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.
Findings Of Fact This case was presented for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint and subsequent amendment presented by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, State of Florida, against Michael H. Deis, holder of teaching certificate No. 356436, Rank II, post graduate valid through June 30, 1987. The accusations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and its amendment are as indicated in the Issues statement to this Recommended Order. The remaining facts found result from a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, administrative hearing held upon request of the Respondent. The Respondent was born March 7, 1945, and is married and has three children, ages one and one-half, four, and eight. The Respondent has been married since June 17, 1972. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science degree, a Masters Degree in Business Administration and fifty-five hours' credit toward a Doctorate of Philosophy in Education. The Respondent has been employed with the Collier County School System in the State of Florida since February, 1974. Prior to that time, the Respondent had been employed in management for General Motors Corporation and with General Development Corporation for a period of three years in Miami, Florida. After becoming an employee of the Collier County School System, the Respondent taught math in the sixth through eighth grades at East Naples, Florida, Middle School. The range of ages for those students was twelve to fourteen years old. Beginning in the January term of 1975, the Respondent taught adult education in the Collier County School System. In 1976, Respondent moved to Everglades High School where he coached boys' basketball, varsity basketball and girls' basketball. His academic responsibility at that school included the teaching of basic math and other subjects to boys and girls whose ages ranged from fourteen to twenty. The Respondent then moved to Barron Collier High School in September, 1978, as a daytime adult education instructor. The age range for those students was from sixteen to eighty-three. In the school years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the Respondent coached girls' softball, girls' junior varsity basketball and assisted with the track program for girls. The ages of the girls Respondent coached or assisted were fourteen through eighteen. During the school year 1978-79, the Respondent met one Lori Tomaselli, a member of the girls' basketball team. This initial introduction was followed by correspondence of August 1979, addressed to the Respondent from Lori Tomaselli in which she made comment about her summer vacation and related that she had "missed" the basketball program. At that time Tomaselli was fifteen years old. The letter of August, 1979, was followed by an act on the part of Tomaselli on December 20, 1979, in which she walked up to the Respondent, turned him around and gave him a kiss. Deis' reaction was one of sunrise, followed by a comment to the effect that she was his favorite basketball player. She replied that she had cared for him since the first basketball meeting in October, 1978, when she was fourteen years of age. On December 30, 1979, Tomaselli wrote Deis while she was vacationing in the State of New York. The Respondent did not write in return or contact her. Respondent next saw Tomaselli on January 5, 1980, after she had returned from her vacation and was a participant in a basketball game which the Respondent coached. From the time of this basketball game forward through the basketball season, the Respondent would sit next to Tomaselli on the bus used to transport the basketball team. Approximately two weeks beyond January 5, 1980, the Respondent selected Tomaselli as his classroom assistant or aide. Tomaselli served in this capacity for a period of approximately two months, one hour each day. In the initial part of 1980, the Respondent would also assist Tomaselli with her math and science lessons. Beginning in February 1980, Tomaselli kept the statistics for the girls' softball team which was coached by the Respondent. At the time, Tomaselli was also participating on the girls' track team. The relationship between the Respondent and Tomaselli escalated and on March 7, 1980, Tomaselli kissed the Respondent and gave him a hug. The occasion for this display was that of the Respondent's birthday. Also in the month of March, the Respondent indicated that he began to feel an "interest" in Tomaselli. Prior to the spring school break for 1980, the Respondent paid Tomaselli $50.00 to assist in painting his home. During that same vacation, the Respondent met Tomaselli at a local beach, he coincidence. At one of the track events at which the Respondent was assisting and the young woman Tomaselli was participating, Tomaselli hugged Deis in the presence of her parents. During the time period of the track season, the Respondent drove Tomaselli to her home after school on three occasions and explained his reason for doing so as being one, that a girl friend of Tomaselli's car had broken down; two, that her parents would not pick her up and three, that Tomaselli had asked him for a ride. These rides took place before April 14, 1980. On Sunday, April 13, 1980, the parents of Lori Tomaselli had a discussion with Deis and through this conversation expressed the desire that Deis cease his relationship with their daughter to the extent of not associating with her. Among his responses, the Respondent indicated to the parents that if their daughter were eighteen years old and single, he would ask her out. On that same date, the Principal at Barron Collier High School called the Respondent to inform Deis that the Tomasellis had complained to the Principal. Deis then indicated that he would resign his coaching position effective the next morning. On Monday, April 14, 1980, the Respondent met with the Principal and a Mr. Munz, Assistant Superintendent of the Collier County School System, and as a result of that conference, was given a memorandum which instructed him to have no further contact with Lori Tomaselli. At that meeting, Respondent explained to the school officials that he had a strong emotional attachment for Lori Tomaselli. On the next morning, April 15, 1980, Tomaselli went to Deis' classroom and was shown a copy of the aforementioned memorandum and Deis told her "they would have to cool it." After Tomaselli left his classroom, the Respondent immediately went to see the Principal and told the Principal that he had shown the memorandum prohibiting contact to Tomaselli. As a result of this conversation with the Principal, the Respondent received a second memorandum from Assistant Superintendent Munz which reminded Deis that he was under direct order not to talk to Tomaselli and telling him that the conversation which Deis had had with Tomaselli about the meeting of April 14, 1980, was, by its terms, a violation of the Assistant Superintendent's instructions. The Respondent became angry about the second memorandum in that he thought it was unnecessary. He felt that he was being harassed. As a result of this attitude Respondent began to write to Tomaselli, and she in turn would reply. This letter writing activity continued on a daily basis. In some of these letters, the Respondent instructed Lori Tomaselli, when questioned by the Principal, "to keep cool" and further instructed Tomaselli that when she met with her mental health counselor that she should not indicate that she had been with the Respondent. The letters also indicated to Lori Tomaselli that the Respondent intended to divorce his wife and marry Tomaselli. In addition to the letter writing, Tomaselli began to call the Respondent as much as twice a day, using the cafeteria phone in the school to speak to the Respondent. In May, 1980, the Respondent accidentally saw Tomaselli at a local skating rink while there with his daughter. On May 14, 1980, Deis met with the School Superintendent, Dr. Thomas Richie, and through that conversation agreed to take personal leave. This leave was taken and the Respondent sought psychiatric counseling from Dr. Frank Dennis at the behest of school officials. The leave of absence was from the period May 15, 1980, through May 29, 1980. Dr. Dennis' fees were paid by the Collier County School Board. (During the month of April, 1980, the Respondent had had another meeting with Dr. Richie in which he expressed the opinion to Dr. Richie that he realized his relationship with Tomaselli had become too personal and that he had failed to take steps to correct the situation, and further that he was personally responsible for continuing the development of this relationship.) On May 16, 1980, Tomaselli mailed a letter to the Respondent expressing her affection for him. Around May 18, 1980, Tomaselli ran away from her home and a friend of hers took her to a location where the Respondent, acting as a real estate salesman, was showing a model home. At that time, the Respondent did not want Tomaselli to come into that location and resisted this encounter. The follow-up to the May 18, 1980, meeting was a series of calls from Tomaselli to the Respondent at a residence of a friend of the Respondent's, in view of the fact that Deis had moved from his home. On May 30, 1980, Respondent was called by Tomaselli to ask him to pick her up. The Respondent agreed and after picking up Tomaselli and being afraid of being detected with Tomaselli in his automobile, a circumstance developed in which Tomaselli exited his van and was slightly injured. The Respondent left the area where Tomaselli had jumped from the van and he then removed her property from his automobile. Sometime during the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent had returned Tomaselli's affection by kissing her and expressing his affection for her to the extent of telling Lori Tomaselli that someday she would be Lori Deis, meaning that she would be the Respondent's wife. On July 29, 1980, the Respondent resigned his teaching position in the Collier County School System. After his resignation, there have continued to be letters and telephone communications between tie Respondent and Lori Tomaselli. Those communications were as recent as March 24, 1981, at which time a letter was received by the Respondent from Lori Tomaselli. The relationship between the Respondent and Lori Tomaselli took place at a time when the Respondent was having marital problems and Lori Tomaselli was having difficulty with her parents. Those circumstances continued to exist at the time of the hearing. Nonetheless, the relationship was contrary to the expressed prohibition by the School Administration. The existence of such a relationship was such that it reduced the effectiveness of Deis as a teacher in the Collier County School System and did not provide a proper example for the students, nor allow the Respondent to practice his profession at the highest ethical standards.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is entitled to an athletic coaching certificate, as described in section 1012.55(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(4).
Findings Of Fact Early Life: 1960-1978 Petitioner was born on December 22, 1960. Petitioner is the youngest of five sons born to a Bahamian mother, who worked as a beautician, and a Jamaican father, who worked as a custodian. Petitioner's four older brothers have all earned college degrees. Petitioner's oldest brother served as an Army psychiatrist. Two other brothers also served in the military: one as a comptroller and the other as a Navy pilot. Petitioner's youngest brother is the executive director of a well-known hotel on Miami Beach. Petitioner grew up in the Liberty City section of Miami and graduated from Miami Beach Senior High School in 1978. Liberty City was a dangerous area in which to live with gunfire a familiar sound to residents. Two years after Petitioner graduated, Liberty City and other parts of Miami were torn by race riots. Unlike all of his siblings, Petitioner has never attended college. After high school, Petitioner worked as a washer and cook at a local hospital, but continued to pursue his real interest, which was performing as a disc jockey (DJ). Interning nights at a local radio station, Petitioner acquired enough experience to start a mobile DJ business in Liberty City and Miami Beach, where he worked on weekends. Criminal History: Essentially 1979-1986 Respondent's characterizations of Petitioner's criminal history as "extensive," in the Amended Notice of Reasons, or, worse, "storied," in his proposed recommended order at page 7, are unsupported by the record. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, only two criminal incidents are relevant, and they are misdemeanors that occurred over 25 years ago. The rest of Petitioner's criminal history consists entirely of arrests for which the charges were later dropped, except for a 1986 case in which the court withheld adjudication on a felony weapon charge to which Petitioner's plea is not in the record and a 2009 arrest for unpaid child support for which the purge amount was about $10,000. On August 28, 1979, Petitioner, then 18 years old, was arrested in Dade County for reckless display of a firearm and possession of over five grams of marijuana, both felonies. The marijuana charge--Petitioner's only arrest for drugs or alcohol--was dismissed, but Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and fined $25. This incident will be referred to as the "1979 Misdemeanor." In a letter dated May 7, 2009, to the Miami-Dade School Board Executive Director of Fingerprinting, Petitioner stated that he was in the backyard of his parents' home with one of his brothers and in possession of a bb gun. The small fine corroborates Petitioner's explanation. It is therefore found that a "bb gun" was the weapon in question, although Petitioner's letter misstated that all charges were dropped. On February 12, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for loitering and prowling and carrying a concealed weapon, the former a misdemeanor and the latter a felony. By operation of a deemed admission to Respondent's Requests for Admission, Petitioner, while a passenger in a vehicle, was found in possession of a semi-automatic weapon concealed in a ski mask. The misdemeanor charge was dismissed, but the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the felony charge and imposed a fine of an unspecified amount. The record does not disclose Petitioner's plea to this charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that, while he was DJing in a park without a permit, he had a concealed weapon without a permit, but misstated that both charges were dropped. On November 18, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for inciting rioting, a felony. