at approximately 8:14 a.m. Respondent did not call to advise Ms. Begley or the other designated official. Ms. Begley spoke to Respondent about his reporting tardy at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 22, 1980. Present during the conference were Respondent, Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. Respondent was invited to offer and explanation or statement with reference to his continued pattern of reporting for duty late, however, he refused to make any verbal response. Ms. Begley reduced the oral reprimand to writing and delivered it to Respondent who failed to accept or verify that he was issued a reprimand. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave and, therefore, did not report for work at Rock Lake. On that same day, however, Ms. Begley observed respondent at the football field at Jones High School between the hours of 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. working with a small group of football players. On the following day, September 24, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:07 a.m. Ms. Begley summoned Respondent to a conference, explaining to him at the outset of the possible consequences that might result from the conference. Given the gravity of the possible consequences, Ms. Begley inquired if Respondent cared to bring a witness or other representatives to be present with him during the conference. During the conference, Ms. Begley advised Respondent that she regreted having to give him a written reprimand but that his acts and conduct gave her no alternative. A copy of a reprimand was then given Respondent which he refused to sign acknowledging acceptance (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). The parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that written reprimands respecting lateness or failure to report for work be documented by a letter to that effect (Petitioner's exhibits Nos. 8 and 9). Ms. Begley, then, during the conference, asked Respondent if she could be of any further assistance to him, whereupon, Respondent in a hostile manner advised that he did not need or want any assistance and began pointing his finger at Ms. Begley telling her to "leave him alone." Respondent was told by Ms. Begley that that kind of conduct (vocal and belligerent outbursts) could result in disciplinary action to him. Ms. Begley inquired of Respondent what type leave he took on September 23, 1980, whereupon, Respondent advised that he went to see a doctor. Ms. Begley then asked Respondent to provide her with a doctor's statement to document that claim. Respondent never provided Ms. Begley with a medical excuse for his absence as requested. Ms. Begley considered that Respondent's demeanor and mannerism during the conference of September 24, 1980, constituted a threat based on the tone of his voice and the message, i.e., "quit messing with me. Stop bothering me--I'll do more than threaten you" (when Ms. Begley asked Respondent if he was threatening her). She also considered that Respondent's failure to signify acceptance of the reprimand constituted a compromise of her authority. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, pages 22, 23). Respondent later discussed the decision to discipline Respondent and ultimately decided to recommend his dismissal to Superintendent Skaggs and Area Superintendent Blocker during the evening of September 25, 1980. The possibility of a transfer was considered by Ms. Begley but rejected inasmuch as she was of the opinion that a transfer would not serve any useful purpose in correcting the problems evidenced by Respondent's erratic work habits. Ms. Begley considered that her attempt to reprimand Respondent was ineffective and incomplete based on his refusal to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the reprimand plus the combination of the insubordinate attitude displayed by him in the presence of his peers, his neglect of duty and tardiness in reporting for work, when combined, warranted a recommendation to the Superintendent that Respondent be dismissed as opposed to a transfer or some other lesser form of reprimand or discipline. Ron Blocker, the area administrator and liaison between the Superintendent and the Principal were summoned to Rock Lake Elementary School to assist Ms. Begley in what was once thought to be a possible teacher resignation. During the conference on September 24, 1980, Administrator Blocker advised Respondent that his failure to sign for receipt of a written reprimand could have grave disciplinary consequences in view of the gravity of the charges and Respondent's hostile conduct as manifested throughout the conference. Administrator Blocker recalled the forceful tone used by Respondent in telling Ms. Begley that he was "doing more than threatening her." Administrator Blocker also recalled Respondent's refusal to advise Begley of the reason for his absence the day prior to the conference indicating instead that she would know at the end of the work day. During the conference, Administrator Blocker recalled that he twice cautioned Respondent that his (Respondent's) refusal to follow an administrative directive may be interpreted as "gross insubordination" which could lead to possible termination or failure to be reappointed (as a teacher) the following school year. Calvin Perry is Director of Drivers Education and is the head football coach at Jones High School. As head football coach, Coach Perry is familiar with the duties of Respondent, a paid assistant coach assigned to coach the defensive team at Jones High School. Coach Perry confirmed that Respondent was present at the September 12, 1980, game in Tampa indicating that Respondent was present during the pre-warm ups and was present throughout the entire game. Coach Perry credibly testified that Respondent was present for football practice on September 23, 1980, having reported at the start of practice at approximately 3:00 p.m. and remained throughout the practice session which lasted until approxiately 5:15 p.m. However, Coach Perry also acknowledged that Respondent indicated that Respondent was ill at the game in Tampa. James L. Schott, Petitioner's Superintendent was shown copies of the letters sent to Respondent bearing the dates September 26, and October 4, 1980, respecting his suspension of Respondent without pay. Superintendent Schott explained that a conference was called to hear the nature of the charges; to hear both sides; to evaluate the evidence and determine the nature of, if any, recommended penalty he would make to the School Board, prior to making any recommendation based on the subject charges. Superintendent Schott recalled that while Respondent explained that he was ill on September 12, 1980, he was able to attend a football game in Tampa although he arrived during halftime because he was not feeling well and was uncertain as to whether he would attend the game at all. Respondent maintained his "story" to Superintendent Schott about attending the Tampa game during halftime. When Respondent advised Superintendent Schott that he also took sick leave on September 23, 1980, Superintendent Schott reminded Respondent of the similar situation by him on September 12, and, therefore, asked that he bring any documentary evidence of illness that he had so that it could be considered prior to his making any decision on the pending charges against him. Therefore, Superintendent Schott counselled Respondent regarding his failure to follow what he considered to have been lawful and reasonable requests regarding his attendance and timely reporting to work. During the Superintendent's conference with Respondent on September 26, 1980, he determined that Respondent was late approximately 50 minutes on September 19; approximately 14 minutes on September 20th and several minutes late on September 21 and 22. On September 23, respondent was absent for work claiming sick leave. According to Superintendent Schott, Respondent acknowledged that he might have made a threat to Ms. Begley during the conference on September 24, 1980. Superintendent Schott was able to independently determine from an investigation of the charges that Respondent had offered false information regarding his attendance to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, inasmuch as other credible evidence indicated Respondent's presence at that game throughout its entirety. After considerable deliberation, Superintendent Schott determined that termination was the only appropriate remedy that he should recommend to the full School Board to discipline Respondent. In making this decision, Superintendent Schott reflected on the facts that Respondent had obviously been terminated for failure to report to work as assigned and that to transfer Respondent would merely pass the problem to another Administrator to grapple with. Superintendent Schott, after much consideration, made the decision to recommend Respondent's termination without animosity and with much sensitivity to the problem based on the rapport that Respondent appeared to have with the youth and his peers at Rock Lake Elementary School. Superintendent Schott offered that teaching was more by example than by class room actions and that the responsibility of a teacher included getting to work promptly and was more than the usual duties expected once a teacher gets to class such as adding columns, deciphering words, reading etc. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent is a 1975 graduate of South Carolina State College and as stated, has been employed as a sixth grade teacher at Rock lake since the 1979- 80 school year. While so employed, Respondent has been involved in several school related activities outside his normal teaching duties, including Chairman of the Student Council; contact or liaison for Career Education; Chairman of the Safety Patrol; Scout leader and CTA representative. 3/ Respondent admits to not returning for duty on August 29, 1980, as charged. However, he exclaimed that he encountered car trouble enroute to his mother's home for lunch and consequently had to walk a distance of approximately two miles. Respondent also reported late for duty on September 2, due to transportation problems and did not arrive until approximately 8:45 a.m. Respondent also left school on September 12, 1990, at approximately 12:50 p.m. due to illness. Respondent admitted that he attended the game in Tampa on the evening of September 12, 1980. Respondent explains that this was possible because his health improved from the nauseated condition that he had suffered earlier during the day. Respondent rode to the game in Tampa with scouting coaches Smith and Robertson and arrived at the stadium in time for program warm-ups. 4/ Respondent also admitted reporting for work late on September 19 and 22, 1980. Respondent refused to sign a statement acknowledging acceptance of the written reprimand by Ms. Begley on September 24, 1980, based on his claimed "lack of trust" for Ms. Begley. In this regard, however, Respondent admits that Ms. Begley explained to him that signing the statement attached to the reprimand in no way signified agreement with the contents of the reprimand. Respondent claimed to have felt pressured to tell the Superintendent that he left Orlando at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the evening of September 12, 1980, and arrived at the game at halftime but that there was no willful attempt by him to misstate or otherwise misrepresent the facts to Superintendent Schott. The facts do not evidence a basis for Respondent's feeling. In this regard, Respondent admitted that he arrived at the game on September 12, 1980, before it started and remained for the duration of the game. Respondent did not verbally respond to inquiries by Ms. Begley during the conference with Ms. Begley and Area Superintendent Blocker because he considered Ms Begley's inquiry to be a form of harassment and an attempt by her to treat him as a "child." Finally, Respondent considered that by telling Ms. Begley that he was initially experiencing transportation problems excused his reporting requirements when he subsequently reported for work late.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be dismissed as an instructional employee of the Orange County School System. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 27, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: General Findings Respondent, Robert A. Pringle, Jr., holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 720759, covering the areas of mathematics and physical education, which is valid through June 30, 2005. Mr. Pringle has a bachelor's degree in education from Maryville College in Maryville, Tennessee. Mr. Pringle played baseball at Maryville College for five years and coached baseball for two semesters at the college. In 1993, immediately after graduating from Maryville College, Mr. Pringle was employed as a mathematics and physical education teacher at Riverdale High School ("Riverdale") in the Lee County School District (the "District"). Mr. Pringle's employment as a teacher at Riverdale has continued uninterrupted since 1993. For the past eight years, Mr. Pringle has served as Riverdale's head baseball coach. He has been Riverdale's golf coach since 2000. Mr. Pringle has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against his license. The precipitating event for the allegations in this case was the varsity baseball tryout in January 2002. During Mr. Pringle's tenure as head coach, the Riverdale baseball team had progressed from a perennial losing program to a contender for the state championship in Class 3A. Competition was fierce for the 16 available spots on the team. In some years, as many as 100 boys would try out for the team. In January 2002, 38 players participated in the three-day tryout. Mr. Pringle testified that, though the number of players trying out was lower than in some previous seasons, the quality of the players was quite high, and he knew that the cuts would be hard to make. There were 25 players trying out who had played for the Riverdale varsity or junior varsity teams, in the autumn "wooden bat" league, or for local summer or AAU teams. In 2001, there had been many complaints from the disappointed parents of players who failed to make the cut. Before the 2002 tryouts, Mr. Pringle warned the Riverdale administrators to expect another round of complaints, because he fully expected that some good players would be cut. The varsity tryouts were conducted from Monday, January 14, through Wednesday, January 16, 2002. Players were allowed to choose the positions for which they wanted to be considered. At the tryouts, the coaches assessed each player on the basis of the "five tools" of baseball: hitting for average; hitting for power; running speed; arm strength; and fielding ability. The five tools are the accepted standard for rating baseball players. Running speed was measured via a timed 60-yard dash. Arm strength was measured by timing a throw from 120 feet away for infielders and 220 feet away for outfielders, commencing from the point at which the ball touched the fielder's glove to the point at which the ball touched the receiver's glove. Two coaches would time each dash or throw to ensure accuracy. Fielding was assessed by coaches on a one-to-five scale. One coach would hit to the fielders while two others stood to the side observing. Hitting and pitching were also graded on a one-to-five scale, with several coaches observing and comparing notes to arrive at a consensus rating. The Riverdale coaches conducting the tryouts included Mr. Pringle, assistant varsity coach Justin Cook, and junior varsity coach Cliff Trosterud. They were assisted at the tryout by Tommy Watkins, Jason Guy, and Ryan Carter, all of whom play professional baseball at the minor league level, as well as Casey Brock, a former college player who assists with the junior varsity pitchers at Riverdale. Mr. Pringle posted the results of the tryouts on the door of his classroom on the morning of Thursday, January 17, 2002. Among the players who did not make the varsity team were twin brothers Willard and Chris Truckenmiller, Curtis Rine, and Tyler Caruthers. All of these boys were juniors who had played junior varsity baseball the previous year, though mostly in a backup capacity. Mr. Pringle testified that all of these boys had the ability to play high school baseball, but that the talent level on the 2002 Riverdale team was extraordinarily high and they were simply not good enough to make that team. During a change of classes on the morning of January 17, 2002, Curtis Rine entered Mr. Pringle's classroom at Riverdale. Curtis was very upset at not making the cut. He yelled at Mr. Pringle that he did not need to be on his team, that he could transfer to Bishop Verot High School (a private Catholic school in Fort Myers) and play baseball for them. Mr. Pringle did not report this incident because Curtis did not use profanity or otherwise do anything that merited discipline; he was "just a kid . . . upset that he was cut from the baseball team." On the evening of January 17, 2002, Mr. Pringle conducted varsity practice at the Riverdale baseball field. Chris Stevens, a deputy with the Lee County Sheriff's Department assigned as Riverdale's school resource officer, was in the parking lot outside the baseball field. Richard Shafer, Riverdale's principal, had informed Deputy Stevens that there were parents disgruntled about the baseball cuts and asked Deputy Stevens to stay near the baseball field to make sure Mr. Pringle was safe. Deputy Stevens noticed Kim Caruthers, the mother of Tyler Caruthers, in the parking lot with Tyler's father. Deputy Stevens approached Mr. Pringle on the baseball field and told him that Ms. Caruthers was apparently waiting to talk with him. Mr. Pringle told Deputy Stevens that he would talk to her and attempt to explain the situation regarding the baseball cuts. Mr. Pringle testified that as soon as he came near her, Ms. Caruthers began yelling and "calling me every name in the book" in a profane harangue. She said that "I hurt her son and now she was going to hurt me." Deputy Stevens concurred that Ms. Caruthers was very angry and became more agitated as the conversation went on, until she "start[ed] to boil" and repeatedly threatened that Mr. Pringle was "going to go down." Deputy Stevens told Ms. Caruthers more than once that she needed to calm down. Deputy Stevens testified that Mr. Pringle maintained a calm, professional demeanor throughout Ms. Caruthers' rant and tried