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that he was DJing in a park and was arrested because the music was too loud. On October 4, 1986, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with grand larceny with a firearm, a felony. Based on a guilty plea, Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and sentenced to time served. This incident will be referred to as the "1986 Misdemeanor." In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was DJing a party in Tampa when a group of men started to beat a young woman in the parking lot. When security refused to intervene, Petitioner displayed a firearm to break up the crowd. Petitioner's letter misstates that the charge was dismissed. His explanation fails to account for the portion of the charge involving grand larceny, but makes sense when applied to the charge of which Petitioner was convicted. On December 13, 1987, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for two or three counts of aggravated assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon to commit a felony, all felonies. These charges were dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a large fight broke out at a skating rink, but surveillance video revealed that he had not been involved in the fight, nor had he possessed a weapon. On or about June 15, 1993, Petitioner was arrested in Cook County, Illinois, and charged with disorderly conduct. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was staying at the Ritz in Chicago. While shopping along the riverfront, a law enforcement officer asked him if he could afford to shop there. A confrontation ensued, and the officer arrested Petitioner, but the charge was later dropped. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon, a felony. The charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight had broken out at a house party, and the police arrested everyone in attendance. There is no record of a 1997 arrest for battery. There is an arrest in July or October 1996 for battery in Louisiana, but Petitioner pleaded not guilty, and the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner mentioned a 1997 case involving a nightclub fight with which he had not been involved. A week later, a complainant claimed that Petitioner had hit him, but the charge was dismissed. On July 5, 1999, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with battery, a misdemeanor, which may have been raised to aggravated battery, a felony, by the prosecutor. Either way, the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight broke out at a nightclub, but witnesses verified that Petitioner had not hit the complainant, who originally said that another person had hit him. On October 6, 2002, Petitioner was arrested in Dorchester County, South Carolina, and charged with aiding or procuring a person to expose private parts in a lewd and lascivious manner--namely, the insertion of a soda bottle by two strippers into the vagina of a member of the audience who climbed onstage during a performance, as well as several acts of unspecified obscenities by two male members of the audience with the aforesaid strippers. The charge was that these unlawful acts were in the presence of and with the encouragement of Petitioner. The South Carolina documentation is contradictory as to disposition. The most plausible rendering of the disposition comes from the general sessions docket, which reports that, on October 13, 2003, this charge was dismissed with leave to restore, if Petitioner violated an agreement not to appear in South Carolina for five years at a revenue-producing event. Another document completed by the court clerk states that Petitioner was sentenced to six months in the state Department of Corrections, based on a plea not otherwise described, but the sentence was suspended for five years, pursuant to the agreement identified above. A partial transcript of the October 13, 2003, court proceeding quotes the judge as saying that the state was nolle prossing two charges, and the court was sentencing Petitioner to six months on apparently a third offense, even though nothing in the other documents describes three charges, but the judge suspended the sentence for five years, subject to the above-identified agreement. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the burden of establishing what took place in South Carolina falls on Respondent. Nothing in the record supports the judge's reference to three charges, which renders the judge's description of events unreliable. The most that can be said of the South Carolina incident is that a lone charge was dropped, subject to reinstatement, if Petitioner made a revenue-producing appearance in South Carolina for five years. The evidence fails to establish any finding of guilt by the court, plea of guilty by Petitioner, or subsequent reinstatement of the charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that the club owner had performers on stage, but Petitioner had nothing to do with their performance. Petitioner testified that he had been paid merely to appear at the club and sign autographs. On February 17, 2009, Petitioner was arrested on a writ of bodily attachment in connection with a finding of contempt of court for failing to pay child support. The purge amount was $10,223.36. The disposition of this matter is unclear, although it is obvious that Petitioner was arrested for an unpaid child-support obligation and was released, presumably after paying the purge amount or such lower amount as the court deemed fit. Luke Records and 2 Live Crew: 1987-1992 After graduating from high school, Petitioner grew his DJ business to the point that, by 1987 or 1988, he had started Luke Records, Inc., a record company devoted to the production and sale of hip-hop music. Using funds provided by his brothers, Petitioner eventually employed over 40 persons in Miami and elsewhere around the United States. The growth of Luke Records was largely the result of its association with 2 Live Crew (2LC), a hip-hop group known for its sexually explicit songs. Not yet under contract with a record company, 2LC visited Petitioner in Miami, where the parties agreed to a recording contract. Petitioner appears to have quickly assumed substantial business and performance roles with 2LC and wrote some of the songs that the group performed. Serving as the frontman for 2LC, Petitioner was prominent in the group's performances, which, according to Petitioner, featured dance music informed by the twin themes of sex and comedy. Clearly, 2LC's songs were dance music that featured sex. Regardless of the role of comedy in 2LC's music, Petitioner himself acknowledges that its sexual themes rendered the music inappropriate for minors. The evidentiary record does not include the lyrics to 2LC's songs, but the more offensive titles include vulgar references to male and female genitalia and a reference to women as "hoes," meaning "whores, as well as at least one album cover featuring Petitioner surrounded by scantily clad women. Given the explicit sexual content of the titles and lyrics, Petitioner helped promote the use of parental advisory stickers to be applied to albums, tapes, and CDs, including those of 2LC, that contained lyrics inappropriate for minors and thus constituted a form of adult entertainment. On the other hand, two unimpeachable sources--the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--found serious elements in at least certain of the 2LC songs of this era. In a copyright infringement case that arose after Luke Records had sold over 250,000 copies of 2LC's adaptation of Roy Orbison's, "Oh, Pretty Woman," the Supreme Court held, in a case of first impression, that commercial parody could be protected under the fair-use exception to copyright law. Describing the song itself, the Supreme Court opinion states: While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies. It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 583 (1994). In Luke Records v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1022 (1992), Petitioner and others won a reversal of a district court declaratory judgment that the 2LC musical recording, "As Nasty As They Wanna Be," was obscene under state and federal law. In another case of first impression--this time applying the obscenity test in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), to a musical composition containing instrumental music and lyrics--the appellate court relied on the testimony of two newspaper music critics that the subject music possessed serious musical or artistic value. More interestingly, the court relied on the testimony of a Rhodes scholar who was soon to undertake employment as an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. This testimony, which focused on the lyrics, traced "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" to three oral traditions of African-American music: the "call and response," "doing the dozens," and "boasting." Noting that the lyrics of "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" reflected many aspects of poor, inner-city blacks, this witness added that some of the lyrics contained statements of political significance or used literary devices, such as alliteration, allusion, metaphor, rhyme, and personification. Assuming without deciding that the trial judge had correctly determined that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" met the first two prongs of the Miller test--i.e., the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest based on contemporary community standards and the work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law--the appellate court rejected the trial court's determination that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" fails the third prong of the Miller test--i.e., that it "lacks serious artistic, scientific, literary or political value." 960 F.2d at 138 (citing Miller, 413 U.S. at 24). After 2LC: 1992-2008 Petitioner and 2LC parted ways in 1992. Three years later, Petitioner and Luke Records, Inc. filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in the assignment of all masters and copyrights owned by Petitioner or Luke Records, Inc., to a company formed by a former in-house counsel of Luke Records. Thompkins v. Lil' Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1299-1301, and 1314n.22 (11th Cir. 2007). To some extent, perhaps due to the bankruptcy, Petitioner lost exclusive use of names associated with him, such as "Uncle Luke." As an asset of Petitioner, the Luther Campbell brand suffered a loss in value. The evidentiary record provides an incomplete picture of what Petitioner did during the ten years following his departure from 2LC. The arrests and Petitioner's explanations suggest that he DJed at house parties, made paid appearances at autograph-signing events, and attended nightclubs, although whether as a performer, audience member, or promoter is not clear. Petitioner released four hip-hop albums from 1992-2006. As always, Petitioner remained in Miami. In 1991 or 1992, Petitioner was among the persons who started the Liberty City Optimist youth football program. Competing with the local John Doe gang, Petitioner and other founders of the Optimist youth football program got kids off the dangerous streets and onto the football field. During the early years of his involvement with the youth football program, Petitioner invested considerable time and money, contributing at least $80,000. Petitioner helped lobby the Miami-Dade County Commission for what was eventually an expenditure of an estimated $14 million in facilities to serve organized football at local parks. Now, the Liberty City Optimist youth programs serve 6000 boys and girls, from 4-16 years of age, through a variety of sports and academic programs. Petitioner's wife, a local attorney and former FSU cheerleader, chairs the Liberty City Optimist youth cheerleading program. Although there have been some football-famous graduates of the program, such as Chad Johnson, the program's larger success is that 90 percent of the first group of youth to complete the program started college. Until 2005, Petitioner was not directly involved with the children in the Optimist youth programs. In 2005, realizing that his entertaining career had "taken a turn," Petitioner began coaching an Optimist youth football team. As he dialed up his involvement with youth, Petitioner tapered off his performances and appearances. Petitioner's two most recent albums are Somethin' Nasty, which was released in 2001, and My Life and Freaky Times, which was released in 2006. In contrast to the earlier cover art of 2LC, the cover art for the last album depicted Petitioner surrounded by fully clothed women. But some of Petitioner's titles would fit easily among the oeuvre of 2LC in its heyday. Somethin' Nasty includes "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," and "Hoes," and My Life and Freaky Times includes "Pop That Pussy" and "South Beach Bitches." In 2008, Petitioner made his last appearance, to date, with 2LC, at what was limited to an autograph-signing event. At the beginning of this period of Petitioner's life, in 1993, he became acquainted with James Harbor, Jr. Mr. Harbor was working for a state representative and met Petitioner through Congressman Alcee Hastings. Mr. Harbor later did an internship with Petitioner. Still later, Mr. Harbor was elected as a state representative from Palm Beach County and enlisted Petitioner in get-out-the-vote campaigns throughout Florida. Interestingly, Mr. Harbor testified that, as part of a voter-recruitment campaign, Petitioner appeared "in character." Mr. Harbor stressed repeatedly the distinction between the public persona of Petitioner and his private personality. Not a party person, during the time that Mr. Harbor has known him, Petitioner has always been "structured," hard-working and responsible, respectful toward women, and a firm disciplinarian when it came to his children. Mr. Harbor's testimony about the distinction between Petitioner's public persona and private personality finds support throughout the record, including a careful examination of the timelines. The 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor both involved weapons, not sex, and 2LC's main theme appears to have been sex, not violence or weapons. Whatever image of garish defiance that Petitioner may have cultivated during his 2LC-era, by the start of that era, he was never arrested again on charges that resulted in an admission of guilt, a no-contest plea, or a finding of guilt, except for the child-support arrest. Although the certification of Petitioner must take into consideration his public persona, to the extent that it still derives from his short-lived career with 2LC, there is no indication over the past 20 years that, outside of his performances and appearances, Petitioner has resembled the sex- song impresario, whom he portrayed with 2LC and in his later albums. High School Football: 2009-Present Starting in the 2009-10 school year, Petitioner turned from coaching Optimist youth football to coaching local high school football. During