repeatedly to explain the tryout process to her. After about ten minutes, Ms. Caruthers began to walk away from Mr. Pringle, then turned around and spat at Mr. Pringle. The spit landed on Mr. Pringle's shoe. Deputy Stevens told Ms. Caruthers to leave.2 Deputy Stevens told Mr. Pringle that the spitting could be construed as battery and that he had the right to press charges. At the time, Mr. Pringle saw no need to press charges. Mr. Shafer, the Riverdale principal, testified that Ms. Caruthers had been generous to the school. Among other donations, she had offered $35,000 to support the baseball program. On January 17, 2002, the same date as her confrontation with Mr. Pringle, Ms. Caruthers showed up at a school open house and told Mr. Shafer that she would not give the money to Riverdale and would take her money to a school that wanted her son. Mr. Pringle testified that matters with Ms. Caruthers did not end on the evening of January 17, 2002. Over the next three weeks, she repeatedly made threatening phone calls. She would come to the baseball field and yell at Mr. Pringle. She came into the school and shouted at him in the hallways. She threatened to circulate flyers labeling Mr. Pringle a "pervert" and a "rapist." Tiring of the harassment, Mr. Pringle filed a complaint for misdemeanor battery against Ms. Caruthers on February 6, 2002. He testified that he hoped that pressing charges would lead to entry of a restraining order that would keep Ms. Caruthers away from him. Eventually, the state attorney declined to prosecute the matter. On February 18, 2002, Tom and Mary Rine, the parents of Curtis Rine, met with Mr. Pringle, Mr. Shafer, Riverdale athletic director Boyd Gruhn, and assistant principal Don Trelease. Both Mr. Shafer and Mr. Trelease recalled that the gist of the meeting involved the Rines' contention that their son should be on the varsity baseball team. Mr. Shafer told the Rines that he had seen the scores on the cut list, looked at the quality of the people who judged the players, and concluded that the tryout had been conducted fairly and competently. At this point, the Rines launched into a series of personal allegations against Mr. Pringle. Their chief accusation concerned a story their son Curtis had told them about a bus trip to a baseball game in Miami the previous season. They alleged that on the trip back from Miami, Mr. Pringle and the other coaches went around the bus asking the players if they wanted to accompany them to "Lookers," a strip club in Fort Myers. The Rines also alleged that Mr. Pringle "always" had a dip in his mouth at games and practices,3 and that he freely used profanity in the presence of his players. Mr. Shafer asked the Rines why they would want their son to play on a team where such inappropriate behavior was occurring. The Rines responded that Mr. Pringle was a successful coach. Ms. Rine testified that at this meeting, Mr. Pringle admitted that he chewed tobacco on the field, but never when there was a student around. If he was on the field on the weekend, or during the school day when no students were present, he would use tobacco, but would take it out if anyone else approached. Ms. Rine also testified that Mr. Pringle admitted to using improper language with students, including the term "blow job." Mr. Pringle testified that he did not admit to using tobacco on the baseball field. He did admit to using tobacco away from the school and stated that his life away from the school was his own business unless he did something to embarrass Riverdale. Mr. Pringle testified that he did admit to using the term "blow job" once in a conversation with his players and expressed regret that he did not employ the term "oral sex" or some other more clinical term. Mr. Pringle explained that late in the 2000 baseball season, five Riverdale athletes, including one member of the baseball team, were facing charges for having received oral sex from an underaged female. Later, there was coverage of the matter in the local newspapers and on television news, but when the charges first arose, neither Mr. Pringle nor his players knew anything other than that the player did not show up for practice and that rumors were flying around the school. Mr. Pringle was called into the principal's office and the matter was explained to him. He then met with his players to explain the situation and gauge the team's reaction. He told his players that no decision had been made whether the player would be expelled from school or even suspended from the baseball team, and he wanted to ensure that the other players would react appropriately should their teammate later show up to play. It was a delicate situation, and Mr. Pringle wanted to be sure his players understood the facts. He used the term "blow job" in explaining what happened, because he thought that was a term the players would understand. At the meeting with the Rines, he conceded that it was a poor choice of words. Mr. Trelease confirmed Mr. Pringle's version of the discussion regarding tobacco. Mr. Pringle stated that he was a tobacco user, but he leaves his tobacco in the car and never has it on his person when he is at school. Mr. Trelease did not recall the details of the profanity discussion because it was such a minor part of the overall meeting. He stated that the Rines spent most of the meeting talking about their allegations of misbehavior on the bus trip back from Miami. Mr. Pringle's version of the discussion at the meeting with the Rines is credited. There is no essential conflict between his version and that of Ms. Rine as to the profanity discussion. They both recalled Mr. Pringle's admitting to using the term "blow job." Ms. Rine simply leapt to the conclusion that this constituted a broader admission than Mr. Pringle intended. As to the tobacco discussion, Mr. Pringle's version is supported by the credible testimony of Mr. Trelease. On Tuesday, January 28, 2002, a group of parents including Terry and Dani Truckenmiller, Mary Rine, Kim Caruthers, and the father of Sean Fox (a 2002 Riverdale graduate who had played golf for Mr. Pringle and who had failed to make the varsity baseball team as a junior) met with Mr. Shafer and Doug Whittaker, the director of curriculum for the District. Mr. Shafer testified that these parents voiced allegations that Mr. Pringle constantly used tobacco on school property, used profanity in the presence of students, and indulged in sexual innuendo with and about female students. Mr. Shafer stated that it was clear to him these parents not only wanted Mr. Pringle fired, but wanted his teaching certificate revoked. On January 29, 2002, the Truckenmillers filed a written complaint with the District. Mr. Pringle was immediately suspended from his coaching duties, though not his teaching duties, and the District commenced an investigation into the parents' allegations. Bill Shoap, the District's coordinator of personnel services, conducted the investigation. In his investigative report, Mr. Shoap framed the issues as follows: The allegations are as follows: Whether Robert Pringle ever used tobacco products on school district property during baseball practice and game times; whether he ever used profanity in front of team members; and whether he ever communicated sexual innuendo towards students. Mr. Shoap described the investigation as follows: A total of forty-nine [sic] witness statements were received regarding this investigation. Approximately 27 concerned parents, past co-workers and community members submitted letters of support for Robert Pringle, describing him as a positive role model and dedicated coach, as well as an effective teacher. Each of the 16 members of the Riverdale Varsity Baseball team (acting as witnesses) signed a letter which specifically refutes the three allegations being made against Mr. Pringle. This investigation also takes into account additional information provided by those who have worked near or along the side of Mr. Pringle, as well as those who have made the allegations . . . . Mr. Shoap submitted his investigative report to the District on February 11, 2002. On February 12, 2002, a pre-determination conference was held to allow Mr. Pringle to respond to the allegations. John Hennebery, the District's coordinator for professional standards presided over the conference, which was also attended by the District's staff attorney and a recording secretary. Mr. Pringle denied every allegation. He admitted that he does use dip, but stated that he has never done so on school grounds or at any school function, including baseball practices and games. He stated that on occasion he might have muttered the word "damn" or "hell" to a fellow coach in the dugout and that a player conceivably could have overheard, but that he had never otherwise used profanity in front of students. After reviewing the investigative report and considering Mr. Pringle's statements, Mr. Hennebery determined that there was no probable cause to proceed further in the matter and that no disciplinary action should be taken against Mr. Pringle. Mr. Hennebery testified that the allegations simply could not be substantiated. He noted that Florida High School Athletic Association ("FHSAA") rules prohibit chewing tobacco, and that no one had ever been ejected from a Riverdale baseball game for that offense. He also noted that Mr. Pringle had been accused of "cussing out" the entire team and offering trips to a strip club to a charter bus full of students, yet only a few students, none of whom included current members of the baseball team, and no coaches claimed to have witnessed these acts. In sum, Mr. Hennebery concluded that the witnesses supporting Mr. Pringle were more credible than his accusers. Mr. Pringle's suspension was lifted on February 14, 2002. At about the same time, someone filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Practices Services of the Department, which assigned Shellie White to investigate on behalf of the Department. It is noted that there was confusion at the hearing as to who filed the complaint with the Department and dispute as to the manner in which Ms. White conducted her investigation. Mr. Pringle alleged that Ms. White purposely neglected to interview any witnesses possessing exculpatory information. This allegation was lent some support by the testimony of Jason Scott, a social studies teacher at Riverdale. Mr. Scott stated that Ms. White commenced an interview with him, then stopped it after five minutes and never contacted him again. It is also noted that the Department chose not to elicit testimony from Ms. White or anyone else involved in its investigation of Mr. Pringle and chose not to clarify the question as to who filed the complaint against Mr. Pringle.4 On September 27, 2002, the Department issued its finding of probable cause and the Administrative Complaint described in the Preliminary Statement above. Terry Truckenmiller Terry Truckenmiller is the father of the twins, Willard and Chris, who were cut from the varsity team in January 2002. Of all the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Department, Mr. Truckenmiller was the most vociferous accuser. He was also the least believable. For the sake of orderly presentation, Mr. Truckenmiller's testimony is treated separately at the outset, so that the Findings of Fact in Sections III through VI below may deal with those witnesses possessing some level of credibility. In a statement provided to Ms. White, the Department's investigator, Mr. Truckenmiller wrote: In the 5 years I have known Mr. Pringle it is comman [sic] knowledge from students, staff & parents that he chews tabacco [sic] & swears every moment at school. It is comman [sic] knowledge of his sexual conduct and actions with minor girls. He has taken his players to "strip clubs" many times and supplied them with alcohol on a weekly basis. I repeat this is not an allegation-- it is FACT. Mr. Shafer (the Principle)[sic] knew of this and probably many more, that he has "sweeped [sic] under the rug." This all started when a friend of Mr. Pringle who was the wrestling coach here at Riverdale asked my son if he was having sex with his girl-friend [sic] & did she like to swallow. With her brother on the team the info got back to her mom and she brought it to Mr. Shafer's attention and the word was put around school that this family was trouble-makers. This was done from the staff at Riverdale. When this was brought forward my sons were starting QB & running back in football, starting catcher (1 son) & starting shortstop (other son). It also maybe [sic] noted that Mr. Pringle picked & told me how great my boys are & would be for Riverdale-- they would start & play full-time over the boys that are now on the team playing. He would tell us how much "better" the boys were than the others. Why did this change? I coached in high school for football, baseball and took softball teams to the state finals. I know all these kids & their talents, since I've been coaching in Lee County for over 25 years. I also know my boys are not the best on the team, but they were chosen by another high school coach who took the best 15 boys in the whole county to the national finals! Top 15 in county, but not top 15 in their local school? There must be a reason-- there is [sic] you come forward and your family gets dumped on by the staff at school. My boys had teachers come up to them and tell them to watch their backs the staff said they will get them. The "good ole boy" network at Riverdale starts with Mr. Shafer and Mr. Gruhn the athletic director, the assistant principles [sic] and athletic coaches and staff hide and alter records to please their need. Were [sic] also told if we did not go forward with our complaints that our boys grades would be "fixed" to suit us. 40 yr. old men do not ask high school kids if they "swallow", are they "easy to lay", what positions they like, who and when they have "slept with". This investigation has been in the hands of administrators for 2 yrs., we have been continualy [sic] lied too [sic] & decieved [sic] by them. What Mr. Pringle has done is wrong! If he were not a teacher he would be in prison. Our kids need role models that know right from wrong. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. May the Lord be with you always. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller stood by everything in the above statement. Thus, Mr. Truckenmiller swore that: Mr. Pringle chewed tobacco and swore continually at school; Mr. Pringle took students to strip clubs; Mr. Pringle provided alcohol to students every week; Mr. Pringle made lewd remarks to female students and possibly even had sexual relations with them; and the entire Riverdale administrative staff, from Mr. Shafer down, was made aware of Mr. Pringle's actions and conspired to cover up his activities, going so far as to offer bribes in the way of altered grades to the Truckenmillers in exchange for their silence. The statement also implies, in an echo of the Rines' meeting with Mr. Shafer, that Mr. Truckenmiller nonetheless wanted his sons to play varsity baseball on Mr. Pringle's team. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller testified that, unlike Mr. Pringle, "I don't believe in abusing children . . . If a man wants to take kids to strip clubs and talk sexual innuendo with kids and ask them some of the things that he asks them, it's just totally inappropriate. You do not go up to a 16 year old girl and ask her if she swallows." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he had witnessed Mr. Pringle "curse and swear" hundreds of times at practices and games. He stated that it was "a continuous thing," that Mr. Pringle cursed, swore, and degraded players every three minutes. Mr. Pringle used the words "shit," "piss," "damn," "hell," and "God damn," among others. He used the word "fuck" "numerous, numerous, numerous times." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he saw Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco "basically every day for three years." Mr. Truckenmiller stated that he heard Mr. Pringle ask about a girl "swallowing" during a baseball practice with the entire team present. No other witness recalled this incident, and, when pressed during cross-examination, Mr. Truckenmiller could not name anyone else present who might confirm his story. Mr. Truckenmiller testified that he has heard 70 to 80 different people talk about the "fact" that Mr. Pringle takes students to strip clubs. He also heard "the boys" discussing the fact that Mr. Pringle supplied them with alcoholic beverages. No other witness confirmed these "facts." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that it was Mr. Shafer, the principal of Riverdale, who offered to "fix" his sons' grades in exchange for dropping his complaint. At the hearing, Mr. Shafer was shown Mr. Truckenmiller's written statement. Mr. Shafer credibly denied the allegation that he covered up anything regarding this matter and was visibly offended that such allegations were made against him. Mr. Shafer testified that none of the accusations against Mr. Pringle came forward until after the 2002 varsity baseball cuts. The administration spread nothing about the Truckenmillers being "troublemakers" and no one "dumped" on that family. He absolutely denied that anyone at Riverdale altered records or made any sort of offer to "fix" the Truckenmiller boys' grades. Mr. Shafer did recall that Ms. Caruthers had made such an offer to him, i.e., she would drop her complaint if her son were placed on the varsity baseball team and that he declined even to discuss the matter with her. In a letter dated January 18, 2002, Ms. Caruthers alleged that her son was cut from the baseball team in retaliation for an alleged incident between Tyler Caruthers and Dr. Christine Dollinger, an assistant principal at Riverdale. The allegations themselves are irrelevant and so absurd on their face that they do not merit discussion here. However, the story culminated in a scene in which Dr. Dollinger begged Ms. Caruthers not to report the incident and offered to change Tyler's grade in Spanish class in exchange for Ms. Caruthers' silence. Ms. Dollinger credibly testified at the hearing that Ms. Caruthers' letter was "offensive" and "full of lies" and that no such incident ever occurred. While no direct link was established, the similarity between Ms. Caruthers' story and that of Mr. Truckenmiller is notable enough to suggest that the former may have inspired the latter. At the hearing, Mr. Truckenmiller adamantly denied ever coordinating with Ms. Caruthers or any other parents regarding the complaints against Mr. Pringle. However, Mary Rine admitted attending such a meeting with the Truckenmillers. She denied that Mr. Pringle was the subject of the meeting, but conceded that "Bob's name probably did come up" in connection with a discussion about the laxity of the Riverdale administration in "taking care of problems when they had them." Mr. Truckenmiller also denied contacting Sean Fox about his testimony in this proceeding and claimed not to know if his wife or sons had done so. Sean Fox testified that the Truckenmillers persistently phoned and e-mailed him, both at home and while he was away at college in North Carolina in the Fall of 2002. Mr. Fox stated: "They wanted to know what I knew, kind of as their inside man, if you want to say that, since I played around [Mr. Pringle] and with him for golf and baseball, and wanted to know anything I knew." Mr. Truckenmiller testified that neither he nor his wife had ever caused any trouble or conflict while their sons played Little League baseball. Several witnesses testified to the contrary. Fred Burson, a former junior varsity baseball coach at Riverdale, a ten-year district administrator for Little League, and a witness for the Department, testified that the Truckenmillers have a "long, storied history of causing trouble." He did not know Mr. Truckenmiller well, but has known Mrs. Truckenmiller for a long time, and stated that she has caused trouble at every level of baseball in which her children have participated. Mr. Burson testified that he would never be a part of anything the Truckenmillers were involved in. Justin Cook, the assistant varsity baseball coach at Riverdale, coached both Truckenmiller boys in Little League. He testified that Mr. and Mrs. Truckenmiller complained to him about their sons' positions, then took their complaint to the Little League officials when they were dissatisfied with his response. Fred Barker is the parent of a Riverdale varsity baseball player and a coach in the autumn "wooden bat league." He has coached both Truckenmiller boys. He testified that the Truckenmillers perpetually complained about the coaching if their children did not play where and when the Truckenmillers thought was proper. Elizabeth Parrish was player agent for the Little League, and her husband was the president of the Little League during the years when the Truckenmiller children played at that level. She testified that Mr. Truckenmiller was required to step down as an assistant coach in the Little League for telling a player he would "whip his ass" if the player didn't do as he was told. Diane Byrus' son, Greg, played one year of junior varsity and three years of varsity baseball for Mr. Pringle at Riverdale, and he was a contemporary of the Truckenmillers throughout their youth's baseball careers. Ms. Byrus testified that in 2001, when Greg was playing catcher for the varsity squad, the Truckenmillers told her that Greg was no good and that Mr. Pringle should make their son the starting catcher. Ms. Byrus had observed both Mr. and Mrs. Truckenmiller coach in the Little League and stated that she would not let either of them coach her son because of the way they treated the children. Mr. Truckenmiller was "very obnoxious" on the field, cursing in front of the players, even saying the word "fuck" while coaching teenagers. Mrs. Truckenmiller was belligerent and constantly belittled other peoples' children. Ms. Byrus did not want her children to be around the Truckenmillers. The above findings are sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Truckenmiller was a wholly unreliable witness, and his testimony has been disregarded as the basis for any finding of fact in this case. In his witness statement, Mr. Truckenmiller gathered every available scrap of hearsay and rumor about Mr. Pringle, magnified it, and presented it as "fact." For example, rumors that Mr. Pringle once suggested a trip to a strip club (discussed in Section V, supra) became, in Mr. Truckenmiller's telling, the "fact" that Mr. Pringle regularly smuggled underaged high school students into such places. Other accusations, such as Mr. Pringle's giving alcohol to students, were not even alleged by any other witness. To the Department's credit, its Administrative Complaint did not include Mr. Truckenmiller's wilder accusations regarding strip club attendance and providing alcohol to players, or his implication that Mr. Pringle may have molested high school girls. However, the Department knew or should have known that much, if not all, of Mr. Truckenmiller's testimony was fabricated, yet it chose to give him free rein to retell these stories as a witness for the Department in this case. Including Mr. Truckenmiller's inflammatory testimony in its case suggests that the Department engaged in this proceeding for reasons other than arriving at the objective truth of the matters at issue. Use of Tobacco The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "chewed tobacco at baseball practice, at baseball games, on trips to games and/or at school; allowed his players (students) to do the same . . . and/or provided chewing tobacco for students despite the fact that there was a rule for athletes at the school that they could be dismissed from the team for possession of tobacco." The Department called several witnesses who stated they had seen Mr. Pringle using dip on the baseball field. Fred Burson was the junior varsity baseball coach at Riverdale under Mr. Pringle from 1998 through 2000. In an April 4, 2002, letter to the Department's investigator, Shellie White, Mr. Burson wrote: "I have seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco on the field during practice and games." However, Mr. Burson's testimony at the hearing was much more equivocal. He testified that he never actually saw Mr. Pringle put tobacco into his mouth. Mr. Burson had seen the can of dip in Mr. Pringle's car, saw a bulge in Mr. Pringle's mouth, and assumed that it was dip. He never saw Mr. Pringle carrying the can of dip in his pocket and could not recall ever seeing Mr. Pringle spit tobacco juice. Mr. Burson was not sure if any students were ever present during those times he thought Mr. Pringle had dip in his mouth, which appears to conflict with his written statement that Mr. Pringle used tobacco during baseball games. Mr. Burson never saw Mr. Pringle offer dip to a student; to the contrary, Mr. Burson testified that Mr. Pringle discouraged his players from using tobacco. Despite the fact that he was called by the Department, Mr. Burson was plainly a reluctant witness. He stated that he "resent[ed] being here" because this case was a matter of "sour grapes" and a waste of time and money. Mr. Burson testified he was never offended by anything that Mr. Pringle did and never saw Mr. Pringle do anything in the presence of parents, students, or teachers that would embarrass Riverdale. Sean Fox graduated from Riverdale in 2002 and had played junior varsity baseball and varsity golf. His witness statement to Ms. White, dated May 7, 2002, stated as follows regarding tobacco: All of the alligations [sic] against Coach Pringle are true. I have witnessed with my own two eyes, everything dealing with chewing tobacco and profanity. I witnessed him telling another teammate that he did have chewing tobacco with him and that he could have some that it was "over on top of the crate." He has some of my friends hooked on chewing tobacco thanks to him sharing it. I have had him this past year for a golf coach and he did the exact same things on the golf course. On a golf trip to Clewiston, he was chewing tobacco in the van spitting it out in a 20 oz. bottle of Coke right in front of us. His chewing tobacco is an everyday thing for him at Riverdale. At the hearing, Mr. Fox's testimony was far less assured than was his witness statement. He continued to maintain that someone at practice had blurted out a request for tobacco, and that Mr. Pringle had indicated he had some on a crate or on the dugout bench. Mr. Fox could not recall who had asked for the tobacco, though he was "pretty sure" it was a student. He agreed that his recollection of the event was "pretty hazy." Mr. Fox admitted having no basis for alleging that Mr. Pringle had hooked his friends on tobacco. Rather than "an everyday thing," Mr. Pringle's tobacco use was "every now and then at practice." In his direct testimony, Mr. Fox stated that he had seen Mr. Pringle put tobacco in his mouth "maybe once or twice." However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he never actually saw Mr. Pringle put tobacco in his mouth and never saw him spit tobacco juice, except on the Clewiston golf trip. As to the Clewiston incident, Mr. Fox admitted that he "can't honestly say" that he saw Mr. Pringle spit tobacco juice into a Coke bottle. He saw the motion of the bottle to Mr. Pringle's mouth and assumed he was spitting tobacco juice. Curtis Rine, one of the players cut from the 2002 Riverdale baseball team, testified that he once saw Mr. Pringle openly dipping tobacco in his math class, and that Mr. Pringle openly dipped tobacco on the baseball field, both at practices and at games. He testified that Mr. Pringle allowed players to use tobacco, and they would all have it in their mouths, "pretty much" at every practice and every game. The players openly used and spat tobacco at games, in front of parents, school officials, and the umpires, who did nothing about it. Curtis Rine also testified that on a bus trip home from an away baseball game, two players were dipping tobacco in the back of the bus. They swallowed the tobacco, became sick, and hung their heads out of the bus window to throw up. Curtis Rine testified that Mr. Pringle laughed when he saw the two boys throwing up. No one else associated with the Riverdale baseball team, players or coaches, either in their written statements or their live testimony, claimed to have ever witnessed players hanging out of a bus window and throwing up. Assistant baseball coach Justin Cook pointed out that the Riverdale team rides a charter bus to away games and that the windows of such a bus cannot be opened by the passengers. Mr. Pringle also denied that anyone ever threw up on the bus and noted that the bus driver would have reported such an incident had it happened. No other witness ever claimed to have seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco in the classroom. As Mr. Hennebery testified, had Mr. Pringle openly used tobacco during a baseball game, he would have been ejected. Mr. Pringle was never ejected from a Riverdale baseball game. Any player using tobacco in a game would have been ejected from that game and suspended from playing baseball for two weeks. No Riverdale player was ever ejected for tobacco use under Mr. Pringle. Mr. Pringle strongly and credibly denied allowing any player to use tobacco under any circumstances. Curtis Rine's testimony on these points cannot be credited. Mary Rine, Curtis' mother, also testified that she witnessed Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco at Riverdale baseball games. She testified that he continuously spat tobacco juice throughout the games, even while standing in the third base coach's box in full view of the umpires. She also stated that on five or six different occasions at the baseball field, she saw Mr. Pringle with dip in his mouth at the concession stand. Mr. Pringle testified that he never went to the concession stand with dip in his mouth. Amy Cafaro-Dillon's son, John Cafaro, played junior varsity baseball at Riverdale in 2001. He tried out for the varsity team in 2002, but did not survive the cut. John Cafaro played golf on the Riverdale varsity team coached by Mr. Pringle. Ms. Cafaro-Dillon testified that she has spent a great deal of time around Mr. Pringle because of her son's participation in baseball and golf. When her son was on the junior varsity team, she helped run the concession stand at baseball games. She attended every practice. Ms. Cafaro-Dillon testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle use dip on school grounds. Elizabeth Parrish's son, Robby, played four years of varsity baseball at Riverdale for Mr. Pringle and graduated in 2000. Ms. Parrish "more or less" ran the concession stand for the four years her son played baseball at Riverdale. She attended every baseball game her son played in at Riverdale and continued attending some of the games in 2001 and 2002. Ms. Parrish testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle using tobacco. The only thing she ever saw Mr. Pringle spit was sunflower seeds. Justin Cook teaches business at Riverdale and has spent three seasons as assistant varsity baseball coach. He spends hours with Mr. Pringle every day during baseball season and sits less than a foot from Mr. Pringle during games. Mr. Cook confirmed that he has seen Mr. Pringle use Copenhagen dip when he is away from school, such as on a fishing trip. However, Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Pringle has never used dip at any school-related function, including baseball games and practices, and in fact, leaves the can of dip locked in his truck when he is at school. As did Mr. Hennebery, Mr. Cook pointed out that tobacco use at baseball games violates state and school rules and that officials will eject a coach or player caught with tobacco. Jason Scott has taught social studies at Riverdale for four years, and has served as assistant golf coach under Mr. Pringle for the past two seasons. He has also attended several baseball games as a spectator. Mr. Scott testified that he has never seen Mr. Pringle use tobacco products in front of students. Fred Barker's son, Brian, played three years of varsity baseball under Mr. Pringle. Fred Barker has assisted Mr. Pringle in running the autumn "wooden bat" baseball league. He attended nearly every baseball game, home and away, during his son's career at Riverdale. Mr. Barker testified that he had no idea Mr. Pringle used tobacco until these allegations arose after the 2002 cuts. Brian Barker testified that he knows what dip looks like in the user's mouth because his father used dip for years, but that he had never seen Mr. Pringle use dip. Brian also stated that he had never seen any of his fellow players use dip, in contrast to the testimony of Curtis Rine. James Simmons has two sons who played varsity baseball at Riverdale under Mr. Pringle: Justin played four years of varsity baseball and graduated in 2000; and Joshua played two years of junior varsity, two years of varsity, and graduated in 2002. Mr. Simmons attended every Riverdale baseball game, home and away, when his sons were on the team. Between 1998 and 2001, Mr. Simmons attended nearly every baseball practice. Mr. Simmons testified that he never saw Mr. Pringle use tobacco. Greg Byrus played three years of varsity baseball at Riverdale, graduating in 2003. He also played on the golf team for two years. Mr. Byrus testified that he has used dip for about a year and knew two other Riverdale players who used dip. However, he stated that none of the three players ever used dip at a practice or a game because it was not allowed. Mr. Byrus testified that he had once seen Mr. Pringle use dip at a fishing tournament, but that he had never seen Mr. Pringle use it during a school-related function. In response to Mr. Byrus' testimony, Mr. Pringle testified that he was unaware that Greg Byrus used dip. Mr. Pringle stated that he has never seen a student using tobacco products while that student was a member of the baseball team. He has seen former players smoking or dipping tobacco products after graduation. Diane Byrus is the mother of Greg Byrus. She is the athletic secretary at Riverdale and reports to Boyd Gruhn, the school's athletic director. She attended all but two games during Greg's four years at Riverdale and sat in a lawn chair at the fence near the Riverdale dugout, no more than five or six feet from Mr. Pringle. Ms. Byrus testified that she never saw Mr. Pringle use tobacco at a school activity, though she has seen him use it in social activities away from school. Richard Shafer, the principal of Riverdale for six years, testified that when he first came to the school, he had a concern about several coaches using tobacco. In 1999, he "heard something" about Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco on the field. He had a discussion with Mr. Pringle and William Hoke, then the athletic director about the matter. Mr. Pringle denied using tobacco on the field, and that was the end of the matter. Mr. Shafer heard no complaints about Mr. Pringle chewing tobacco until after the 2002 baseball cuts. Mr. Shafer has never seen Mr. Pringle with tobacco in his mouth. Mr. Hoke, the athletic director at Riverdale during the 1998-1999 school year, testified that when word got out in the community that he was going to Riverdale, he began hearing things about profanity and tobacco use among the coaching staff. People relayed such concerns to him because they knew of his activity in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and of his strong opposition to cursing and tobacco use. At the start of the school year, Mr. Hoke called a general meeting of the coaching staff to remind them of the rules. Mr. Hoke stated that if he ever discussed tobacco use or profanity individually with Mr. Pringle, it would have been at the "tail end" of a meeting on another subject and would have been a mere reiteration of the statements made in the general meeting. Mr. Pringle did not recall an individual meeting with Mr. Hoke about the subject of tobacco and profanity, though he did recall that Mr. Hoke "hit those topics hard" in the general meeting. Mr. Hoke testified that he watched the coaching staff "like a hawk" for objectionable behavior, and that he never witnessed Mr. Pringle using profanity or tobacco products during his tenure as athletic director. In his own defense, Mr. Pringle testified that he does use Copenhagen, a dip. He started using dip during his last year of college. Mr. Pringle fished in tournaments while in college and still fishes recreationally. He likes to put a dip in his mouth when he is out on the water fishing. He has a dip at night before he goes to bed, and occasionally when playing golf. However, when he is at school, the dip container is either locked in his truck or left at home. As a possible explanation for Sean Fox' claim that he saw a container of tobacco in the dugout, Mr. Pringle noted that the Riverdale baseball field is used by the community and by college teams. He quite often finds tobacco products, beer bottles, and other refuse at the field after outsiders have used it. Mr. Pringle flatly denied ever having offered tobacco to a student. He stated that he would never allow players to use tobacco products on the field and that he has never seen a current Riverdale player use tobacco. Mr. Pringle is a member of the FHSAA and of the Florida Athletic Coaches Association. Both associations prohibit profanity, tobacco, and alcohol at any athletic event. In high school baseball, the rules are enforced by the umpires. A player ejected for using tobacco or profanity is not allowed to play in another game for two weeks. Prior to the 2002 season, a coach ejected for tobacco or profanity was required to leave the school grounds and serve a one-game suspension. Mr. Pringle testified that the rule was strengthened in 2002 and now provides the same two-week penalty for coaches as for players. Mr. Pringle testified that in his ten years at Riverdale, no coach or player has been ejected from a baseball game or even warned by the umpires regarding tobacco use or profanity. Mr. Pringle stated that he runs a strict program. Players are not permitted to argue with or "show up" the umpires, or to throw bats or helmets. The same strict rules apply to practices as to games. Mr. Pringle testified that he has high goals for the Riverdale baseball program, and "there's no way I would allow myself or a player to jeopardize our goals" by using tobacco on the field. Mr. Pringle testified that he did use tobacco in front of Mr. Burson, when the coaches would go out for dinner after practices or especially after tryouts, to review the cut lists. Mr. Pringle stated that he will occasionally dip tobacco after dinner and likely did so on those occasions with Mr. Burson and the other coaches. Mr. Pringle recalled the golf trip to Clewiston, but denied using tobacco on that trip. He also denied ever using tobacco in the classroom. Mr. Pringle stated that he is an inveterate chewer of sunflower seeds and has chewed those on golf trips, bus trips, and even in the classroom when he is not actively teaching. If he is indoors or in a car, he spits the sunflower shells into a container. Mr. Pringle chews sunflower seeds at baseball practices and games. The assistant coach, Mr. Cook, confirmed that the coaches and some players chew sunflower seeds "all the time" during practices and games. Ms. Parrish testified that Mr. Pringle usually bought sunflower seeds from the concession stand before games. Mr. Pringle makes his own beef jerky, which he chews at practices and games. Mr. Pringle also chews gum. Any of those items could be mistaken, at a distance, for dip tobacco, particularly by someone who knows that Mr. Pringle does use dip on occasion. In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Pringle ever chewed tobacco at baseball practice, at baseball games, on trips to games, or at school. The Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Pringle ever provided tobacco to his players or allowed his players to use tobacco in his presence. Swearing The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "used profanity and/or demeaning language in front of students, including but not limited to words to the following effect: asking them what the hell they were thinking; telling them they were uncoachable motherfuckers; telling them they were worthless pieces of shit, sorry asses and/or fucking losers; and/or asking a student how he could be 17 years old and only be in the 9th grade." No evidence was presented that Mr. Pringle asked a student "how he could be 17 years old and only be in the 9th grade." No evidence was presented that Mr. Pringle called his players "uncoachable motherfuckers," "sorry asses" or "worthless pieces of shit." Thus, these allegations are deemed abandoned. The Department called several witnesses who claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle use profanity in front of students. In his May 7, 2002, statement to Ms. White, Sean Fox wrote: Profanity with him is an everyday thing. On the golf course, baseball field, anywhere outside of his classroom, every other word out of his mouth is profanity. On a couple of occasions in the classroom talking to him during golf season, in a quiet manner, he has used profanity in those little conversations. At the hearing, Mr. Fox testified that his written description was "pretty much accurate." Mr. Fox stated that to his knowledge this swearing occurred only in front of the athletes, not other students. Mr. Pringle would say "damn" and "hell" if the players did something wrong. Mr. Fox stated that Mr. Pringle said "fuck" once or twice in his presence. Willard Truckenmiller testified that he only heard Mr. Pringle curse a couple of times, after games. "Shit" and "damn" were the only words he could clearly recall Mr. Pringle using. He stated that Mr. Pringle might have said "hell" a couple of times, but he expressly denied ever hearing Mr. Pringle say the word "fuck." Curtis Rine testified that Mr. Pringle used profanity in front of the baseball players, either when joking around or when something happened in a game that made him mad. Mr. Pringle used "probably almost every single" curse word, including "hell," "shit," "fuck," "bitch," and "assholes." Curtis Rine stated that Mr. Pringle once called the entire team out onto the field, berated them for fooling around and not doing their jobs during the previous day's game, and called them "fucking losers." Mary Rine's older son, Tommy, played varsity baseball for Mr. Pringle in 2000 and 2001. Ms. Rine testified that Tommy would come home complaining about the swearing that occurred on the baseball field. She stated that in 2001, she wrote a letter to Mr. Shafer to complain about a variety of things, including the cursing and use of tobacco on the baseball field. Her husband delivered the letter to Ms. Dollinger, who told Mr. Rine that she would investigate the matters raised in the letter. The Rines did not retain a copy of the letter. At the hearing, Ms. Dollinger testified that she purged her files when she changed jobs a year later, and that the Rines' letter must have been destroyed at that time. She could not remember the exact substance of the Rines' complaint. She did recall bringing four baseball players into her office separately to discuss the allegations made by the Rines about Mr. Pringle and recalled being satisfied that there was no truth to the allegations. She then met with Mr. Pringle to discuss the allegations and her findings and to caution him that there were parents on the lookout for misbehavior on the baseball field. Ms. Rine coached cross-country at Riverdale for six years. While running with her team across the baseball field one day, she stated that she heard Mr. Pringle yelling at the players participating in an off-season conditioning program, "What the hell were you thinking about?" Ms. Rine conceded that the players were in the dugout and that she could not see into the dugout from her position, but she was certain that she recognized Mr. Pringle's voice. Ms. Rine testified that Mr. Pringle would swear at baseball games if the game was going badly or a player made a bad play. She recalled hearing him say "shit," "damn," and "hell," though she could remember no particular instance of his swearing aside from the incident with her cross-country team. Fred Burson testified that he has heard Mr. Pringle say the word "fuck," but only under his breath in frustration. Mr. Burson could not say whether any student heard the word. He testified that this was not typical language for Mr. Pringle, but that, like anyone else, Mr. Pringle would occasionally become frustrated and say something he shouldn't. In three years of working with Mr. Pringle, Mr. Burson never heard Mr. Pringle curse at a student or direct such language at any other person. As noted above, Mr. Hoke watched the coaches "like a hawk" during his tenure as athletic director and never heard Mr. Pringle use profanity. Justin Cook, the assistant varsity baseball coach for the last three years, testified that he has heard Mr. Pringle swear a few times when they have been fishing together, but never when performing his professional duties. Mr. Pringle has used the word "hell" two or three times in game conversations with Mr. Cook. During games, Mr. Cook and Mr. Pringle sit very close together in folding chairs outside the dugout, and are not near the players. Mr. Cook stated that he did not believe the players could hear these conversations. Mr. Cook testified that Mr. Pringle has said to him, "What the hell is going on right now?" However, Mr. Pringle has never said that to the players. Mr. Cook also recalled Mr. Pringle meeting with him in the right field corner before a game, 200 feet from the dugout where the players were sitting and saying, "How in the hell are we going to beat this team today?" Mr. Cook has never heard Mr. Pringle shout a curse word. Jason Scott, the teacher who assists Mr. Pringle with the golf team, testified that Mr. Pringle's behavior has always been purely professional. He has heard Mr. Pringle curse while playing golf with a group of adults, but has never heard Mr. Pringle utter a curse in the presence of a student. Brian Barker, who played baseball for four years under Mr. Pringle, testified that he never heard Mr. Pringle use any vulgar or sexually explicit language. The worst thing Mr. Pringle might have said was "damn," and Mr. Barker could not say for certain whether Mr. Pringle had said that. He stated that Mr. Pringle "gets on to you when you do something wrong," but never says anything to put down or demean his players. Mr. Barker testified, "[Y]ou can't really get nothing done when somebody is cussing at you . . . Why would he cuss at us to get us to work harder for him? I mean, it just don't make any sense." Greg Byrus, who played three years of varsity baseball under Mr. Pringle, testified that Mr. Pringle did not say anything that he considered cursing or profanity. He stated that Mr. Pringle would occasionally use the word "damn" or "hell" when something went wrong on the field. Mr. Byrus did not consider "damn" or "hell" to be curse words. He stated that Mr. Pringle did not shout the words; only the players sitting on the bench could hear them. Mr. Byrus expressly denied that Mr. Pringle had ever called the players "losers" or otherwise demeaned the players. Diane Byrus, Greg's mother, stated that she did consider "damn" and "hell" to be curse words, but that she never heard Mr. Pringle utter even those terms. From where she sat at the baseball games, she could hear the players talking in the dugout and was certain she could have heard Mr. Pringle cursing had he done so. Ms. Byrus stated that, in her position as athletic secretary, she would have been obliged to report to the athletic director any misbehavior by Mr. Pringle. She never saw any such misbehavior. Mark Ryan and Fred Barker both testified that they had never heard Mr. Pringle utter a profanity. James Simmons testified, "I've heard him holler at them, but he didn't cuss them." The assistant principals, Don Trelease and Christine Dollinger, both testified that they had never heard Mr. Pringle utter a profanity at a baseball game. In his own defense, Mr. Pringle testified that he has never used profanity in a game situation or at practice, and had certainly never shouted profanity on the field or in the dugout. He conceded that he has softly said "damn" or "hell" to a coach sitting next to him. He denied ever turning to a student and saying, "What the hell were you thinking?" or anything like that. He noted that use of profanity is a cause for ejection from baseball games and that neither he nor any of his players had ever been cautioned or ejected for using profanity. He also noted that Riverdale plays 15 home games every year, with an average attendance of 100 people, yet no one complained about his alleged foul language or tobacco use until after the 2002 cuts. Mr. Pringle stated that he probably had used profanity in the presence of Mr. Burson, but only away from school and never when students were present. Mr. Pringle and Mr. Burson would exchange jokes that included ribald language, all the way up to the word "fuck." In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pringle used profanity and/or demeaning language in front of students. The only thing clearly and convincingly demonstrated is that Mr. Pringle would occasionally mutter an oath to the coach seated next to him. Of the student witnesses, only Curtis Rine claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle berate players with profanity, including calling the entire team "fucking losers." The Department's other two student witnesses, Willard Truckenmiller and Sean Fox, recalled no such berating of players, though they claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle utter curse words. Greg Byrus and Brian Barker denied hearing Mr. Pringle use profanity in front of the players, as did assistant coach Jason Scott. Mr. Byrus did recall Mr. Pringle occasionally saying "damn" or "hell." Fred Burson, who recalled hearing Mr. Pringle use the word "fuck" on the field, testified that he said the word under his breath. Of all the witnesses not directly involved with the baseball team, only Mary Rine claimed to have heard Mr. Pringle use profanity on the baseball field. Other adults who spent as much or more time with the baseball team as did Ms. Rine testified that they never heard Mr. Pringle use profanity. The weight of the credible evidence favors Mr. Pringle. At most, the evidence establishes only that some players may have overheard Mr. Pringle say the word "damn" or "hell" to a coach seated next to him at the edge of the dugout. No credible evidence established that Mr. Pringle ever directed such language at students, or that he ever used language that any reasonable person would consider demeaning to his baseball players. Sexual Innuendo The Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Pringle "told coarse jokes and/or made inappropriate sexual comments in front of students, including but not limited to, comments about the following: blowjobs; lap dances; getting a piece of ass; asking a student how he would like to fuck the hell out of a certain female; asking a female student if her black eye was due to her boyfriend's penis having hit her eye while she was giving him oral sex; asking male students about their sexual relationships with their girlfriends; and/or discussing how much 'head' a student had received." In his May 7, 2002, statement to Ms. White, Sean Fox wrote the following: As far as sexual comments & gestures, he has set a world record in that department. He has made numerous sexually related comments to one of my good friends, Melissa Land. She has told me that he said "Damn, you look good in those shorts," and "If you ever need help raising a grade, I'm sure we can make a trade." Melissa didn't even have him for a teacher, so how could he help her raise her grade in another class? Melissa Nunez, Jackie Whitlock are two other cheerleaders I'm almost certain he has made sexually-referred [sic] comments to and probably even sexual contact with. On road trips with golf & baseball I have heard him make comments about the girls saying "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?" "Just let me know, I can make it happen." Every day he has a different sexual comment about a cheerleader. I have asked other cheerleaders (who request to remain anonymous) that Pringle has asked them to have sexual fun & sexual intercourse. He has done everything he has been accused of and denied everything during baseball season to keep his coaching job. He should not be a coach, nor a teacher before some more serious [sic] happens (i.e. rape, mollesting [sic]) He thinks that since he is a teacher, he can get away with this easier. He's not at this high school to teach, he's here to take advantage of girls that are 17 & 18 years old. Someone needs to get rid of him & out of this school before rape or mollesting [sic] occurs & the school board and school really get into a situation I'm sure they don't want to be in. Lee County School Board did a horrible job investigating him before. As a student, this scares me knowing a creep, a pervert like him is on the loose getting away scot- free. At the hearing, Mr. Fox considerably softened those portions of his statement that he did not expressly disavow. Mr. Pringle's actual comments about girls were "maybe not that extreme" when compared to those in Mr. Fox' written statement. Mr. Pringle would "just say something about how good a girl would look or how maybe the way she acted." Mr. Pringle's comments were "maybe not necessarily" about cheerleaders, but about some other unnamed girls. At the hearing, Mr. Fox could recall no particular statements Mr. Pringle made about girls. When questioned about the "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?" comment, Mr. Fox stated: I don't remember the whole "let me know" thing, "I can make it happen," but I'm sure once or twice-- I can't remember specifically, but the first statement would be true at some point. Mr. Fox testified that he wrote his statement "probably out of pure anger at the time and frustration" over being dragged into this matter at a time he was preparing for graduation and going through family problems. Graduation was supposed to be a good time, but this controversy was roiling the school and Mr. Fox was being pulled into it. He stated that, if he could, he would take back the accusations that Mr. Pringle was a "creep" and a "pervert." He testified at the hearing that Mr. Pringle was a good coach and a good role model for students. Mr. Fox admitted that, of all the girls named or referenced in his statement, Melissa Land was the only one he actually spoke with about these matters. His other allegations were based on the girls' "reputations and rumors that I have heard about them, and stuff like that." He admitted having no personal knowledge as to the truth of any of the allegations in his statement regarding Mr. Pringle and female students. Sean Fox never saw Mr. Pringle make any inappropriate comment to any female student. In a written statement to Ms. White dated April 3, 2002, Willard Truckenmiller alleged that Mr. Pringle talked to players about having sex with their girlfriends and whether the girls were "easy." He also wrote about a cheerleader, later identified