the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Central Senior High School, where his wife teaches a law class. For the 2011-12 school year, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Northwestern Senior High School. Although he would be willing to work as an unpaid volunteer, Petitioner has been required, due to insurance requirements in the school district, to accept the pay of a part-time contract football coach, which is $1000-$1200 per year. No longer living in Liberty City, Petitioner lives closer to another Miami-Dade County high school whose students are less exposed to violence and less at-risk than the students attending Miami Central or Miami Northwestern. Nearby Broward County public high schools do not require an athletic coaching certificate because school district policy allows a volunteer to coach. But Petitioner has decided to help the most vulnerable, most at-risk students from the inner-city neighborhood where he grew up. Petitioner has served these students in ways that other persons would find difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Trying to combat the sense of hopelessness that sometimes afflicts at-risk youth, Petitioner has worked at both schools to install a sense of school pride in football and academics. When he arrived at Miami Central, the school was an F school, but Petitioner joined a school-wide effort to improve learning conditions, and, when he left two years later, the school was a B school. Similarly, when Petitioner arrived at Miami Northwestern, it was a D school, but it earned a B during the most recent school year. Miami Northwestern is located directly across the street from housing projects, and its students are regularly the targets of violence, often involving weapons. About one-quarter of its students are required to attend gun programs. The football team includes many homeless children and children with children. In the month preceding the hearing, two Miami Northwestern students had been killed. On a positive note, about 70 percent of the 95 students on the Miami Northwestern football team are graduates of the Optimist youth football program. Also, as many as 90 percent of the students who played on the high school football teams that Petitioner has coached are attending college. The students with whom Petitioner works appreciate his dedication and hard work. They know that Petitioner has spent his entire life in Miami and has known some hard times. Generally, they know that, before they were born, Petitioner had been a celebrity as a member and promoter of a hip-hop group, itself known for its frank defiance of convention, at least in terms of graphic sexual language. As Petitioner testified, his students' mothers know Petitioner from when he was a DJ on a streetcorner, through his association with 2LC and discovery of new talent, such as the hip-hop artist Pitbull, and now from his work with youth. This familiarity presents unique mentoring opportunities to Petitioner. For instance, Petitioner knew one student's father, who later went to prison where he was murdered. One day, the student's mother approached Petitioner and asked him to tell her child about the good things that his father had done before he went to prison and died. Reflecting Petitioner's dedication to at-risk youth, for at least the past four years, Petitioner has rented one or two 15-passenger vans and, at his expense, transported interested players to schools in the southeast where they might be able to attend college. Petitioner does not reserve his attention to potential stars; instead, he tries to find colleges and junior colleges at every level that might be interested in admitting an individual student. Steven Field, the head coach of the Miami Northwestern football team, testified on Petitioner's behalf. Coach Field, who has most recently coached at University of Miami and Hampton University in Virginia, also coached at Miami Central from 2000- 2004. Coach Field testified that Petitioner is an "essential" member of his coaching staff, not for his name or past career, but for his way with the students. Petitioner leads by example and always fulfills any promises that he makes to the students--things that may otherwise be lacking in the lives of some of these inner-city youth. According to Coach Field, Petitioner's "no-nonsense, professional" style of dealing with the students commands their attention and respect. For example, as the coach in charge of the weight room, Petitioner does not allow swearing. When one student became disrespectful to another coach, Petitioner ordered the student to leave the premises. Neither Petitioner nor Coach Field would allow 2LC music to be played in the weight room due to its inappropriate adult content. Petitioner testified that, in trying to save students, he will "talk 'till I'm blue in the face," revealing not only the necessary dedication, but, more importantly, the insight that that there are no shortcuts or quick fixes in trying to communicate with at-risk children. Reinforcing the realism evident in Petitioner's testimony, Coach Stevens described his and Petitioner's efforts with the students as not much more than reinforcing the notions of living right at home and "getting your books at school." Coach Stevens stressed that he and Petitioner do not concentrate exclusively on the students who are talented enough to play football in college. At least a half dozen students are in felony programs. With these students, Coach Stevens testified that he and Petitioner do not speak about "getting into Georgia Tech"; they speak about finishing high school and getting a job. Coach Stevens has never heard Petitioner speak to the students about mistakes that he has made, nor does he wish Petitioner to do so. Coach Stevens, Petitioner, and the other coaches try to set a positive tone, so they talk to the students about what they need to do, not about mistakes that the students--or coaches--may have made in the past. However, if the school resource officer tells Petitioner about problems that an individual student is having, Petitioner will talk to the student one-on-one. In such conversations, Petitioner does not shy away from relating personally to what the student is going through. The Application Received on April 27, 2010, the Application answers "yes" to the following questions: Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offense? Have you ever had adjudication withheld on a criminal offense? Have you ever pled guilty to a criminal offense? The Application answers "no" to the following questions: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense? Have you ever pled nolo contendere to a criminal offense? The Application lists the following arrests and states that the disposition of all charges was dismissal, except for the South Carolina charge, which is reported as "guilty/adjudication withheld": Miami--8/79--reckless display of firearm Miami--2/85--loitering/prowling Miami--11/85--inciting riot Miami--12/87--aggravated assault Hillsborough--12/87--aggravated assault Miami--5/94--aggravated assault Miami--7/99--battery Dorchester County--10/22--"dissem promote" The Application is flawed in its disclosure of Petitioner's criminal history. As alleged in the Amended Notice of Reasons, the disclosure of the "loitering/prowling" arrest fails to mention the felony weapons charge, which was part of the same incident, and thus fails to note that the court withheld adjudication on this charge. Also, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Hearing, the Application fails to disclose the 1986 Misdemeanor, which occurred in Hillsborough County. Although the Application discloses a Hillsborough County arrest, it seems to confuse the incident with a later arrest in Dade County, but, more importantly, omits mention of the finding of guilt on this misdemeanor weapon charge. However, these flaws do not prove that Petitioner intentionally concealed information or was less than honest in completing the Application. Obviously, he has had many arrests, so the potential for confusion or even omission exists, and there are comparatively few inaccuracies. On these facts, it is found only that Petitioner filed an inaccurate application, but not that he filed an application with fraudulent or dishonest intent. Petitioner: At Present Petitioner does not pose a risk to the safety of the students entrusted to him. For the past seven years, Petitioner has had significant direct contact with vulnerable youth without any reported problems. In light of this critical fact, the 1979 Misdemeanor, 1986 Misdemeanor, and Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC and the adult entertainment industry lose whatever contrary predictive value that they might otherwise have. Simply put, Petitioner does not resemble the youth who committed the 1979 Misdemeanor or 1986 Misdemeanor or the man who performed with and promoted 2LC 20 years ago. Petitioner resembles the middle-aged man who released sexually explicit songs in 2001 and 2006, but this is addressed below. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, good moral character requires consideration of a person's honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and the law, so consideration of student safety, although important, is not sufficient. But the 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor, as old misdemeanors, provide insufficient support for a finding that, today, Petitioner lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law. Nor do these criminal offenses support findings that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude, as those terms are defined in the Conclusions of Law. Likewise, Petitioner's 2LC career 20 years ago and even his more recent releases of 2LC-like albums in 2001 and 2006 do not support a finding that he lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law or that he is guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude. For the reasons noted above, the redeeming value to be found in the releases means that they do not violate the law, provided they also conform to any laws restricting their dissemination, such as not to minors or not on television during certain hours of family viewing. Absent an attempt to market the offensive material in some broadly accessible fashion, such as on billboards or the sides of public buses, such non-obscene works similarly do not violate the rights of others. As noted above, the flaws of the Application do not support a finding of dishonesty or fraud. But, in his proposed recommended order, Respondent fairly questions Petitioner's initial refusal to identify his Application at the hearing. This failing of Petitioner, as well as the two others discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, cannot serve as standalone grounds for denial because: 1) they arose at the hearing and thus were not available as grounds in the Amended Notice of Reasons and even if alleged, they do not rise to the level of a lack of good moral character, as in a lack of honesty or fairness. But they do provide part of the justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner. Petitioner's failure at the hearing initially to identify his Application was not due to any confusion. There were not multiple versions of applications from which to choose. There was one Application on the table, and Petitioner initially testified, more than once, that he could not identify it. The temptation appeared palpable for Petitioner to off-load the responsibility for an obviously flawed application onto someone else who may have completed it for Petitioner, who nonetheless signed it. Cannily, Respondent's counsel moved for a summary order. The Administrative Law Judge warned Petitioner that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction in the absence of an application. Petitioner and his attorney made good use of a short recess to confer. After the recess, Petitioner identified Respondent Exhibit 1 as the Application that he had filed for an athletic coaching certificate. Petitioner's second failing of this type, also noted in Respondent's proposed recommended order, consists of his unwillingness to own up to his role or roles in any of the salacious songs that he has performed or produced. While it is possible that Petitioner might not have been responsible for the more salacious songs performed by 2LC, he clearly was responsible for the five sexually graphic titles on the two most recent, post-2LC albums, which, as discussed above, were released in 2001 and 2006. Petitioner's third failing of this type occurred when he testified about his bad period from 1979 to 1986. Petitioner admitted only to not living a "perfect" life and associating with bad persons. This seems a little lean for two misdemeanor weapons convictions and a withholding of adjudication of guilt on a felony weapon charge--all in the span of seven years. As Respondent points out, Petitioner has displayed minimal contrition for the bad choices that he made during this period. At minimum, he missed an opportunity to describe how he has changed when he "admitted" only that he was not perfect or implied that his legal problems were caused by bad associations. In these three instances, Petitioner sought to escape personal responsibility by claiming or implying that other persons prepared the flawed Application that he was somehow compelled to sign, other persons forced him to perform songs with five salacious titles in 2001 and 2006, and other persons got him into trouble during the bad period over 25 years ago. Although not evidence of a lack of honesty, Petitioner's failure to affirmatively own up to these acts suggest a lack of self- insight and perhaps even a misapprehension of the extent to which he must subject himself to the regulatory oversight that is imposed on applicants for certificates and, later, certificateholders. The other justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner is the prospect of his return to adult entertainment. In addition to part-time coaching at Miami Northwestern, Petitioner also owns a company, Luke Holdings, which deals in movie scripts and produces elements of television commercials, among other pursuits in the entertainment industry. In recent years, extreme examples of adult entertainment, such as pornography, have emerged bearing the Luther Campbell brand, but Petitioner denied that he has been involved in the production of such material. His denial is credited, although it would have been more persuasive, absent Petitioner's failings described in the preceding paragraphs. As noted above, Petitioner lost exclusive control of his brand after the bankruptcy in 1996, and, presumably, given the shadowy nature of the pornography industry, illegal use of his name is not out of the question. The distinction between past and present involvement in adult entertainment is an important one. In a recent case, EPC did not treat past involvement in the adult entertainment industry the same as involvement while a certificateholder. See In re: The Denial of the Application for Teacher's Certificate of Shawn J. Loftis, EPC Case No. 11-0464D (April 5, 2012) available at http://www.myfloridateacher.com/discipline/icmsorders/101-2590- FO-040512155402.pdf). In Loftis, Respondent denied Mr. Loftis's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate on the grounds of a lack of good moral character, gross immorality, and moral turpitude, as well as personal conduct that seriously reduces one's effectiveness as a school board employee, which violates section 1012.795(1)(g). The factual bases for the denial was that, between 2006 and 2008, Mr. Loftis had appeared in over 20 pornographic films featuring him engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the films were still available for viewing, including on the internet, although this employment had ended prior to Mr. Loftis's temporary employment as an instructor in Miami-Dade County public schools. After an informal hearing, EPC ordered that Mr. Loftis be allowed to continue to pursue certification. EPC stated that, if "found qualified," Mr. Loftis would be issued a Florida Educator's Certificate, subject to the conditions that he obtain from an approved, Florida-licensed provider written verification that he poses no risk to children and is capable of assuming the responsibilities of an educator and that, upon employment that requires possession of a Florida Educator's Certificate, Mr. Loftis be placed on probation, subject to the following conditions: 1) he immediately notify the DOE investigative office upon employment or termination of employment requiring a Florida Educator's Certificate; 2) his immediate supervisor send annual performance reports to the DOE investigative office; he pay EPC $150 for the costs of monitoring his probation; and 4) he violate no law or rules, satisfactorily perform all assigned duties in a professional manner, and bear all costs of compliance with the final order. The Loftis final order illustrates EPC's ability to issue a conditional certificate, even without a finding that the applicant had failed to meet the qualifications for certification. In considering the requirement stated in section 1012.795(1)(g) concerning personal conduct that seriously reduces the effectiveness of the certificateholder as a school board employee, the Notice of Reasons in Loftis, when compared to the Amended Notice of Reasons in the subject case, more closely approaches the most elastic requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that a certificateholder (or applicant) "[s]hall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety." Juxtapose this broader, objective requirement of protecting the student from conditions harmful to learning or harmful to the student's mental health with: 1) Petitioner and Coach Field's efforts to inculcate in their at-risk students such values as strength of character, perseverance, dedication, and hard work in the pursuit of ambitious goals and 2) the future release of more artistic or entertainment efforts along the lines of "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," "Hoes," "Pop That Pussy," and "South Beach Bitches." Consider the bewildering effect on students if, one afternoon, in the weight room and on the field, Coach Campbell were to promote rectitude and grit and, that night, the same man were to don the garb of the sex-song impresario and promote the escapist pursuit of sexual gratification. The addition of music or elements of African boasting and literary allusion in, say, "Pop That Pussy" or "Suck This Dick," which would rightfully spare these works from successful prosecution as obscenity, would not have any bearing on the extent to which the superficial appeal of this form of adult entertainment could undermine the hard, patient work of these students' coaches, teachers, and parents in trying to shape them into responsible young men. Impressionable inner- city youth might be easily confused by these competing messages, as they compared the paltry sums paid their contract coaches and modest sums paid their regular coaches and teachers with the riches lavished upon the producers of adult entertainment. Although the Loftis final order emphasizes that the applicant no longer is engaged in the making of pornographic films, neither that authority nor the record in this case provides a sufficient basis for attaching a condition to Petitioner's certificate prohibiting his engaging in the adult entertainment industry. Such litigation awaits another day and, one hopes, another certificateholder than Petitioner or Mr. Loftis. However, conditions attached to Petitioner's certificate could focus his attention on the ethical obligations that he has assumed as a certificateholder and the very real possibility that that his return to the performance or production of adult entertainment, while a certificateholder, would be at crosspurposes with the broad mission of education and expose his certificate to suspension or revocation. Petitioner should receive an athletic coaching certificate because he generally meets the substantive certification requirements that call for consideration of such broad criteria as good moral character and the absence of gross immorality and moral turpitude, he possesses unique attributes for reaching at-risk, inner-city youth, and he has demonstrated his commitment to, and effectiveness with, working with these children for at least seven years.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that EPC issue an athletic coaching certificate to Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: The certificateholder shall be placed on probation for five years, immediately upon issuance or, if later, employment that requires a certificate. Upon issuance of the certificate and on each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, EPC or its agent shall contact the Department of Revenue and inquire if Petitioner owes any child support arrearages. Upon receipt of written notice of such arrearages from the Department of Revenue or a circuit court, EPC shall immediately suspend the certificate until the arrearages are paid in full. The payment of a purge amount that leaves an arrearage owing does not satisfy this condition. Within six months of issuance of the certificate and within six months of each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, Petitioner shall complete 10 hours in coursework in the area of ethics with emphasis on the Principles of Professional Conduct, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 and shall deliver to the DOE investigative office written proof of such coursework. At the start of every school year, during the term of probation, Petitioner and his immediate supervisor will sign a statement certifying that each has read the Principles of Professional Conduct and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 20 days of the first day of school. The supervisor's statement shall confirm that he or she understands that his or her professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(l) that he or she "shall not assist entry into or continuance in the profession of any person known to be unqualified in accordance with these Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and other applicable Florida Statutes and State Board of Education Rules." Petitioner's statement shall confirm that he understands that his professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that he "shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/ or physical health and/or safety." If Petitioner's immediate supervisor changes during the school year, the new supervisor shall sign a supervisor's statement within 30 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 60 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner. Within 30 days of the preparation and delivery of an evaluation to Petitioner, during the term of probation, he shall submit a copy to the DOE investigative office. During the term of probation, if Petitioner becomes actively involved in the adult entertainment industry, in any manner, he shall notify the DOE investigative office, in writing, within 30 days of first involvement. For the purpose of this paragraph, the performance or production of a sexually explicit song that would be inappropriate for the football team weight room or the appearance at an autograph- signing event promoted on the basis of Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC is active involvement in the adult entertainment industry. During the term of probation, the certificateholder shall reimburse EPC or its agent its reasonable costs of monitoring. If any of these conditions, except for the condition stated in paragraph 2, are not timely performed by Petitioner or, if applicable, his supervisor, EPC may suspend the certificate until Petitioner demonstrates compliance (or the term of the certificate expires) or, at its discretion, revoke the certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael John Carney, Esquire Kubicki Draper, P.A. Wachovia Bank Building, Suite 1600 One East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 mjc@kubickidraper.com Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 charles@ctwpalaw.com
The Issue The issue for resolution in this case is whether Proposed Rules 8E- 4.003(3), (4), (9), (10) & (11) and Proposed Rule 8E-4.005 constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority as asserted by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Findings based on written stipulations. On September 11, 1992, Petitioner submitted an application for certification as a "facility for a new professional sports franchise." Petitioner's application contains the information required by Section 288.1162(4)(a)-(g), Florida Statutes, but does not demonstrate that eligible costs for which funding is being sought pursuant to Section 212.20, Florida Statutes, are for costs incurred after the award of the new professional sports franchise or after the start of certification, as required in Proposed Rule 8E- 4.003(3). Due to the effect of the proposed rule on Petitioner, Petitioner is a "substantially affected person" as that term is used in Section 120.54(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Findings based on evidence at hearing. On October 30, 1992, the Department of Commerce published Proposed Rule 8E-4 in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Portions of that proposed rule are the subject of this rule challenge proceeding. The full text of the proposed rule (with the challenged portions underscored) is as follows: 8E-4.001 Purpose. This rule contains the procedure for applying for certification pursuant to s. 288.03, Florida Statutes. 8E-4.002 Application Procedures. An application for certification under s. 288.03, Florida Statutes, as a "Facility For A New Professional Sports Franchise" or a "New Spring Training Franchise Facility" shall be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and shall comply with and conform to the following requirements: An original and 5 copies shall be submitted. Applicants shall be a "unit of local government" as defined in s. 218.369, Florida Statutes, or a private sector group that has contracted to construct or operate a professional sports franchise facility on land owned by a unit of local government. The application must be signed by an official senior executive of the applicant. Items or forms requiring certification shall be notarized according to Florida Law providing for penalties for falsification. 8E-4.003 Application Contents. An application for certification as a Facility for New Professional Sports Franchises shall include the following: Documentation that the franchise team meets the following requirements: The franchise is not based in Florida prior to July 1, 1990. The applicant has a signed agreement with a new professional sports franchise for the use of the facility for at least 5 years or more. The new professional sports franchise agreement has been approved by one of the following leagues: National League (baseball) American League (baseball) National Basketball Association National Football League National Hockey League An independent analysis or study which demonstrates that the use and operation of the professional sports franchise facility will generate revenues on transactions at the facility of $2 million or more annually by taxes imposed under Part I of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Documentation of the actual cost or cost estimate for new construction, reconstruction, or renovation of the facility. Such documentation of cost shall be for construction, reconstruction, or renovation of the facility incurred or to be incurred after the award of the new professional sport franchise or after the start of certification. Eligible costs also include those incurred after July 1, 1990 and prior to the granting of a franchise where the costs were a necessary part of the competitive process for the awarded franchise. The applicant shall provide a commencement date upon which new construction, reconstruction, or renovation began or will begin. Projections demonstrating that the new franchise will attract a paid attendance of more than 300,000 annually. All data sources and methodologies of the projections must be included. Documentation that the municipality in which the facility is located, or the county if the facility is in an unincorporated area, has certified by resolution after a public hearing that the application serves a public purpose. Documentation that a unit of local government as defined in s. 218.369, Florida Statutes, is responsible for the construction, management, or operation of the professional sports franchise facility, or holds title to the property on which the professional sports franchise facility is located. Documentation that the applicant has demonstrated that it has provided, is capable of providing, or has a financial or other commitments to provide more than one-half of the costs incurred or related to the improvement and development of the facility. Statement certifying that applicant will comply with s. 288.1167, Florida Statutes, relating to requirements for minority participation. Documentation of the applicant's organization structure and principals. Applicants that are private sector groups shall file a public entity crime affidavit as required by s. 