as Melissa Land, who came to school with a black eye. Willard Truckenmiller alleged that Mr. Pringle asked Ms. Land "if her boyfriend miss [sic] her mouth and hit her in the eye." He alleged that Ms. Land did not come forward because she was threatened with being kicked off the cheerleading squad if she did. At the hearing, Willard Truckenmiller testified that Mr. Pringle made no sexual comments in his presence. As to Melissa Land, he disclaimed any personal knowledge of the incident, stating that he only knew what Ms. Land told him. For reasons set forth below, it is far more likely that Willard Truckenmiller's information about the incident came from Curtis Rine, the "boyfriend" referenced in the statement, than from Melissa Land. Curtis Rine testified that he was dating Melissa Land at the time of the incident. Melissa had received a black eye during a cheerleading practice. Mr. Rine testified that Melissa told him that she saw Mr. Pringle in the hallway, and that Mr. Pringle asked her, "What happened to your eye? Did your boyfriend, you know, miss your mouth and hit you in the eye with his dick?" Mr. Rine testified that this made him angry but that he did not report Mr. Pringle. Ms. Land testified that she did not know Mr. Pringle very well but that she would walk past his classroom and say hello every day during the change of classes. On the day in question, Mr. Pringle was standing outside his classroom with Mark Ryan, another teacher. Ms. Land recalled that Curtis Rine was with her as she walked past Mr. Pringle and Mr. Ryan. Mr. Pringle saw her black eye and "said something like, 'What were you doing with your boyfriend?'" Ms. Land testified that she did not take the remark as referencing sex. She simply took it as a joke and laughed, "blew it off." Later, however, Curtis Rine told her that he thought Mr. Pringle was making some kind of sexual remark. Mr. Ryan recalled the incident. He knew Melissa Land as a former student of his. She walked past Mr. Pringle and him during change of classes, and they noticed she had a black eye. Mr. Pringle said something like, "What happened to you?" This was in the context of a brief, lighthearted conversation about whether cheerleading is a "sport," a running joke in the hallways of Riverdale. The entire conversation lasted no more than twenty seconds. When asked directly whether Mr. Pringle made any kind of sexual remark to Melissa Land, Mr. Ryan testified: Absolutely not. I mean, I have been a teacher for 15 years in Lee County, and any remark of a sexual nature would be something that would be imprinted in my memory. And no. I mean, nothing like that has ever happened. You know, I mean, this conversation, if it’s a conversation that becomes something out of the normal teacher- student, in passing, joking type of conversation, you would remember that. Absolutely not. That would be something that... it would just... it would absolutely stick. Mr. Pringle testified that he and Mr. Ryan were standing in the hallway when Melissa Land came walking by. Curtis Rine was not with Ms. Land. Mr. Pringle asked Ms. Land what happened to her eye, and she explained that another girl accidentally hit her during cheerleading practice. Mr. Pringle jokingly asked how she could get hurt in cheerleading, since it was not a sport. At the hearing, Mr. Pringle explained that this was a running joke at the school because Riverdale's cheerleading team is highly competitive and nationally ranked, yet receives no money from the school's athletic budget. Melissa Land laughed, and that was the end of the conversation. It is clear from the testimony of all involved that the sexual content of this incident derived from the mind of Curtis Rine, not from anything Mr. Pringle said to Melissa Land. Any fair-minded investigation could only have led to the conclusion that this allegation was, if not utterly devoid of merit, then certainly one that could not be proven by clear and convincing evidence when no one who was actually present recalled Mr. Pringle saying anything like what was alleged. The fact that such a vile and improvable allegation was included in the Administrative Complaint again raises questions as to the Department's intent in bringing this case against Mr. Pringle. In his written statement to Ms. White dated April 3, 2002, Curtis Rine wrote: Now about the strip clubs and sexual coments [sic]. One night we had a baseball game in Miami and on the way home, there were a couple of us in the front of the bus and [Mr. Pringle] asked if we were gonna go to Lookers with him (strip club) and we said no. I also heard him ask Matt Howerton how many blow jobs has he got now. At the hearing, Curtis Rine stood by the text of his statement, though he noted that he believed Mr. Pringle was joking about taking the boys to a strip club. Matt Howerton was another player on the Riverdale baseball team. It was well known, at least among the baseball players, that Matt's older sister was a dancer at "Lookers," the strip club allegedly mentioned by Mr. Pringle. Curtis Rine stated that Matt laughed when Mr. Pringle suggested they go there. Brian Barker was one of the Riverdale players on the charter bus to the Miami game. He never heard Mr. Pringle make a comment about going to Lookers or any strip club, on that trip or at any other time. Mr. Barker stated, "I definitely would recall something like that, yeah." Greg Byrus was another Riverdale player who rode the bus to the Miami game. He never heard Mr. Pringle say anything about going to Lookers, though he qualified his statement by noting that he was in the back of the bus and Mr. Pringle was sitting in the front. Assistant coach Justin Cook sat next to Mr. Pringle on the bus coming back from Miami. Mr. Cook testified that Mr. Pringle never said anything about going to Lookers and has never made any comment of the kind to students in Mr. Cook's presence. Mr. Pringle testified that he never made any comment about going to Lookers. He stated that he would never make such a comment, if only because it was a "very touchy subject" due to the fact that Matt Howerton's sister worked at the club. Other kids gave Matt "a hard time" about it, in a teasing manner. Mr. Pringle did not approve of the teasing and disallowed it on the baseball field. Mr. Trelease testified that the Lookers allegation was raised by the Rines at their meeting with him, Mr. Shafer, Boyd Gruhn, and Mr. Pringle on February 18, 2002. Mr. Trelease stated that when the school's administration investigated the matter, it could find no substantiation for the allegation from any player on the bus. Thus, on the record produced at the hearing, Curtis Rine is the sole witness to Mr. Pringle's alleged invitation to a bus full of students and coaches to join him at a strip club. This allegation has not been proven. Other sexual comments were attributed to Mr. Pringle by Sean Fox, Willard Truckenmiller and Curtis Rine: asking "How would you like to fuck the hell out of her?"; asking whether certain girls were "easy"; asking how often they had sex with their boyfriends; and asking a student how many blow jobs he'd had. Mr. Pringle denied ever making any such comments. No other coach ever heard him make such comments. Brian Barker and Greg Byrus denied ever hearing Mr. Pringle make such comments. The District's investigation concluded there was no reason to give credence to these allegations. Mr. Trelease noted that no such allegations had ever surfaced against Mr. Pringle until the 2002 baseball cuts were made. Mr. Hennebery noted that even after the allegations against Mr. Pringle had reached the District level, the charges of sexual innuendo did not come up until the investigation was nearly complete, as a sort of afterthought. In summary, the Department failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pringle told coarse jokes and/or made inappropriate sexual comments in front of students. Conclusions The Department produced not a single disinterested witness to support any of the allegations brought against Mr. Pringle. In some cases, this would not be of overriding significance. However, in this case, the accusations regarding Mr. Pringle alleged that his behavior was open and notorious. He cursed freely and often, in front of the entire baseball team and any parents who happened to be in the vicinity. He chewed tobacco at Riverdale baseball games, in full view of the fans, school officials, and umpires. He offered to take a bus load of minors to a strip club. Yet the only persons who witnessed these acts were those who had been cut from his baseball team or their parents. To give credence to these allegations, one must be prepared to believe that the entire Riverdale baseball team, their parents, several Riverdale teachers and all of its administrators, and the Lee County School District either lied or acted in bad faith to protect Mr. Pringle. The undersigned was not persuaded that such a conspiracy existed and is at a loss to understand how the Department could have been so persuaded. The testimony of two of the Department's own witnesses, William Hoke and Melissa Land, tended to support Mr. Pringle's version of events. Department witness Fred Burson testified that this case was "a waste of time," and could not say whether any student ever witnessed Mr. Pringle's tobacco chewing and cursing. Mr. Pringle testified that he had indeed cursed and dipped tobacco in Mr. Burson's presence, but never in the presence of a student. Sean Fox, author of some of the most sordid accusations against Mr. Pringle, retracted the bulk of them on the witness stand. He now regretted the vitriol of his written statement and testified that Mr. Pringle was a good coach and a good role model, though in January 2002, he had told teacher Jason Scott that he was not trying out for baseball "because I hate Pringle." The Rines and the Truckenmillers carried clear grudges against Mr. Pringle because of the 2002 baseball cuts. The Rines' dissatisfaction with Mr. Pringle actually dated back to their elder son Tommy's experiences on the Riverdale baseball team, having nothing to do with cursing or tobacco use. The parents believed that Tommy had the potential to pitch at the University of Florida. Mr. Pringle and his assistants did not share that opinion. The Rines were angry that Tommy pitched only sporadically for Riverdale and that the coaches would not risk their own credibility by recommending Tommy to college and professional scouts. As Curtis Rine put it, Mr. Pringle had "screwed over" Tommy, and his parents believed that Mr. Pringle was going to "screw me over, too." The local newspaper and television stations ran stories on the allegations against Mr. Pringle while the District was conducting its investigation. John Hennebery and Bill Shoap both testified that the District has a strict confidentiality rule regarding ongoing investigations, and both testified that the District was not the source for these stories. Mr. Pringle credibly testified that a television reporter indicated to him that the sources for the story were Mary Rine, Kim Caruthers, and one of the Truckenmillers, all of whom sought to create a public scandal that would lead to Mr. Pringle's dismissal. When the news was released that the District had cleared Mr. Pringle of the charges against him, Tom Rine, the father of Curtis and Tommy, flew into an obscenity-laced tirade against Mr. Pringle in the presence of two female Riverdale students who were visiting the Rine home. In front of these girls, Mr. Rine threatened violence against Mr. Pringle in explicit terms. Mr. Rine's behavior was so extreme and threatening that one of the girls reported the matter to Deputy Stevens, who filed an incident report and let it be known that Mr. Rine should stay away from the Riverdale campus. Mary Rine testified that her husband assured her that he did not engage in this tirade. Both of the female Riverdale students testified that he did. The Department listed Mr. Rine as a witness, but elected not to call him. These facts are recited not to further discredit the Department, but to point out that the Department knew or should have known of these facts before it elected to proceed against Mr. Pringle, or at least before this matter ever reached the point of a formal hearing. As far as Riverdale High School and the Lee County School District were concerned, this matter was concluded on February 14, 2002. For reasons not apparent to the undersigned, the Department of Education elected to revive these charges and extend Mr. Pringle's ordeal for an additional year and a half. The Department did not come close to carrying its burden in this case. Moreover, the Department should have known that it could not carry its burden long before this case came on for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2003.
The Issue The complaint alleges that on or about September 7, 1998, Respondent, Glenn L. Marsh, failed to properly supervise a football practice and care for the safety of the students under his supervision in that Glenn L. Marsh failed to provide the students water during the practice, causing the students to become dehydrated and causing one student (S.J.) to collapse and require hospitalization for severe dehydration. Essentially, the factual issue in this case is whether during a two and one-half hour football practice session on September 7, 1998, Glenn L. Marsh, head football coach of Atlantic High school, who did not give a team water breaks to all 40 players at any one time, but instead gave his three assistants coaches unilateral authority to give groups of players under their individual supervision water breaks as they deemed necessary, caused students to become dehydrated and caused one student to become dehydrated and hospitalized, and thereby violated Sections 231.28(1)(f) and 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a)and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state agency charged with the regulation of the teaching profession pursuant to Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, Glenn L. Marsh, is a certified teacher in the State of Florida, having been issued Teaching Certificate No. 702169 on July 1, 1990. At all times material hereto, Glenn L. Marsh was employed by the Volusia County School Board and assigned to Atlantic High School as teacher/head football coach and continued these dual duties until resigning on or about September 24, 1998. At all times material hereto, Glenn Marsh, head coach, was responsible for establishing policy governing training and operations of varsity football at Atlantic High School. Under Coach Marsh's direct supervision were three assistant teachers/coaches, Ron Grayton, Jim Longerbeam, and Steve Lawson. Substantial and competent evidence establishes that each assistant coach understood his responsibility, when students were under his individual supervision and control, for the care and safety of students in his charge. The Assistant coach's responsibilities included but were not limited to, training and conditioning of players, evaluation of players' strength and weaknesses, and other coaching assignments during training and during the playing of varsity football games. At all times material hereto, Volusia county policy required every male or female student, prior to participation in sport activities, to undergo a physical examination at Halifax Medical Center. A list of students who were medically approved to participate in sports was provided to the high school's Athletic Director, who in turn gave this information to the high school head coach. Student S.J. underwent the required 1998 medical examination, was approved and permitted to participate in sport activities at Atlantic High School. At all times material hereto, S.J. was a student attending Atlantic High School and a member of the Atlantic High School varsity football team. The parties stipulated, with confirmation by S.J., and by his mother, Joy James, that S.J. is a carrier of the sickle cell trait.1 Upon the testimony of the parties, it is established that S.J.'s medical condition, sickle cell trait, was not made known to Duane R. Busse, Investigator, Volusia County Schools, Office of Professional Standards, nor to the Halifax Medical Center during S.J.'s physical examination, nor to Coach Glenn Marsh nor to any other member of the coaching staff at Atlantic High School. From or about 9:00 a.m. to 11:30-12:00 p.m., during the course of his employment, Glenn Marsh was primarily responsible for supervising the varsity football practice at Atlantic High School, Titusville, Florida. On the morning of Monday, September 7, 1998 (Labor Day), at approximately 9:00-9:15 a.m., S.J. and approximately 39 other members of Atlantic High School football team reported to Atlantic High School athletic fields for a routine football practice session for approximately two and one-half hours. Credible evidence shows that players, at their option, dressed in shorts, tee shirts, and helmets for the morning practice. Some players elected to wear girdles.2 Of the players wearing girdles, some inserted padding in the inner girdle pockets and other did not. This early morning practice was a no-contact session.3 The testimony of the witnesses establishes that the weather condition on the morning of September 7, 1998, was normal in Florida for that time of the year, hot and humid, no rain with temperatures in the high 80 to 90 degrees. Credible evidence shows that on September 7, 1998, the no-contact practice session consisted of specific physical activities wherein players were grouped according the their positions on the team. Those physical activities scheduled by Coach Marsh were of limited duration and consisted basically of the following: Starting time: 9:30 AM Stretching 10-15 min. (9:30-9:45) warm ups 45 min (9:45-10:30) special teams 25-30 min (10:30-11:00) defense air 25-30 min (11:00-11:30) offense air 10 min (11:30-11:40) Conditioning runs 10 min (11:40-11:50) knee down review 5 min (11:50-11:55) Locker dress out 5 min (11:55-12:00). Stretching consisted of wind-mills, jumping jacks and in-place running, followed by special teams4 (punt return, offense, defense, wide receivers and running backs, etc.) against air (phantom team) which begins with players doing a walk-through against an air opponent. All players who were not playing on the team engaged in practice were required to kneel on one knee and observe but could not sit down. Conditioning practice, which followed special team practice, consists of running laps up and down the football field with one coach positioned in one end zone, another coach at mid-field to time players, and Head Coach Marsh in the other end zone, directing runs. Credible evidence establishes that the head coach, Glenn Marsh, determines the numbers of laps team members are required to run. On the day in question, Coach Marsh recalled that players ran six 100-yard sprints and two 40-yard sprints and the September 7, 1998, practice session which followed an established routine and pattern of prior practice sessions. Prior to the date in question, team members had undergone some two-a-day practice sessions but at least one practice session had been held every week since the beginning of the 1998 football season without incident of any nature. On September 7, 1998, at or near the conclusion of players running conditioning laps, S.J. experienced a near sycopal episode. S.J. was assisted into the locker room by other students and was treated by coaches and teammates who undressed him, iced him down, and attempted to get him to drink liquids. S.J. was subsequently transported by EVAC to Halifax Hospital, Daytona Beach, Florida, for treatment. Medical evaluation of S.J. by Halifax Hospital staff reported a history consistent with heat exhaustion, dehydration, and a mild renal failure. Follow-up treatment by Dr. Norman D. Pryor, Division of Nephrology, from September 9, 1998 through July 30, 1999, at Nemours Children's Clinic, Orlando, Florida, revealed S.J. had sustained no permanent impairment of his renal function. On January 25, 1999, Dr. Pryor reported S.J.'s renal process resolved and released S.J. to resume sports activities with no anticipated residual over time. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On September 7, 1998, Coach Ronald Graydon, in charge of the offense and wide receivers which included S.J., testified that he distinctly recalled giving his group of skilled players a water break: "Okay guys, let's pride it out and go to the trough -- or let's pride it out and get some water, which means break out of a huddle and go get some water." He knows that the water trough was turned on and water was available to players. He does not, however, recall who went to the water trough nor does he recall who drank water at the water trough.5 S.J. testified to the contrary. He recalls that he was never offered water by any of the coaches on September 7, 1998. On cross-examination, S.J. admitted he does not remember how much water he drank on Saturday or on Sunday before the Monday morning football practice session. However, on redirect examination, S.J. remembered, "I had only one cup of water or two cups of water before I went to practice. I thought like they'll have water out there, you know. I wouldn't have liked, you know, chug down like a gallon before I went out there". S.J. testified that though he did not personally go to the water trough (although he remembered that the water trough was not turned on that day), the water trough was not hooked up that day and was not running and that the only source of water they (team) had out there (the practice fields) was a water fountain6 that barely put out any water. S.J. further testified that throughout the entire two and one-half hours of practice session he did not have a drop of water or a chance to get water. According to S.J., as he was down on all fours at about the 10-yard line preparing for conditioning sprints, he asked Coach Marsh, who was standing about 10 to 20 yards away, for water and was told "No." S.J. does not recall if Coach Marsh heard his request. S.J. did not repeat his request to Coach Marsh, other coaches, or fellow students. No witness was presented to corroborate S.J.'s recollection of his being on his knees asking for water. Michael Beauregard, a special team running back player who was in S.J.'s skills group and who, prior to Coach Marsh's becoming head coach, was the starting quarterback for the team, testified from a confused memory of events on September 7, 1998. Initially, Michael Beauregard recalled that practice began in the afternoon. When asked the same question a second time, Mr. Beauregard testified, "I have to say the morning, chances are." Mr. Beauregard testified that to his knowledge, it was Coach Marsh's policy during practice sessions that assistant coaches would gave their individual player groups water breaks. However, on September 7, 1998, as he recalls, assistant coach Jim Longerbeam never gave his group (running backs and wide receivers, including S.J.) a water break. The inconsistencies, contradictions and confusion in Michael Beauregard's testimony render it less than precise and explicit, not the result of distinct memory, confusing as to facts in issue, and therefore, it does not produce a firm belief of conviction. Assistant Coach James Longerbeam, with a master's degree in education and bachelor's degree in physical education and health, took control and supervision of the offensive line, tight ends, and wide receiver players (including Beauregard and S.J.) during the practice session. During these individual skills sessions, Coach Longerbeam distinctly recalls giving his players a water break because he even went over and got water himself from the water trough. The totality of Coach Longerbeam's testimony demonstrated an understanding by assistant coaches of Coach Marsh's policy and methods regarding water breaks during football practice. Assistant coaches understood it was their individual responsibility to send players for water when they were under their personal supervision and in fact, they routinely did so. Further, they understood that when on team breaks between offense and defense team practice sessions, should Coach Marsh blow his whistle, all players would be free to get water at that time, that is, a full-team water break. Coach Longerbeam testified that during the September 7, 1998, football practice every player was in a group under an assistant coach at some point in time, but he does not recall when the other assistant coaches sent their players on water breaks. Joe Hampton, with bachelor and master degrees in physical education, teacher/coach for 32 years, currently employed at Estero High School, Ft. Myers, Florida, and a year officer of the Florida High School Athletic Association gave the following opinion testimony: His studies in conditioning and effects of physical exercise on the human has lead him to conclude that it is important to maintain proper hydration for varsity students; It is vitally important to drink the right kind of fluids, (non-caffeine), water primarily, and lots of it before engaging in physical exercise; If one is not properly hydrated prior to practice requiring physical exercises, what you drink at or during practice will not be sufficient to hydrate you; it may maintain you, but not hydrate you; Varsity students lose weight during varsity football practice and games, from one or two to seven or eight pounds, which is mainly water loss. It takes an average of 24 hours to replace water weight loss through hydration by constant hydration; In his 32 years of experience it is very rare for varsity players to become dehydrated; he has experienced one of two; but it's most unusual; Water breaks are routinely determined by the head coach and usually follow a simple pattern; i.e. one after teams and skills portion of a two and one-half hour practice; another after a time interval determined by the coach who knows the weather conditions, type of practice and knowledge of his kids; He is not aware of any rule or anything that says it is mandatory to have team water breaks. Water breaks are discretionary with each head coach; Varsity players' complaints of hot, tired, hurting, dying, can't make another step, etc. are common players' complaints when players are being pushed by their coaches to reach a higher performance level and to enhance their physical capabilities; He was not present at Atlantic High on September 7, 1998; He had had one and one-half hour walk through sessions where no water breaks were given; but, he had never been in a two and one-half hour practice session where no water breaks were given, and He opined that if a group of players were engaged in a two and one-half hour practice session and no water was made available, it would be inappropriate conduct on behalf of the coaches. Respondent, Glenn L. Marsh, with a bachelor's degree (1990) in exceptional education and eight years' classroom teaching experience prior to accepting the teacher/coach position as Atlantic High School, received the highest rating on his assessment evaluations at each high school by which he has been employed.7 Coach Marsh testified that there were approximately 40 varsity players at the practice on September 7, 1998. Practice began at 9:00 a.m. in the morning, it was a light no-contact practice with helmets only, and no student other than S.J. suffered dehydration or collapsed. Coach Marsh further testified that the entire team, including S.J., endured two-a-day practice sessions beginning in August of 1998 until playing the first varsity game; that thereafter, one-a-day practice sessions were the usual pattern; that during the weeks of two-a-day practice sessions, no student suffered any problems, including dehydration, other than normal bumps and bruises associated with playing the game of football. Coach Marsh's confirmed that his policy and method of supervision was to give his assistant coaches individual authority to give water breaks to students when in individual training/practice sessions. He recalls that during individual groups, Assistant Coach Longerbeam was in charge of managerial things while he, Coach Marsh, was coaching and teaching, and Coach Longerbeam sent those players on water breaks.8 Coach Marsh recalled offering team water breaks during practice in his usual manner of a general statement to all, "Guys, anybody that needs water, get it," which would normally be echoed by assistant coaches. On the day in question Coach Marsh recalls he offered a "guys, anybody need water, get it" team water break before the start of the conditioning exercise phase of the practice. Coach Marsh does not recall any player personally asking him for water or a water break and heard no complaints from players about a lack of available water; nor does he recall seeing any group, other than the group of which he was in charge, actually going for water. Coach Marsh testified that his general group response/comment, given to no one student in particular and given many times in the past to all players, when players would complain about running laps, that is, "I am tired," "golly coach I am dying," was, in effect, "Guys you are not dying. You will pass out before you die." This statement is his general motivational response to players' gripes when running. He does not specifically recall, however, if he made that statement on September 7, 1998, but, admitted on cross-examination that he may have. Coach Marsh testified that his water availability policy change, removing the plastic water bottles and cups from the practice field and replacing them with the single-source water trough, was based upon several concerns: 1) students were distracted by playing and squirting each other; 2) not- withstanding his constant instructions against it, students continued to drink directly from the bottle, thereby increasing the health risk of passing colds, etc.; and 3) there was a lack of accessibility between the two practice fields. Following the September 7, 1998, incident and before September 24, 1998, Coach Marsh testified he met with Ron Pagano, principal of Atlantic High School. Mr. Pagano informed Coach Marsh during that meeting that Atlantic High School's water policy would be "get water every ten minutes no matter what the amount of physical activity, whether running, sitting, or standing, every ten minutes." There was no evidence proffered addressing whether Atlantic High School or Volusia County established, published or made known policy, standards, or guidelines regarding mandatory water breaks for students engaged in high school varsity sports, prior to and on September 7, 1998. Based upon evidence of record and at all times material hereto, Atlantic High School did not have in place a policy, principle, or guideline relating to the issue of water for student athletics engaged in physical activities. When questioned by Petitioner's attorney about newspaper articles containing allegations leveled against him, that players had not been provided with an adequate supply of water, Coach Marsh response was that he took the position that those allegations were untrue and unworthy of his making a public response.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it recommended that State of Florida Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent, Glenn L. Marsh, not guilty of violation of Section 231.28(1)(f) and Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2001.
The Issue As to Case 12-2570TTS, whether the Broward County School Board (School Board) has good cause to suspend the employment of Sarena Stewart (Respondent), a classroom teacher, for three days as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the School Board on July 30, 2012. As to Case 12-4137TTS, whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent's employment, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the School Board on December 21, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. New River is a public school in Broward County, Florida. During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at New River pursuant to a professional service contract. Prior to the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach math at McArthur High School (McArthur). Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2006. Respondent received satisfactory performance evaluations for each school year of her employment prior to the 2011-2012 school year. During the 2011-2012 school year, Melinda Wessinger was the principal of New River, and Taina Sierra was an assistant principal. Ms. Sierra's administrative responsibilities included oversight of the math department. The 2011-2012 school year was Ms. Wessinger's first year at New River. Ms. Sierra has been at New River for six school years. CASE 12-2570TTS For the 2011-2012 school year, August 22, 2011, was the first day of school for students. Teachers were required to report to work on August 15, 2011, for a week of preplanning. During the preplanning week, teachers attended faculty meetings and readied their classrooms for the coming school year. On August 15, 2011, the work hours for the preplanning week and for the upcoming school year were discussed at a faculty meeting. Also discussed was the sign-in and sign-out requirements for the preplanning week. Teachers were required to sign-in when they arrived at school and sign-out when they left the facility for any reason. On August 16, 2011, Respondent asked for and received permission from Ms. Sierra to leave New River so she could go to McArthur to retrieve certain materials she had left at her former school. Respondent did not follow the sign-out procedure when she left New River. On either August 16 or 17, 2011, Respondent again asked for, and received, permission from Ms. Sierra to leave New River so she could go to McArthur to retrieve other materials. Respondent did not follow the sign-out procedure when she left New River. One day during the preplanning week, Respondent was tardy arriving to school. On August 19, 2011, the last day of preplanning, Ms. Sierra had a conference with Respondent during which Ms. Sierra told Respondent to adhere to the sign-in and sign-out procedures and to arrive at work on time. Ms. Sierra did not consider that conference to be disciplinary. After this conference, Respondent knew, or should have known, New River's leave policies and its sign-out policy. Respondent had ready access to the faculty handbook through a link on the CAB (Communication Across Broward) system. When school started on August 22, 2011, teachers did not have to sign-in when they arrived at school. However, they were required to sign-out if they left school early. The New River faculty handbook contained the following as to signing out before the end of the school day: All personnel must get permission from the grade level assistant principal before leaving campus for any reason. This includes school related in-service, county meetings, school visits, etc. To leave campus for any personal reason, permission must be obtained from an assistant principal in advance. An emergency sign in/out sheet will be available at Office Manager's desk. If you are leaving during the day for personal reasons/doctor's appointments, it is your responsibility to obtain coverage for your classes. Please notify your administrator in the front office, via CBA, the teacher(s) who will cover your classes. The time you take off will be deducted from your accumulated personal sick or personal leave time. On September 16, 2011, Ms. Sierra met with Respondent to discuss complaints from parents and students. Ms. Sierra directed Respondent to cease and desist any inappropriate behavior toward students as a violation of the code of ethics and that she was to treat students with respect at all times. On October 28, 2011, Ms. Sierra had a pre-disciplinary conference with Respondent based on Respondent's continued failure to follow directives, including directives to comply with all processes and procedures regarding class coverage, absences, and embarrassing and/or disparaging students. As a result of that meeting, Ms. Sierra recommended that Respondent be suspended for one day without pay. That recommendation was approved by the School Board on December 6, 2011. Respondent served that one-day suspension without requesting a formal administrative hearing to challenge that action. Article 23 of the CBA pertains to “Leaves,” including sick leave and personal leave. Section A.2 of Article 23 provides that employees shall be granted up to six days each school year for personal reasons. That provision also provides that personal reasons leave shall not be granted on the day preceding or following a holiday. On November 30, 2011, Respondent put in for personal leave beginning on December 14 through 16, 2011. These dates immediately preceded a school holiday (school winter break was December 19 through 30). Ms. Sierra and Ms. Wessinger explained the CBA provision to Respondent and told her that she could not have personal leave. Respondent then explained that