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes. 8E-4.004 Application Contents. An application for certification as a New Spring Training Franchise shall include the following: Documentation that the baseball team franchise meets the following requirements: The franchise is not based in Florida prior to July 1, 1990. The applicant has a signed agreement with a new professional sports franchise for the use of the facility for a term of at least 15 years. The agreement is approved by either the National League or the American League of professional baseball. Projections which demonstrate that the new professional baseball spring training facility will attract a paid attendance of at least 50,000 annually. Documentation of the actual cost or cost estimate for new construction, reconstruction, or renovation of the facility. Such documentation of cost shall be for construction, reconstruction, or renovation of the facility incurred or to be incurred after the grant of certification. Eligible costs also include those incurred after July 1, 1990 and prior to the granting of a franchise where the costs were a necessary part of the competitive process for the awarded franchise. The applicant shall provide a commencement date upon which new construction, reconstruction, or renovation began or will begin. Documentation that a unit of local government as defined in s. 218.369, Florida Statutes, is responsible for the construction, management, or operation of the professional sports franchise facility, or holds title to the property on which the professional sports franchise facility is located. Documentation that the applicant has demonstrated that it has provided, is capable of providing, or has financial or other commitments to provide more than one-half of the costs incurred or related to the improvement and development of the facility. Documentation that the New Spring Training Franchise Facility is located in a county that is levying a tourist development tax pursuant to s. 125.0104(3)(b),(c),(d) and (l), Florida Statutes, at the rate of 4 percent by March 1, 1992, and 87.5 percent of the proceeds from such tax are dedicated for the construction of a spring training complex. A site map and certification that the facility is located within 20 miles of an interstate or other limited access highway system. Statement certifying that applicant will comply with s. 288.1167, Florida Statutes, relating to requirement for minority participation. Documentation of the applicant's organization structure and principals. Applicants that are private sector groups shall file a public entity crime affidavit as required by s. 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes. 8E-4.005 Application Processing. The Department of Commerce shall certify applications only after these rules have been published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and all requested public hearings have been held. Subsequent to this, the Department shall have two weeks following receipt of an application to notify an applicant of any deficiencies in an application. The Department will allow 30 days from the date of notification for the applicant to correct any such deficiencies. Upon determining that an applicant is or is not certifiable, the Secretary of Commerce will notify the applicant by means of an official letter of his status. If certifiable, the Secretary will notify the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue of such certification by means of an official letter. If the Department of Commerce determines that the applicant satisfies all the conditions of Section 288.1162, F.S., and this rule, certification shall be issued by the Department of Commerce no sooner than, either the date of commencement as provided by the applicant in 8E-4.003(5) or 8E-4.004(5) or 120 days following receipt of application under this rule whichever is the longer. No certification shall be issued until the Department of Commerce has verified that actual construction, reconstruction, or renovation has commenced. The Department of Revenue will begin distributing funds 60 days following certification, but no such distribution may be made prior to July 1, 1992, pursuant to s. 288.03, Florida Statutes. If and when the above-quoted proposed rule becomes an effective rule, the Department of Commerce intends to apply the provisions of the subject proposed rule in the course of determining whether to grant or deny the Petitioner's application for certification as a "facility for a new professional sports franchise." The Department of Commerce intends for the language in Proposed Rule 8E-4.003(3) and (4) to limit funding under the applicable statute to new facility construction costs or to costs of renovation of an existing facility. The Department intends to disallow the use of grant funds for existing stadium construction costs, even if such costs were expended to facilitate the future recruitment of a "new professional sports franchise." The new requirements for certification contained in Proposed Rule 8E-4.003 are considered by the Department to be substantive in nature. The purpose of the funding program created pursuant to Sections 288.1162 and 212.20, Florida Statutes (1991), is to encourage the recruitment of professional sports franchises to Florida. During the 1992 session of the Florida Legislature, amendments were proposed to Section 288.1162, Florida Statutes (1991), which would have had the effect of limiting funding under the program to a reimbursement of costs of new construction. In Senate Bill 216-H, the Legislature proposed authorizing the Department to require that information be submitted regarding cost estimates verified by the Department for the new construction, reconstruction or renovation of the facility. This estimate shall include the costs of debt service on, or the costs to fund debt service reserve funds, costs for arbitrage rebate obligations, and other costs payable with respect to, bonds issued for the new construction, reconstruction or renovation of the facility. (e.s) The amendments proposed in Senate Bill 216-H would have eliminated as an approved use of the funds payment of costs of refinancing construction bonds and would have limited the use of funds only to newly incurred costs. In addition, the proposed bill provided that upon certification of an applicant, the Department shall also certify to the Department of Revenue the amount to be paid monthly to the applicant. In the case of a professional sports franchise facility, such amount shall be the lesser of $166,667 per month for a 30 year period, or the costs of the project verified by the Department pursuant to paragraph (4)(g) [which is the language cited directly above] and amortized over a 30 year period. The statutory limitation proposed by Senate Bill 216-H is consistent with, if not identical to, the limitation intended by the Department of Commerce through the promulgation of Proposed Rule 8E-4. Senate Bill 216-H failed to be enacted into law.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has been employed by the School Board for 26 years. The Respondent has served in numerous teaching and administrative positions with the School Board. In 1971 the Respondent was named principal of Piper High School, and he continues to serve in that capacity. Piper High School was first opened in 1971, and the Respondent has been its only principal. The task of organizing a new high school, and developing it into an institution with strong traditions is a difficult one. The Respondent has taken a strong lead at Piper High School, and has been the motivating force in developing it into a respected high school with many innovative programs and excellent spirit on the part of the instructional staff and the student body. The Respondent is a strong disciplinarian, and has enforced a rigorous dress and conduct code at Piper High School. The Respondent does not enjoy one hundred percent support from his faculty, but it is apparent that he does have the respect of many members of the faculty. The Respondent is also liked and respected by the student body, and enjoys much support and respect from parents of students at Piper High School. During the entire course of his employment with the School Board, the Respondent has received satisfactory or better evaluations. The Respondent is an outstanding high school principal. Respondent is presently employed with the School Board on a continuing contract basis. Instructional personnel within the Broward County school system are given an opportunity to perform supplemental duties for which they receive supplemental pay. Athletic coaches, and athletic trainers received such stipends. On September 2, 1976, the Respondent, acting in his capacity as principal of Piper High School, placed William T. Drake on a supplemental payroll for an amount of $500, indicating that Drake would be performing duties as a soccer coach. The Respondent approved payroll forms for each pay period during the 1976-77 school year through March 31, 1977 allowing these supplemental payments to be made to Mr. Drake on a monthly basis. Supplemental payments were in fact paid by the School Board to Drake from September, 1976 through March, 1977, for performance of services as the Piper High School soccer coach pursuant to the request and authorization of the Respondent. The total amount paid to Drake on this basis was $272.67. When the Respondent placed Drake on the supplemental payroll as soccer coach, the Respondent knew that Drake was not going to perform any services as soccer coach at Piper High School. When he approved the payroll forms he knew that Drake was not performing duties as soccer coach, and in fact that Piper High School had no soccer team. Piper High School had had a soccer team during the 1975-76 school year, but it was discontinued. From the 1971-72 school year, through the 1974-75 school year Piper High School had on its supplemental payroll an athletic trainer and an assistant athletic trainer. Mr. Drake had served as assistant athletic trainer during the 1974-75 school year. After that year the head trainer left the school system, and Drake became the head trainer for the 1975-76 school year. the Respondent was not successful in finding a member of his instructional staff who could have served as assistant trainer, and Mr. Drake therefore served virtual double duty. During the 1975-76 school year Drake worked approximately 810 hours as athletic trainer, and received a supplemental compensation of $1,500. At the beginning of the 1976-77 school year the Respondent again looked for a member of his instructional staff who would have qualified to serve as assistant trainer, but found no one. Drake was willing to continue to perform the double duty, and the Respondent wished to adequately compensate him. It is for this reason that the Respondent designated Drake as soccer coach, and authorized the additional supplemental payment. While Drake did not perform the duties of soccer coach during the 1976-77 school year he did perform the duties of both the head trainer and the assistant head trainer. Under the School Board's rules and regulations the respondent could have designated Drake in both capacities. He did not do that because the assistant trainer position would have entitled Drake to a $1,000 supplemental payment, and the Respondent did not want to divert that much of his budget from other areas. Furthermore, the Respondent wished to avoid additional administrative difficulties. The school was already authorized the position of soccer coach, and forms would have needed to be filled out in order to have the position of assistant trainer authorized. When the Respondent placed Drake on the supplemental payroll as a soccer coach, and when he approved payroll forms for Drake in that capacity, he violated the School Board's rules and regulations. His motivations for violating the regulations were good ones - to adequately compensate a member of his instructional staff for duties that were being performed above and beyond those assigned. The Respondent did not profit personally from his violation of the regulations. In fact, when his violation of the rules was brought to his attention, the Respondent made full restitution to the School Board for the supplemental payments that had been made to Drake. The Respondent has never disavowed responsibility for his violation of the rules. He has acknowledged his error, made full restitution, and has learned a valuable lesson. Evidence was offered at the hearing showing that the Respondent enjoys an excellent reputation for truth and veracity. He testified that he will not again knowingly violate any of the School Board's rules and his testimony is both believable and compelling.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a school teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract, committed the offenses alleged by the Petitioner in its Petition for Dismissal and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was first employed by Petitioner in 1992. For the school year 1995-96, Respondent was assigned as a special education teacher at John I. Leonard High School, one of the public schools in Palm Beach County. In addition to his teaching duties, Respondent was the coach of the Junior Varsity baseball team. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Respondent was a member of the CTA, the union that represents instructional staff in the Palm Beach County School District. Effective January 18, 1995, the Petitioner adopted School Board Policy 3.26 as a rule. This rule was drafted by James Kelly, an attorney who is employed by Petitioner as the chief of its police force. It was the intent of Chief Kelly to draft a "zero tolerance" rule, prohibiting employees and others from bringing firearms on school property. It was the intent of Chief Kelly in drafting the rule that the employment of any employee who violated that prohibition would be suspended until that employment could be terminated. Rule 3.26 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: It is the intent of this Policy to clearly state that possession of firearms will not be tolerated on School District property. Definitions: "Firearm" means any weapon (including a starter gun or antique firearm) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any destructive device; or any machine gun.1 "Employee" means any person hired by the School Board after completing the personnel procedures required by the School Board. "Independent Contractor" means any person or company other than a School District employee, who provides goods and/or services to the School District and enters into a contracted agreement with the School Board. "Visitor" means any business or personal invitee including, but not limited to, parents, volunteers, family members of School District employees or friends of School District Employees. Any School District employee found to have brought a firearm on School District property shall be subject to suspension and dismissal in accordance with the procedures set forth in School Board Policy 3.27.2 All Contract Agreements with Independent Contractors shall provide that, if any employee of an Independent Contractor or Sub-Contractor is found to have brought a firearm on School District property, said employee will be terminated from the School Board project by the Independent Contractor or the Sub-Contractor. If the Sub-Contractor fails to terminate the employee, the Sub- Contractor's Agreement with the Independent Contractor for the School Board project shall be terminated. If the Independent contractor fails to terminate said employee or fails to terminate the Agreement with the Sub- Contractor who fails to terminate said employee, the Independent Contractor's Agreement with the School Board shall be terminated. Except to the extent allowed by law, any visitor found to have brought a firearm on School District property shall be notified that all subsequent visits to School District property will be by an appointment only, and that visits without prior appointment may result in a criminal action for trespass. This Policy does not apply to any Law Enforcement Officer . . . Article II, Section M of the collective bargaining agreement between the CTA and the School Board, entitled "Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline)," provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. * * * Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee maybe reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended with pay, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve (12) months of the action/inaction of the employee which lead to the notation. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this agreement. Suspension With Pay. A suspension with pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension with pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Section , including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension without pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non-renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) include either a suspension or a dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had a concealed weapon's permit issued by the Florida Department of State's Division of Licensing. Respondent received instructions and materials when he obtained his concealed weapons permit in Florida that clearly advised him that a concealed weapons permit does not authorize the possession of a concealed weapon on school premises. Respondent knew or should have known that his concealed weapon's permit did not authorize him to carry a firearm on school property. At all times after March 29, 1996, Respondent knew or should have known that school employees were prohibited from bringing firearms on school property. Prior to May 1, 1996, Respondent knew or should have known of the School Board's Rule 3.26.3 Respondent knew or should have known that bringing a firearm on school property would violate this rule. March 29, 1996, was a teacher planning day. On that day Respondent brought on school property a firearm that he had recently purchased so he could show the firearm to Officer Charles C. Edwards, a member of the School Board's police force. Officer Edwards told Respondent he could not have a firearm on school property. As of May 1, 1996, the junior varsity baseball season was over for John I. Leonard High School, but the varsity team was in the post-season playoffs. On May 1, 1996, the varsity team was involved in a game that would eliminate the loser from the playoffs. The game was scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. on the campus of John I. Leonard. At the request of the varsity baseball coach, Respondent agreed to scout a potential playoff opponent that was playing a game in Plantation, Florida, at 7:00 p.m. When Respondent left his house on the late afternoon of May 1, 1996, he intended to make a bank deposit prior to going to John I. Leonard High School to pick up the forms that he was to fill out as he scouted the potential opponent. The bank deposit was for the Men's Baseball Association of Palm Beach County and consisted of more than $1,000 in cash and checks. It was Respondent's practice to carry a firearm on his person when he had a large sum of money to be deposited. Consistent with that practice, Respondent took his firearm when he left his house on May 1, 1996, and drove to his bank's drive- in window. At all times on May 1, 1996, pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had his firearm in a holster. When Respondent first entered his vehicle, he placed the holstered firearm in a fanny pack and placed the fanny pack containing the holstered firearm under the seat of his vehicle. Consistent with his practice, when Respondent got to the line for the drive-in window, he removed the gun from the pouch and placed the holstered firearm in his lap. Because he was running late and the line was moving slowly, Respondent pulled out of the line of cars without making his deposit and headed for John I. Leonard High School to pick up the forms he needed. He clipped the holstered firearm to his belt between his body and his pants at the rear of his right hip. His shirt tail covered the firearm. Respondent also had his cellular phone and beeper clipped to his belt. The cash was in the right front pocket of his pants. Respondent arrived at John I. Leonard High School a few minutes before 6:00 p.m. on May 1, 1996. He parked his vehicle on school grounds in the parking lot near the school gymnasium and approached the gate to the ball field area. Respondent intended to go to the office of the varsity baseball coach to get the forms he needed to scout the game in Plantation. The coach's office was located inside the ball field area above the concession stand. Tickets to the game were sold at a table that was set up at the gate. As Respondent approached the gate, Gary Zaniewski, Jack McLaughlin, and Scott Siegel were present at the ticket table. Mr. Zaniewski was, as of May 1, 1996, the father of a varsity baseball player and served as the president of the John I. Leonard High School Baseball Booster Club. Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Siegel were school board employees. As Respondent passed by the table, Mr. Zaniewski noticed that Respondent was wearing a firearm and reminded him of that fact. Mr. Zaniewski told Respondent that he did not think it was appropriate for him to have a firearm on school property. Respondent immediately turned around, went back to his vehicle, placed the holstered firearm in the pouch under the seat, and locked the car. He thereafter went to the coach's office, got the forms he needed, and went to Plantation to scout the game. The firearm was in Respondent's vehicle during the few minutes it took him to get the forms from the coach's office. During the time Respondent was on school grounds, he did not remove the firearm from the holster, point it at anyone, shoot anyone or anything, threaten or harm anyone, or engage in any kind of confrontation. While there were members of the baseball team at the field warming up, those players were not in close proximity to Respondent. For the calendar year 1995, there were 169 reported thefts from motor vehicles located on School Board property and 23 motor vehicles stolen from School Board property. The presence of a firearm locked in a vehicle on school property presents a real and immediate danger that Rule 3.26 was enacted to prevent. Respondent testified that he was in a hurry on May 1, 1996, and simply forgot that he had the firearm on his person when he approached the gate to the baseball field. Although there was testimony that a person would not forget he was carrying such a weapon, the testimony of the Respondent is found to be credible. Consequently, it is found that he forgot he had the firearm on his person when he first exited his vehicle on school property on May 1, 1996. There can be little doubt, however, that Respondent was aware that he had a firearm with him when he drove on school property. The Respondent's holster did not have any device to impede unauthorized or inadvertent removal of the firearm. In contrast, the type holsters used by Petitioner's police force requires three separate actions in order for the gun to be removed from the holster. Respondent's careless possession of a firearm that was clipped to his belt in an unsafe holster presented a real and immediate danger that Rule 3.26 was enacted to prevent. Rule 3.26 is a reasonable exercise of the School Board's authority. Despite the events of May 1, 1996, Respondent was given a professional services contract by the School Board for the year 1996-97. On the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the School Board suspended Respondent's employment effective September 19, 1996, and voted to institute these proceedings to terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order that finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Rule 3.26 as alleged by Petitioner and suspends his employment for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Otis J. Fells, has been an employee of the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, since 1975. At all times material hereto, he was a teacher and basketball coach at American Senior High School. On September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown was fifteen years of age, a student at American Senior High School, and a student in Respondent's sixth period physical education class. Monday, September 7, 1981, was Labor Day. Since classes for the 1981- 82 school year had commenced the week prior to Labor Day, American Senior High School was closed on Monday and reopened on Tuesday, September 8, 1981. On September 8, Respondent reported to American Senior High School to carry out his teaching and coaching duties. Since the floor of the gym was being painted, and since the school year had just begun so that not all physical education students had their gym clothes, the physical education classes were held in either the auditorium or the gym as study-halls, and the students wore their regular clothing. Between 9:30 and 10:30 the morning of September 8, Norman Blanco, a volunteer assistant basketball coach, came to American High to talk to Respondent about holding tryouts for the basketball team for the new school year. Since Respondent was with a class, Blanco told Respondent he would return after school to discuss that matter. Both the sixth period classes and the school day ended at 2:15 P.M. Respondent's sixth period physical education class had been held in the auditorium. James Lee, one of Respondent's sixth period students, asked Respondent for a ride home after school, and Respondent agreed to give Lee a ride home. Respondent left the auditorium and went to the main office to sign out and check his mail. He started to walk toward the boys' locker room, but stopped to speak to the art teacher about the eagle emblem to be placed on the gym floor by the art students. He then went to the gym to get the paint for the floor and took the paint to the art teacher's room, where he left it, although the art teacher was no longer there. Respondent then went to the coaches' office, where Blanco was waiting. From past experience, Blanco knows that if he arrives at American High at 2:15, he cannot find a place to park. He usually arrives about fifteen minutes after school lets out so that all the cars are gone and he can park wherever he wishes. On September 8, he arrived at American High at approximately 2:20 P.M. He went to the coaches' office to talk to Respondent. By the conclusion of their ten-to-fifteen minute meeting in the coaches' office, Blanco had talked Respondent into holding tryouts for the basketball team rather than simply using last year's team, as Respondent had intended to do. Blanco left Respondent in the coaches' office at approximately 2:35 P.M. There are two doors in the coaches' office: one opening into a hallway, and one opening into the boys' locker room. During Respondent's meeting with Blanco, the doors were open. After school on September 8 in the hallway outside the coaches' office, band members were going out to the football field, members of the flag corps were assembling for practice, and the cheerleaders were practicing approximately fifteen yards from the door into the coaches' office. In the boys' locker room, members of the cross-country team, the football team, and the soccer team were using their lockers or changing their clothes for practice. Additionally, the coaches' office is not Respondent's private office; rather, it is also used by the cross-country coach, the baseball coach, and the soccer coach, who are also involved with their students, their team members, aides, and managers. Inside the boys' locker room is a small room used for storing basketball equipment. The door to that room is kept locked. There are only three keys for that room: Respondent possessed one, Assistant Coach Jones possessed the second key, and the third key which traditionally was kept in the main office had never been returned after the girls' basketball team borrowed it one night the previous school year. After his meeting with Blanco, Respondent went to the main office, where he left his handwritten announcement concerning tryouts for the basketball team on the public address system. He then saw James Lee out in front of the school, directly in front of the main office. At approximately 2:45, from the main office, Respondent went to his car and left school with James Lee. When Lee arrived at his home, he told his mother that it was 3:00 and that Coach Fells had given him a ride home. After dropping off James Lee, Respondent went to Mr. B's Package Store and Lounge to see A. J. (Arnold) Johnson, one of the owners. Over the Labor Day holiday, Bobby Hunter, Assistant Basketball Coach from Boston College, visited Respondent and left sneakers for A. J. Johnson at Respondent's house. Respondent took the sneakers into Mr. B's and gave them to Johnson, who was waiting for the bank to open at 3:00 so he could transact some business at the bank. Johnson left Mr. B's to go to the bank at approximately 3:05, and when he returned from the bank, Respondent was still there. While Johnson was gone from Mr. B's, Respondent visited with Roscoe Large, the sales representative from Southern Wine and Spirits, and several other persons whom he also knew. After Respondent had been at Mr. B's for approximately thirty minutes, he left and drove to Coconut Grove to pick up his son at the baby-sitter's. On the following day, Respondent went to school and spent a normal day. After he arrived home on Wednesday, his wife told him that someone had been calling on the telephone accusing Respondent of raping Paulette Brown. The next morning, Respondent called the principal of American Senior High, and the principal advised him to stay home. On September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown stayed after school rather than leaving the school grounds when school adjourned for the day at 2:15. Between 2:30 and 2:45, she visited with Agnes Pitts and William Hopkins in the vicinity of the coaches' office and boys' locker room. When Agnes Pitts again saw Paulette Brown, it was approximately 3:00, and Brown was walking toward the front of the school. Brown told Pitts that she was going home. At approximately 3:00, Brown called her father and asked him to pick her up at school. After he picked her up and pursuant to her suggestions, they first picked up fried chicken for dinner and then picked up Paulette's brother when he got out of school at 3:30. Mr. Brown then took Paulette and her brother home and then went to pick up Paulette's mother, Pauline Brown, at 4:00 at her place of employment. Between 5:00 and 6:00 P.M. on September 8, 1981, Paulette Brown called her godsister, April Clark, and told Clark that Respondent had raped her. She also told her story to George Richberg that same evening. She also told her story twice to Jeffrey Clark. During her second relating of the story to Jeffrey Clark, she included mention of a janitor with a key to the boys' locker room. On Wednesday, September 9, Paulette Brown stayed home from school. After taking a nap, she called her boyfriend's sister and told her that Coach Fells had raped her. When the boyfriend's sister threatened to tell someone in a position of authority if Paulette refused to, Paulette told a neighbor, who told Mrs. Brown. Paulette Brown was tested at the Rape Treatment Center on September 9, and the investigators for the police department examined the equipment room on September 12. To gain entry to the room, the police drilled through the deadbolt lock. Five non-mobile sperm were found within Paulette Brown by the Rape Treatment Center. Testing by the Miami-Dade Police Department Crime Lab established that the sperm came from an individual that was an "O-positive secreter." This is the most common blood type. Forty percent of the American population falls in this category. Respondent is a member of this category, that is, Respondent is an "O-positive secreter." The Miami-Dade Police Department's fingerprint experts examined and dusted the equipment room at American Senior High School and found identifiable fingerprints of the Respondent. They found no identifiable fingerprints of Paulette Brown. The parties have stipulated that simply because one touches an object, one does not necessarily leave fingerprints. The sheet, which Paulette Brown claims she lay upon while having sexual intercourse with Respondent, was impounded from the equipment room and examined. Nothing of serological value was found. Respondent, Otis J. Fells, did not commit sexual battery upon Paulette Brown on September 8, 1981, and Respondent, Otis J. Fells, did not engage in any sexual activity with Paulette Brown on September 8, 1981.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of immorality and misconduct in office, as set forth in the Amended Notice of Charges filed in this cause, and reinstating Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County with back pay. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jose E. Martinez, Esquire Leib I Martinez, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200 Ponce de Leon Plaza Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Esquire du Fresne & du Fresne, P.A. 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dr. Leonard M. Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Is Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 476423 subject to discipline by the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission (the Commission) through an amended administrative complaint brought by Frank T. Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner's predecessor? In particular is the certificate subject to discipline based upon the material allegations that: 1. On or about October 3, 1997, Respondent made sexually suggestive remarks to a minor female L.S. asking her to fondle him. He then put his hands on her breasts; and 2. During the 1983-1984 school year,1 Respondent had sexual intercourse with a minor female student, J.M., during school hours. Respondent also touched the student inappropriately and engaged in a romantic relationship with her.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 476423, covering the areas of Administration and Supervision in Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2000. At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended administrative complaint, Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Duval County, Florida, holding a professional services contract as a Physical Education teacher. J.M. Allegations in reference to J.M. refer to Julie Wallner Morris. Ms. Morris was formerly Julie Ann Wallner, while attending Wolfson High School in Duval County, Florida, in the years 1981-1985. Wolfson High School is a part of the Duval County School District. In the school year 1983-1984, Ms. Wallner was enrolled in a Spanish class at Wolfson High School. Rather than attend that class, Ms. Wallner would frequently abandon that class in favor of spending time in the gymnasium where Respondent was teaching a class in which Ms. Wallner was not enrolled. There Ms. Wallner became acquainted with Respondent. At first, Respondent was among a group of students whom Respondent would talk with. The initial conversations between Respondent and Ms. Wallner, among other students, was casual in its tone. At that point in time, Respondent did not appear to realize that Ms. Wallner was not supposed to be in the gymnasium. At some point in time, Respondent realized that Ms. Wallner was not appropriately in the gymnasium, in that she was not taking a class at that period. Subsequently, while in the gymnasium, in the weight room, Respondent began to converse with Ms. Wallner individually. While in the gymnasium, Respondent and Ms. Wallner had physical contact in the weight room. Respondent was seated on a weight bench. Respondent commented to Ms. Wallner about tightness in Respondent's shoulders and asked Ms. Wallner to massage his shoulders. Ms. Wallner massaged the top of Respondent's back and shoulders, an activity that she did not consider to be sexual in nature. That was Respondent's first physical contact with Ms. Wallner. Ms. Wallner saw Respondent in the weight room five to seven times alone. During those occasions Ms. Wallner and Respondent would converse. Respondent also would kiss and touch Ms. Wallner. When Respondent kissed Ms. Wallner, she returned the embrace. Respondent's touching of Ms. Wallner involved touching her shoulders and breasts over her clothing. Respondent also touched Ms. Wallner's skin. During the time of these encounters Ms. Wallner was sixteen years old. Ms. Wallner felt flattered by the attention she received from Respondent. On the last occasion in which Respondent and Ms. Wallner were in the weight room kissing and touching, Respondent invited Ms. Wallner to come with him to another area within the gymnasium. That area was a loft. Respondent unlocked the loft area and invited Ms. Wallner into the loft. Ms. Wallner willingly complied. Once inside the loft area, Respondent locked the door to the loft. While in the loft, Respondent started kissing Ms. Wallner and touching her and fondling her. Ms. Wallner and Respondent took off their clothes and they engaged in sexual intercourse in which Respondent penetrated Ms. Wallner's vagina with his penis. This encounter took approximately five minutes. Respondent and Ms. Wallner put their clothes back on and left the area. After the incident, Ms. Wallner felt "pretty bad" and felt that she had done something wrong. In parting, Respondent told Ms. Wallner not to tell anyone about the encounter or they would both be in trouble. Respondent told Ms. Wallner that it was a secret. Ms. Wallner did not keep their secret; she told her two closest friends about the relationship between Ms. Wallner and Respondent. Thereafter, rumors began to circulate at Wolfson High School concerning a relationship between Ms. Wallner and Respondent. The rumors were made known to Ms. Wallner in that other students would "crack jokes or say things" in Ms. Wallner's presence about Respondent and Ms. Wallner. Ms. Wallner would deny those rumors. Ms. Wallner understood that one of the friends she had told about the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Wallner had been summoned to the principal's office at the high school. This upset Ms. Wallner. On the same day, when Ms. Wallner's father noticed that she was upset, he asked her what was wrong. Ms. Wallner told her father about the rumors that Ms. Wallner and Respondent were having an affair. On the date that Ms. Wallner told her father about the rumors, her father arranged to have a meeting with the principal at Wolfson High School to discuss the rumors. The meeting was attended by Respondent who acknowledged that Ms. Wallner had been present at the gym classes taught by Respondent but not as a student. Respondent and Ms. Wallner denied having a relationship when confronted with that issue at the meeting held with the principal. During the meeting with the principal, Ms. Wallner denied the relationship because she did not wish to divulge something as personal as the relationship with Respondent and did not wish to be in trouble. She was afraid. Later, Respondent passed a note to Ms. Wallner in the school hall at Wolfson High School. The note was unsigned. The essence of the note was that Respondent "cared" for Ms. Wallner but wanted her to be quiet until it all "blew over." Ms. Wallner hid the note under her bed. Her father found the note and asked Ms. Wallner about the note and whether the note was from Respondent. Ms. Wallner at that time denied that the note came from Respondent. At the time Ms. Wallner had her relationship with Respondent, she did not realize that Respondent was married. When she found out Respondent was married after the relationship had ended, this made Ms. Wallner feel worse than she had felt before. She felt even more ashamed about the relationship because she believed that she had inadvertently dragged someone else into "my mess." This comment was in reference to Respondent's wife. L.S. L.S. refers to Lindsay Schuster who was a student at Wolfson High School in the fall 1997, her senior year. At that time Ms. Schuster was seventeen years old. Ms. Schuster first met Respondent in her ninth grade at Wolfson High School. At that time Respondent was Ms. Schuster's health teacher. While in the ninth grade, Ms. Schuster would speak to Respondent about business that her aunt did with the Respondent outside the school. Ms. Schuster would also speak to Respondent about Ms. Schuster's cousin who was on the school wrestling team. Respondent was coaching that team. In the fall term 1997, Ms. Schuster was taking a gym class with a different gym coach. Although Respondent was not her coach, Ms. Schuster would see Respondent in the gym class. The Respondent and Ms. Schuster would converse during the class. The nature of the relationship became such that Ms. Schuster would confide in Respondent about her personal life. Ms. Schuster had trust in the Respondent in confiding that information. On October 3, 1997, Ms. Schuster was late for school. She had been late numerous times before. When Ms. Schuster arrived at school, Respondent was in front of the hallway where coaches were normally located. Ms. Schuster was concerned that she not be found tardy again to avoid trouble based upon her tardiness. Ms. Schuster made Respondent aware of that problem. Respondent allowed Ms. Schuster to remain with him during the class period that was commencing. Respondent took roll of the members of his gym class. Respondent and Ms. Schuster then went to the football field and Respondent began to fill in holes on the field with sand. During this time, Respondent and Ms. Schuster were having a casual conversation about Ms. Schuster's home-life and Respondent's business outside his school duties. When the period was over, Respondent asked Ms. Schuster if she wanted to come back during her lunch period and help him further prepare facilities for the football game to take place that evening. Ms. Schuster agreed to come back. Ms. Schuster and Respondent met later behind the gymnasium. They then proceeded to the press box at the football field for Wolfson High School. They went inside the press box. Ms. Schuster began looking out of the press box windows. While in the press box, Respondent stated, "You really look good today." Ms. Schuster replied, "Yeah, I know, I always look good." Respondent then approached Ms. Schuster and put his arm around her shoulder and said "touch my cock." This referred to touching Respondent's sexual organ. Ms. Schuster replied, "No. Do you know how old you are?" When Ms. Schuster tried to step away from Respondent, he reached forward and rubbed his hands on Ms. Schuster's breasts. Ms. Schuster then left the press box. While Respondent was standing at the door of the press box, he stated to Ms. Schuster, "Shit. Now I have a hard-on." The results of Respondent's action hurt the feelings of Ms. Schuster. She felt devastated by his conduct given that she had placed her trust in Respondent. After the incident Ms. Schuster left the high school. She tried to return on the following week. Ms. Schuster determined not to permanently return because of her discomfort in realizing that other persons at school knew of the incident and her complaint to school authorities about Respondent's conduct. After Ms. Schuster left Wolfson High School, she obtained her general education diploma.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 476423. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 31st day of March, 1999.