she was having a medical procedure performed.1/ They told her to change her leave from personal leave to medical leave. Ms. Sierra and Ms. Wessinger also told her that they needed a doctor's note excusing the absence. There was no particular form required for the doctor's note. On January 3, 2012, Ms. Sierra sent a follow-up email to Respondent informing her that she had not changed the leave request from personal leave to sick leave as she had been directed. Respondent responded that she had changed the leave request and stated that the change could be verified through the School Board's “smartfind” computer program. Respondent's representation to Ms. Sierra was false. Respondent had not changed her leave request.2/ In addition to her planned absences from December 14 through 16, 2011, Respondent called in sick on December 12 and 13, 2011.3/ On these two days, Respondent called into the smartfind system at 8:00 a.m. and 8:21 a.m., respectively. Despite having been repeatedly told to comply with policies and procedures relating to absences, these calls were not in compliance with New River's faculty handbook. A teacher who called in sick after 6:00 a.m. was required to call the substitute coordinator's (Nicole Armstrong) direct line, which gives a caller her voicemail should the coordinator not be at the school or at her desk. Respondent's failure to comply with the call-in procedure resulted in Ms. Armstrong’s having to scramble with very little time to find coverage for Respondent's classes on December 12 and 13, 2011. Teachers at New River are required to leave emergency lesson plans with Ms. Armstrong in case of unplanned absences. Respondent had provided emergency plans earlier in the year, but as of December 12 and 13, 2011, those emergency plans had been used and not replaced. Consequently, there were no emergency plans for December 12 and 13. Moreover, Respondent did not comply with the procedures for leaving lesson plans for planned absences for her absences on December 14 through 16. Prior to January 5, 2012, Respondent had brought in two notes addressing her need to be absent December 12-16, 2011, for medical reasons. Both notes were vague. On January 5, Ms. Wessinger and Ms. Sierrra met with Respondent to discuss with her the need for a clear doctor's note. During this meeting, they repeated that Respondent was to follow all policies, procedures, and directives given by the New River administration. Later that day, Respondent left New River before the end of the school day without following the sign-out policy. Respondent left early to get an acceptable note from her doctor, which she brought in the next day. Notwithstanding her need to obtain a doctor's note, Respondent failed to comply with the directives given her by Ms. Wessinger and Ms. Sierra earlier that day. Thereafter, Ms. Sierra recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for three days for gross insubordination. That recommendation underpins Case No. 12-2570TTS. CASE 12-4137TTS On January 23, 2012, Respondent confiscated a cell phone from N.D., a male student, during her fifth-period class. Respondent placed the cell phone in her desk drawer with the intention of turning the cell phone in to the office after class. At the end of that class, N.D. removed the cell phone from Respondent’s desk without permission and reported to his sixth-period language arts class taught by Tommy Moore. After the start of sixth period, Respondent realized that the cell phone had been removed from her desk drawer. Respondent went to Mr. Moore’s class. There is a conflict in the evidence as to what occurred next. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent knocked on the door to Mr. Moore’s classroom. Mr. Moore opened the door for Respondent. Respondent entered the classroom where she remained by the doorway. Respondent tried to get N.D. to come to her, but he refused to do so. Respondent asked N.D. in a loud voice to give her the cell phone. A loud argument broke out between Respondent and N.D. Another male student joined in the argument. Respondent and the students engaged in name calling with the terms “bitch” and “bum” being used. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent used either term. Respondent retrieved the cell phone and left Mr. Moore’s classroom. The argument lasted at least ten minutes and completely disrupted Mr. Moore’s class. Mr. Moore was unable to regain control of his class and was unable to complete the lesson he had started before Respondent came to his classroom. Mr. Moore did not try to stop the argument between Respondent and the two students. N.D. did not appear to be embarrassed or upset because of the argument he had with Respondent. None of the students appeared to be frightened or upset during the argument. After leaving Mr. Moore’s class, Respondent went to a math department meeting chaired by Ms. Stephanie Tegreeny. Ms. Tegreeny had completed her presentation to the other math teachers by the time Respondent arrived. Ms. Tegreeny repeated her presentation for Respondent. After that meeting, Respondent took N.D.’s cell phone to the office. Prior to the start of school on the morning of January 24, 2012, Robin Terrill, a school volunteer, and Mr. Moore were in the media center making copies. Respondent came into the media center and in a loud, rude, and vulgar fashion criticized the school administration. Respondent described the school administration in profane terms, including the “f” word. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether students overheard Respondent’s rant. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that students were present in an area that they could have overheard Respondent. Later in the morning of January 24, 2012, Mr. Moore contacted Ms. Sierra to inform her of Respondent’s conduct in his classroom the day before. Later that day Ms. Sierra asked Respondent about her conduct in Mr. Moore’s classroom, and she discussed with Respondent what had been reported to her. Prior to the start of school on January 25, 2012, Mr. Moore was walking down the stairs from his classroom to the main level with a student he had been tutoring. Respondent confronted Mr. Moore about his report to the administration of the incident in his classroom on January 23. This confrontation was clearly unwelcomed by Mr. Moore, who testified that he felt “agitated,” “stressed,” and “uncomfortable.” After that meeting on the stairs, Respondent stopped Mr. Moore again to ask what he knew about the administration’s investigation into the incident in his classroom. Mr. Moore thereafter altered his schedule to avoid Respondent. The School Board and the teacher’s union have entered into a CBA applicable to this proceeding. Sections A.1.a. and of Article 18 of the CBA provides for progressive discipline, in part, as follows: Progressive Discipline: Any discipline of an employee shall be for just cause. The parties agree that the concept of just cause embodies the principles of progressive discipline under the circumstances. Disciplinary procedures may include but are not limited to: verbal/written reprimand, suspension, demotion and termination. . . . The School Board’s Policy 4.9 provides certain “Disciplinary Guidelines” and is part of the record of this proceeding as Respondent’s Exhibit 2. Those guidelines are hereby incorporated in this Recommended Order by reference. The School Board’s Policy 5.9 prohibits bullying, which is defined by the policy as follows: “Bullying” means systematically and chronically inflicting physical hurt or psychological distress on one or more students or employees. It is further defined as: unwanted purposeful written, verbal, nonverbal, or physical behavior, including but not limited to any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, by an adult or student, that has the potential to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment or cause long term damage; cause discomfort or humiliation; or unreasonably interfere with the individual’s school performance or participation, is carried out repeatedly and is often characterized by an imbalance of power. Bullying may involve, but is not limited to: unwanted teasing threatening intimidating stalking cyberstalking cyberbullying physical violence theft sexual, religious, or racial harassment public humiliation destruction of school or personal property social exclusion, including incitement and/or coercion rumor or spreading of falsehoods
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: As to Case 12-2570TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Sarena Stewart for a period of three school days. As to Case 12-4137TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Sarena Stewart for a period of 30 school days. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 8th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Polk County School Board ("School Board"), had just cause to terminate Respondent, Blanca R. Ortiz' ("Respondent"), employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a teacher at Lakeland High School, where she taught spanish. Respondent currently holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2007).1 On February 6, 2008, Chelsey Etgen, a Lakeland High School student in Respondent's fourth-period class, left her packback in Respondent's classroom during the lunch period. The backpack contained Ms. Etgen's iPod Touch ("iPod"). When Ms. Etgen returned to the classroom from lunch, an unidentified male student, who was sitting near her, handed her (Etgen) a graph and a calculator and asked if those were her items. Ms. Etgen recognized both the graph and calculator as items that belonged to her and that had been in the same "pocket" of her backpack as her iPod. Ms. Etgen immediately checked her backpack and, upon doing so, discovered that her iPod was missing. Immediately after Ms. Etgen discovered that her iPod was missing, she notified Respondent. Respondent had the students in the class empty their pockets, but the iPod was not found. Respondent then instructed Ms. Etgen to notify appropriate school officials that the iPod had been taken from her backpack. On February 7, 2008, Ms. Etgen reported to the school resource officer ("resource officer" or "officer") that the iPod was missing from her backpack. Ms. Etgen's iPod was black with a silver face/screen. About a week after Ms. Etgen reported that her iPod was stolen, Respondent asked Ben Brown and another student in Respondent's third-period Spanish I class if they could unlock her iPod. Respondent told Mr. Brown and the other student that her daughter had taken the iPod to school and tried the password so many times that it (the iPod) had "locked up." Mr. Brown and several other students attempted to "unlock" the computer, but were unsuccessful in doing so. Almost two weeks after Ms. Etgen's iPod was reported as missing, Ms. Etgen told Mr. Brown that she thought Respondent had her (Etgen's) iPod. The two students then arranged for Mr. Brown to check the serial number on the iPod that Respondent stated was hers with the serial number of Ms. Etgen's stolen iPod. Mr. Brown agreed to get the serial number off the iPod. As a security measure, Mr. Brown told Ms. Etgen that after he obtained the serial number from the iPod, he would e-mail half of the serial number to her and indicated that she should provide the other half of the serial number to him. On or about February 20, 2008, and after the conversation described in paragraph 8, Mr. Brown went to Respondent's third-period class. The iPod, which Mr. Brown had been trying to "unlock" for Respondent, was still in Respondent's classroom. That day, Mr. Brown was able to hold and look at the iPod and to obtain the serial number of the iPod. Ms. Etgen obtained the serial number of her stolen iPod from the box in which the iPod had come. On February 20, 2008, Mr. Brown and Ms. Etgen exchanged a series of text messages in which each of them provided parts of the serial number of the iPod that was in Respondent's classroom. After doing so, Mr. Brown and Ms. Etgen confirmed that the serial number of the iPod that Respondent had said was hers matched the serial number of Ms. Etgen's stolen iPod. The iPod from which Mr. Brown obtained the serial number discussed above, looked identical to the one that he had been trying to "unlock" for Respondent. After confirming that the iPod in Respondent's classroom matched her iPod serial number, Ms. Etgen told school officials that she believed Respondent had her (Etgen's) iPod. Ms. Etgen also delivered to resource officers, Stacy Pough and Steve Sherman, the box for her iPod that had the serial number which Ms. Etgen believed matched the iPod in the possession of Respondent. On February 20, 2008, soon after receiving information from Ms. Etgen about the matching iPod serial numbers, Officers Pough and Sherman went to Respondent's classroom to ask her about the missing/stolen iPod. Upon entering the classroom, the officers approached Respondent and Officer Sherman asked Respondent about Ms. Etgen's missing iPod and asked if she had the iPod. In response, Respondent told the officers that she did not have the iPod. The resource officers then left the classroom and went into the hall and reported what they had been told to Lakeland High School administrators, Mr. Thomas, then principal, and Tracie Collins, then assistant principal of curriculum. When the resource officers made the initial contact with Respondent, Lakeland High School students, Tyler Qualls and Barbara Duckstein, were among the students in Respondent's classroom. Both Mr. Qualls and Ms. Duckstein overheard the conversation between the resource officers and Respondent described in paragraph 14. Although Respondent told the officers that her iPod was at home, both Mr. Qualls and Ms. Duckstein had seen Respondent with an iPod earlier that day. In fact, that same day and before the officers came to Respondent's classroom, Respondent had asked Ms. Duckstein to see if she could unlock Respondent's iPod. Ms. Duckstein then attempted to "unlock" what she believed to be Respondent's iPod,2 but was unsuccessful in doing so. Soon after the resource officers left Respondent's classroom, Ms. Duckstein left the classroom and told the officers that Respondent had an iPod in the classroom. After Officers Pough and Stewart completed their initial interview with Respondent and left her classroom, Mr. Quall observed Respondent remove the iPod from her desk drawer and put it in her black tote bag. After the resource officers' initial interview with Respondent, the students in Respondent's classroom were released early for lunch. Ms. Collins told Respondent that a student had "something" missing and asked her if the officers could come in and look around the classroom. Respondent agreed to allow the officers to search the classroom. Ms. Collins then authorized the resource officers to search Respondent's classroom. During the search, Ms. Collins observed Respondent move a stack of papers and folders from her desk into a bag. The manner in which Respondent moved the items made Ms. Collins suspicious, so she asked Officer Pough if he had looked in the bag. Officer Pough told Ms. Collins that he thought he had, but would look again. While looking through the bag, Officer Pough found the iPod that belonged to Ms. Etgen. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she did not take Ms. Etgen's iPod and that she did not know how the iPod got in her tote bag. Respondent also testified that she had received an iPod for Christmas and that she had asked the students to "unlock" the iPod that she believed was hers. Respondent's testimony implied that her iPod was identical to Ms. Etgen's iPod and that this may have been a source of confusion as to which iPod she had asked the students to "unlock." However, Respondent provided no evidence to support her claim that she had an iPod.3 In attempting to explain how Ms. Etgen's iPod came into her possession, Respondent then testified that on February 20, 2008, she confiscated several electronic devices, including an iPod, from students who were using them in class and placed the items on her desk. Respondent testified that at the end of the class, the students were allowed to come and retrieve the items, but apparently one unidentified student did not retrieve the iPod, but left it on Respondent's desk. Respondent suggested that perhaps it was that unidentified student who brought Ms. Etgen's iPod into Respondent's classroom on August 20, 2008.4 Respondent's testimony was confusing, vague, and unpersuasive. Ms. Collins, now principal of Lakeland High School, testified that the success of a teacher is tied to his or her credibility (character and integrity) with the students. The evidence supports the allegation that Respondent stole a student's iPod. Moreover, the evidence established that the incident occurred at school and that students at the school, as well as administrators, knew about the incident. Given the foregoing, Respondent is no longer an effective teacher. As a result of the subject incident on or about November 5, 2008, Respondent was convicted of petit theft in a criminal proceeding in Polk County, Florida.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Polk County School Board, enter a final order dismissing Respondent, Blanca Ortiz, from her position as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2008, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should discipline Respondent's teaching certificate for immorality, misconduct in office, or incompetency in connection with his supervision, as a high school baseball coach, of a team trip, during which hazing occurred, and his subsequent investigation of the incident.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a teacher and a coach for 27 years. He taught and coached in Illinois for 11 years before moving to Florida, where he has taught and coached in Florida for the past 16 years. He currently is teaching health, and he sometimes teaches physical education. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 551145, which is valid through June 30, 2005, and he is certified in health education, physical education, and social science. Respondent has coached basketball, football, and baseball. Most recently, Respondent was the head baseball coach at Coconut Creek High School where he was the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Coach of the Year for Broward County three years ago. He coached baseball four years at Coconut Creek High School and the preceding eight or nine years at Fort Lauderdale High School. The events in this case arose during the 2000 season; Respondent did not coach during the 2001 season. During spring break of 2000, Respondent took his baseball team to Orlando and Sebring. The purpose of the trip was to allow the team to play two high-school baseball games against teams from different regions of the state and to visit an Orlando theme park. The trip took place toward the end of the season, prior to the commencement of the district tournament. The Orlando trip extended from Sunday, April 16, through Wednesday, April 19. Twenty-four student athletes went on the trip. In addition to Respondent, the other adults supervising the students were assistant coaches Reynaldo Nieves, Joseph Leone, and Rex Nottage. Respondent's wife was also with him, as were several parents, but they did not share with Respondent and the assistant coaches supervisory responsibility for the students. On arriving in the Orlando area early in the morning, the group first visited Islands of Adventure, a theme park. They finally reached their hotel at about 8:00 p.m. Respondent gathered the students together and gave them directions as to where they could go. He told them they could not leave the motel property without the permission of a coach. Some students wanted to eat; most wanted to shower. Respondent told them they had to be in their rooms by 11:00 p.m. and their lights must be out by midnight. Respondent warned them that he and the other coaches would perform bed checks at these times. Respondent and his wife had arranged the rooms so that the group was together at the motel. Their rooms were on the second or third floor of the motel. Each room accommodated four students. Respondent and his wife were in a room, Mr. Leone was in a room, and Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage shared a room. The students' rooms were between the rooms of the adults to enable the adults to exercise closer control over the students. At some point prior to the first bed check, the older students began entering the rooms of the younger students, by trick or by force. A large group of the older students would then overpower the younger student and, typically, apply Icy Hot liniment to a towel and then to the testes of the student. The students were aware that this hazing was likely to occur during this trip. Seven of the students were hazed by nearly all of the remainder of the team. Prior to being hazed himself, D. B. was aware that other students had been hazed and was aware of the form of the hazing because some of the other students had come to D. B.'s room and asked to use the shower. D. B. was a junior, but this was his first year on the varsity, and he knew that the older students would try to haze him too. However, he did not try to contact one of the coaches or parents to intervene in the half hour that D. B. estimates elapsed between the hazing of the last of the other students and his hazing. As had happened to most of the other hazed students, most, if not all, of the older students on the team entered D. B.'s room, pulled down his pants, and applied Icy Hot and shaving cream to his genital area. D. B. yelled and struggled against four or five students on various parts of his prone body. He sustained some minor scratches while he was held down for about one minute. As soon as he was released, D. B. took a shower. He chased the remaining students out of his room, swinging a belt and yelling. While in the shower, D. B. was so angry that he threw soap and shampoo containers in the shower stall. About ten minutes after D. B. was hazed, Mr. Nieves was roaming the rooms and entered D. B.'s room. D. B. testified that the hazing took place around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. If so, Mr. Nieves entered the room around 9:10 to 9:40 p.m. When Mr. Nieves entered D. B.'s room, he found him in a bad mood. D. B. was throwing things around the bathroom and seemed mad. The door to his room was open, so Mr. Nieves walked inside and asked if he was okay. D. B., who was wearing only a towel wrapped around his waist, did not answer, but left the bathroom and stood in front of the wall air conditioning unit, which was blowing cold air. Mr. Nieves saw about five marks on D. B.'s back and saw that D. B. was beet red. The marks appeared as though someone had been grabbing him. Mr. Nieves offered to get Respondent, and D. B. said to do so. Mr. Nieves thought that D. B. had been wrestling or something. His visit to D. B.'s room had occurred not long before the first room check. Mr. Nieves walked down the hall to Respondent's room and found Respondent inside. Mr. Nieves informed Respondent that D. B. wanted to talk to him. He told Respondent that it looked like something was wrong. Respondent and Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room. They arrived there about three minutes from the time that Mr. Nieves had left the student's room. Respondent entered D. B.'s room ahead of Mr. Nieves and found D. B. standing in front of the air conditioning fan, holding the towel open like he was cooling down. In a conversation that lasted about 30 seconds, Mr. Nieves said to D. B., "Coach is here. Tell him what's wrong." Respondent added, "What's wrong?" To these inquiries, D. B. replied, "Nothing. Don't worry about it." Mr. Nieves and Respondent asked about the red marks, but D. B. said they were nothing and everything was fine. D. B. testified that he did not disclose the hazing because he knew that Respondent would punish the team. He assumed that the team would be upset with D. B. for telling the coach that they had done something of which Respondent disapproved. Somewhat irritated that D. B. had asked to see Respondent and three minutes later declined to tell him anything, Mr. Nieves left the room with Respondent. They then completed the bed check, and Mr. Nieves did not see Respondent again that night. However, Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room about a half hour later. He found D. B. still standing by the air conditioning fan. Mr. Nieves told D. B. that it was not fair to Mr. Nieves to say to Respondent that nothing was wrong. Mr. Nieves then asked if something was wrong. D. B. replied, "They got me, coach." Mr. Nieves did not know what he meant, but thought that D. B. meant some sort of rough-housing. Mr. Nieves asked D. B. why did you not say something to Respondent. Mr. Nieves spent about 15 minutes in D. B.'s room, but did not learn anything more specific. However, D. B. expressed considerable anger to Mr. Nieves. The Icy Hot that came into contact with D. B.'s penis was most painful. The next morning, the pain was somewhat reduced. Early that morning, the team went to a baseball field to prepare for a game that day. They did a lot of situational baserunning so the fielders could practice. Because D. B. was not a starter, he and the other nonstarters had to do much of the baserunning. He displayed no problems running in the morning. However, hours later, during the pregame practice, a ball was hit toward D. B. in the outfield. He charged it, but it got by him. Instead of turning and running after the ball, as Respondent required of all players, D. B. turned and walked toward the ball. Seeing D. B. and another student not hustling, Respondent pulled them off the field. When Respondent demanded to know why D. B. had not run after the ball, D. B. said that "my balls are on fire." D. B. had a poor attitude at times and was stubborn. Without responding meaningfully to D. B.'s explanation, Respondent benched both players for the entire game. D. B.'s explanation is discredited due to his ability to run without impediment in the morning. D. B. had called his parents Monday at around noon and had told them what had happened the prior evening. D. B. called them again after the afternoon game. During the first call, D. B.'s parents told him to defend himself if necessary and not to worry about talking to Respondent about the hazing. Respondent had not been feeling well Sunday night. By the time of practice Monday morning, his throat was so sore that he had to have his assistant coaches direct the students on the field and yell instructions. After the game, in which Respondent's team had played poorly and lost, Respondent spoke only briefly to the team and allowed Coach Nottage to yell at the students to fire them up and make them work harder. After the team had returned to the motel, Mr. Nieves talked to D. B.'s roommates. He was somewhat concerned about D. B. because, after the game, when he had asked the student what was wrong, D. B. had only laughed as if he were mad. The roommates talked vaguely about Icy Hot, but they were unwilling to be more specific. Around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Monday at the motel, D. B. came to Respondent's room and asked if he could talk to the coach for a minute. Respondent said he could. D. B. then told Respondent that he had had Icy Hot put on his testes. Whispering, Respondent asked if he was alright and what did D. B. want Respondent to do about it. The record is unclear whether he asked this in a challenging or inquisitive tone. D. B. did not add more details. On Tuesday morning, the team departed Orlando in vans headed for Sebring, where they were to play another game Tuesday night. Respondent had been quite sick Monday night, unable to swallow or talk. By Tuesday, he was even more sick. No one spoke to him about D. B. or hazing. With considerable effort, Respondent was able to escort the team to the Sebring motel, and then he went directly to a nearby hospital emergency room. Diagnosed as having pharyngitis, Respondent obtained an injection of antibiotics, which provided him relief the next day. Scheduling problems resulted in postponing the Sebring game, so that the team did not return to the motel until after 11:00 p.m. Respondent directed the students to go directly to their rooms and told them that there would be a midnight bed check. Late the next morning, Wednesday, the team left Sebring to return to Fort Lauderdale, where they arrived at 3:00 p.m. One of the parents traveling with the team told Respondent at a gas stop that D. B. had called his parents. Respondent summoned D. B. and complained about D. B. calling his parents without first informing Respondent of the problem. The conversation was brief because the group was waiting in their vans. D. B. replied, "Well, coach, you know what happens." Respondent answered, "I don't know what happens. Go get in your van." On the way back to Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Nieves told Respondent what he knew about hazing in the form of older students applying Icy Hot to the genitalia of younger students and, in some cases, paddling younger students. Respondent expressed his frustration that D. B. had not complained to him about the hazing. When they returned to Fort Lauderdale, Respondent told D. B. that he wanted to speak to him and his father, who was there to pick him up. However, D. B. and his father left the school without speaking to Respondent. Respondent decided to call a team meeting to find out what had happened. Respondent called D. B.'s mother to assure that D. B. would come to the meeting, but she said that he was at work and that she had already called the school board. D. B. was not at work. In the team meeting, Respondent warned the students that hazing was very serious. He asked for those persons directly and indirectly involved to identify themselves. Various students began raising their hands, admitting to various levels of involvement, and Mr. Nottage recorded their names, at Respondent's direction. Respondent then warned the students that the school board was involved and there could be criminal punishments for certain persons. He told the students that there was nothing that he could do about these consequences, but he would take his own actions. At this point, many of the students began retracting admissions. Feeling that the notes had become useless, Respondent obtained the notes from Mr. Nottage and discarded them later that weekend. Prominent among the many differences in testimony concerning the events of this trip and its immediate aftermath is a difference in recollection between Respondent and Mr. Nieves concerning a conversation between the two of them following the meeting. Mr. Nieves testified that Respondent instructed him to deny that the notes existed, and Respondent denied that this is true. Such dishonesty, if true, would merit punishment. It is possible that Respondent did ask Mr. Nieves to conceal the truth in order to protect Respondent's students, who had made confessions prior to understanding the potential administrative and criminal consequences. Perhaps Respondent regretted his role in securing this inculpatory information. On the other hand, Mr. Nottage, as well as over 22 students were at this meeting (another student had failed to attend), so Respondent had to know that such a concealment was unlikely to go undetected. Most importantly, though, Mr. Nieves was a most unconvincing witness. His recollection of details was poor, contradictory, and entirely inconsistent with his apparent intelligence. His demeanor was poor. The Administrative Law Judge was left with the opinion that Mr. Nieves was lying at the time that he first provided statements concerning the events--for some reason, trying unfairly to inculpate Respondent or to exculpate himself--or he was lying at the hearing--belatedly, trying to protect Respondent. On balance, it is impossible to credit Mr. Nieves' testimony on this crucial point. After talking the matter over with Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage (Mr. Leone had already left before the meeting), Respondent decided to punish the students as best he could by making them run. Those who had actually touched the younger students had to run 10 miles. Older students who had stood by and encouraged or supported the hazing had to run an intermediate distance. Even the victims, such as D. B., had to run because they had not reported the hazing, but their distance was the shortest. The team had a game the next morning. Late in the afternoon or early in the evening on Thursday, Respondent called his supervisor for athletics, the Coconut Creek High School athletic director, and reported the hazing in general terms. The athletic director told Respondent that he had done the right thing by calling him and said to come see him Monday, when school was back in session. On Saturday morning, Respondent required the students to run the distances that he had determined appropriate. He also informed the team that he would be recommending to the principal that the baseball team not take field trips. The athletic director later suggested that Respondent not make that recommendation. D. B. and his parents have filed a civil action against the school board for damages arising out of the incident. School officials have known that hazing has been a problem in the past at Coconut Creek High School, although more with the soccer team. In 1997, the athletic director asked Respondent, as the baseball head coach, to draft a letter stating a policy prohibiting hazing. Addressed to the parents of baseball players, the letter states in part: "The athletic department has a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to 'initiating' or 'hazing' a fellow student. Anyone guilty of participating in a hazing or a form of initiation will be immediately dismissed from the team." Respondent and the athletic director signed the letter. At the start of the 2000 season, Respondent warned the students on the team that he would not tolerate any sort of misbehavior, including hazing. Respondent had not been aware of any hazing incidents on the baseball team since 1997. As already noted, other students knew of the continuation of the practice. Some of the parents of the older students also knew of the practice, at least as it had been inflicted on their sons. However, it does not necessarily follow that what a student shares with a parent, he also shares with his coach. Petitioner has failed to prove gross immorality or moral turpitude on the part of Respondent. Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of any of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning, his mental health, or his physical health and safety. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent has failed to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. The evidence does not establish that Respondent knew or had reason to know that hazing was about to occur or that hazing had occurred. At all times, Respondent was in charge of 24 students, and, most of the time, he was sick--after Sunday, very sick. The scrutiny that Respondent could reasonably be expected to give the D. B. situation, especially given the student's reluctance to make a straightforward declaration of what happened, must be assessed n light of these circumstances. As the last person to be hazed, D. B. had ample opportunity to alert the coaches. After the hazing, D. B. repeatedly declined to disclose the problem to Respondent. D. B. knew that Respondent did not condone hazing. D. B. knew that, rather than ignore a hazing complaint, Respondent would punish the responsible players, and this would draw unwanted attention to D. B. Seeking advice from his parents, D. B. was reinforced in his earlier determination not to seek the effective remedies that he knew were available within the structure of the team. Respondent's investigation was sufficient for imposing intra-team discipline. His apparent departure from school policy of dismissal from the team may be explained by Respondent's awareness that the school board and possibly law enforcement would also investigate the matter and impose their own sanctions; presumably, the athletic department policy was intended to operate in isolation. Although Respondent could have informed the athletic director of the problem Wednesday night or Thursday morning, Respondent did so later Thursday. This brief delay caused no prejudice, as Respondent's supervisor assured Respondent that he had done the right thing and he would visit him the next Monday.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards Executive Director Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore Chief, Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert F. McKee Kelly & McKee, P.A. Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Robert E. Sickles Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602