The Issue Whether Lee Mace struck Suarez and is thereby guilty of misconduct in office contrary to the provisions of Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert L. Blubaugh, is the superintendent of the School District of Brevard County, Florida. Respondent, Lee Mace, is a member of the instructional staff of the School Board of Brevard County, Florida, employed pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. On or about May 10, 1977, at a meeting of the School Board of Brevard County, Florida, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that Respondent be dismissed from employment. This recommendation was based upon reports that Respondent had, on or about April 22, 1977, struck a student, George Suarez, on the premises of Melbourne High School in Brevard County, Florida. The Board acted upon the Petitioner's recommendation and suspended the Respondent with pay pending an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes 231.36(6), upon the allegations asserted by the Petitioner. The School Board further voted to seek the appointment of a hearing officer the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the Petitioner's allegations. The School Board's action was set out in a complaint and request for hearing, dated May 18, 1977, and forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Division of Administrative Hearings assigned Stephen F. Dean as Hearing Officer in this matter. Notice of formal hearing was given for a hearing to be conducted on June 30, 1977. George Suarez was a student at Melbourne High School in Brevard County, Florida. He had been a member of the track team at Melbourne High School coached by the Respondent. Immediately prior to April 22, 1977, Suarez quit the track team. This was Suarez's third resignation from the team during the 1977 school year. On April 22, 1977, the Respondent entered the classroom of Ned Brown between second and third period at approximately 9:30 a.m. He asked George Suarez to come into the hall, and Suarez refused. Respondent then sought permission of Ned Brown to enter his classroom and speak with Suarez. He was granted this permission and spoke to Suarez concerning his return of track equipment issued to Suarez. Suarez refused to return the track equipment alleging that the Respondent had entered his track locker and given away his personal belongings to other members of the track team. The Respondent told Suarez that his belongings had been removed from his track locker but had been placed in Respondent's file cabinet in his office where he could pick them up upon return of his track equipment. During this exchange, the discussion became more heated and following New Brown's suggestion, Mace began to leave the classroom. At this time, Suarez called out to Mace words to the effect, "Why don't you beat me up like you said you would?" The Respondent, continuing to leave the room, said to Brown words to the effect, "Scum like him isn't worth beating up" and continued to leave the classroom. At this point, Suarez shouted at Mace, "You are the scum." Mace questioned Suarez concerning what he had said. The testimony of the various witnesses concerning what occurred immediately thereafter is somewhat conflicting, but there is general agreement that Suarez, who had been sitting, jumped to his feet and while doing so or immediately thereafter, Mace struck him cuting Suarez's lip. The witnesses' testimony indicates that Suarez aggressively jumped from his seat to confront Mace, and that Suarez had a reputation for being quick tempered and for fighting. However, Mace admits that Suarez never struck at him. The witnesses' testimony generally agreed that the Respondent had not struck Suarez a deliberate forceful blow, based upon their observations and the fact that the Respondent, a man with the strength and build of a professional athlete, would have severely hurt Suarez had that been his intention. There is no dispute concerning the relevant facts concerning what immediately followed the physical contact between the Respondent and Suarez. Lee Mace enjoys a good reputation as an instructor and coach at Melbourne High School among the students, faculty, and parents. His reputation is based upon his working with student athletic teams and bringing the members of these teams together in activities which build character and which are morally uplifting. The evidence in this case indicates that he had given a great deal of personal attention, and had arranged to provide special coaching to George Suarez in an effort to keep him interested in athletics as a means of self expression to overcome Suarez's disciplinary and academic problems. Mace had also spent many hours of his own time in repainting the football stadium at Melbourne High School and making improvements to the student locker rooms.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend to the School Board that Lee Mace be suspended without pay for a period of thirty (30) days. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of September 1977, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 William C. Walker, Esquire 3435 S. Hopkins Avenue Post Office Box 1084 Titusville, Florida 32780
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Clarence Davis, holder of teaching certificate number 137897 issued by the State of Florida. Respondent is currently employed by Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a continuing contract which has been in effect since April 21, 1971. Respondent is presently a teacher at Azalea Middle School. In September of 1988 or early October 1988, a 12 year old female student, J.B., in Respondent's gym class complained to Respondent that another student was hitting her. Respondent refused to take any action. From his view of the class seating arrangement on the gym bleachers, Respondent felt there was no way that the student accused could have hit the complainant. Respondent told J.B. to stop crying like a baby. Respondent had been previously requested to use extra sensitivity in dealing with J.B. because she was a recent victim of a violent sex crime. J.B., through her parents, subsequently requested and received a transfer from Respondent's class by the school principal. At the beginning of the 1988-89 school term, D.W. was a student in Respondent's gym class. D.W. testified that Respondent yelled at him in a rude manner and propelled him into a fence on an out door court yard who he hit a volley ball incorrectly. D.W.'s testimony in this regard is not credited because his version of events was not corroborated by other testimony and is in conflict with testimony of Respondent that the incident did not occur and that D.W.'s class did not participate in any out door volley ball activity. D.W. admitted he "mouthed off" to Respondent on several occasions. When Respondent would give D.W. a directive, D.W.'s response was "no". Such an admission is inconsistent with D.W.'s testimony that he was afraid of Respondent; therefore that portion of D.W.'s testimony also is not credited. The principal of the school transferred D.W. from Respondent's class at the request of D.W.'s parents and because D.W. did not have respect for Respondent. Due to his absence on the day that volley ball teams were chosen, V.C. was not assigned to a team when he returned to Respondent's gym class on or about October 19, 1988. V.C. was not supposed to be seated in the gym bleachers with other students who were excused from "dressing out." Respondent yelled at V.C. and told him to get out of the class. V.C. complied and went to the school administrator's office. V.C. was not given a pass or a referral by Respondent in accordance with school policy requirements. V.C. was frightened by Respondent's action. A subsequent parental request to transfer V.C. from Respondent's class was granted by the school principal. On October 20, 1988, Respondent went to the classroom of a fellow teacher, Ms. Moore, and gestured through the glass portion of the door for her to come out and speak with him. She started her class to work on an assignment and stepped out the door to speak with Respondent. The conversation lasted four to five minutes and dealt primarily with Respondent's concern that he was being harassed by school administrative officials. Petitioner's policy no. 6Gx52-2.08 directs that class interruptions must be made at such times as will not interrupt classroom instruction. Just prior to the conversation with Ms. Moore, Respondent had spoken with the school principal in the principal's office. At the meeting with the principal, the principal deliberately left his door ajar for Respondent, not wanting to have a closed door meeting with Respondent. Respondent came into the principal's office and shut the door. Respondent was told by the principal that D.W. would be transferred to another class. Respondent argued with the principal, shook his finger in the principal's face and said "I won't be treated like a child." When the principal reached for the door handle, Respondent held the door shut and continued speaking in a voice loud enough for administrative personnel seated at desks approximately 15 feet outside the door to become concerned. The principal did not ask Respondent to open the door or to remove his hand from the door. Respondent then left the office, walked a short distance toward the exit to the administrative office section, and came back to the door of the principal's office where he again shouted that he wasn't being treated fairly, or words of similar import. Respondent then left the area. Another 13 year old male student, P.L., was transferred from Respondent's class at the request of his mother after the first grading period of the 1988-89 school year. P.L. received an "F" from Respondent for the first grading period because P.L. refused to dress out for physical education class. P.L. also witnessed Respondent yell and scream at other students. P.L. did not recall specific incidents and his testimony cannot be credited as corroborative of any particular incident alleged against Respondent. On or about October 28, 1988, Respondent grabbed D.B., a 14 year old seventh grade student, who was in the process of fighting with another student. As established by Respondent's testimony, D.B. is a "street smart" kid adept at fighting who poses a danger to other students in such a situation. As a result, Respondent held D.B.'s arm and carried him back to his office from the floor of the gym. D.B. is still in Respondent's class. Testimony of D.B. that Respondent intentionally twisted D.B.'s arm is not credited due to the demeanor of the witness while testifying; the lack of corroborative testimony of Respondent's arm twisting conduct by other witnesses; the testimony of another student, L.H., that he observed the incident and did not see D.B.'s arm twisted; and Respondent's denial of such action. On or about September 5, 1986, the principal of the school where Respondent was then employed, counselled Respondent concerning his aggressive touching of students. Respondent was reprimanded in a memorandum from the principal of Azalea Middle School dated April 18, 1989, for unprofessional conduct. The Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County reprimanded Respondent by letter dated June 1, 1988, for failure to meet professional standards relating to personal conduct. Respondent was warned that failure to follow administrative directives and treat colleagues and staff in an appropriate and acceptable manner in the future would result in a recommendation to Petitioner that Respondent be disciplined through suspension or termination of employment. The Director of Personnel Services for Petitioner was presented at final hearing as an expert in education practices and administration. Based upon his review of Respondent's previous disciplinary record, he opined that disciplinary action was appropriate. While he had met with Respondent to advise him of the disciplinary matters pending against Respondent, the director admitted that he did not discuss with Respondent the alleged incidents involving students J.B., V.C., D.W., and P.L.; therefore he did not have the benefit of information from Respondent in formulating an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the discipline proposed in this case. The school principal never consulted Respondent with regard to learning Respondent's version of the incidents involving students J.B. or D.W. The principal heard Respondent's version during the October 20, 1988, meeting with Respondent in the principal's office. Notably, the principal did meet with D.W., his parents and another instructor in a different class to resolve behavioral problems in that class. As stipulated by the parties, Petitioner bases Respondent's suspension for three days without pay upon Respondent's alleged actions with regard to students J.B., D.W., and V.C.; his confrontation with the school principal on October 20, 1988; his discussion of the matter with fellow teacher, Ms. Moore, on October 20, 1988; and his alleged failure to comply with previous directives to correct deficiencies in his professional behavior as set forth in previous reprimands. Petitioner's second suspension of Respondent without pay for a period of five days is based upon allegations that Respondent engaged in actions after November 8, 1988, and prior to December 14, 1988, consisting of pushing and shoving students in a punitive manner; that such alleged misconduct by Respondent occurred while the previous suspension action of November 8, 1988, was still pending; and that Respondent had been previously warned in reprimands issued to him in 1986 and 1988 to refrain from such conduct. The basis of the allegation regarding Respondent's pushing and shoving of students, relied upon by Petitioner to support the second suspension, consists of the incident involving student D.B. A second incident involving student M.S., a female in the sixth grade physical education class of Respondent, occurred after the December 14, 1988 date of the charging instrument for the second suspension and is not credited with regard to present charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 88-5720 and Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 89- 0344 dismissing the proposed suspensions of Respondent from his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-5720 AND 89-0344 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 1. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 1. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 3. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 4. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 3. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. However, as to material findings see paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 5. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 6. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 6. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted to the extent facts are addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 6. The remaining portions are rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 6. Paragraph 20 is accepted in material part and addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 21 accepted but unnecessary. By her admission, Respondent used $2000 borrowed from Washington toward her purchase of the car. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 12. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 2. Accepted in part Finding of Fact paragraph 3. Rejected as to suggestion, Respondent did not know. See subsequent findings of fact paragraph 5. Accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph Rejected as to conclusion Respondent was not aware of the conversations between Butler and Washington which took place in Respondent's presence. Accepted only as addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 9 otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted but unnecessary since true origin of funds was known to Respondent. Accepted as it states Respondent accepted loan-see findings of fact paragraphs 6 and 7. Rejected otherwise as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Accepted but is unnecessary. See Findings of Fact paragraph 10 as to material findings. Accepted in material part in Findings of Fact paragraphs 11, 12; otherwise rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Rejected as argumentative. Rejected as argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 1960 East Druid Road Clearwater, Florida 34618 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue Southwest Largo, Florida 34640
