The Issue Whether Respondent committed offenses, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, sufficient to justify the imposition of discipline with regard to Respondent's Florida educator's certificate, and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 720360, covering the area of business education, and was employed in the Santa Rosa County School system during the 2000-2001 school term as a business education teacher at Milton High School. Student S.B. was born April 19, 1983, and attended Milton High School for four years. During that time, she knew Respondent as a teacher and coach at the school. As a senior during the Fall of 2001-2002 school year, S.B. and her friend, J.N., another female student, called Respondent on the telephone as a joke. They told him they were coming to see him at his house. He said okay. That night, as the two female students left Respondent's home after staying about an hour, Respondent kissed S.B. on the mouth. Later, Respondent called S.B. at her home or placed calls to her cellular telephone on several occasions. S.B. also called Respondent. Sometimes, these telephone calls lasted for an hour or more. During the 2000-2001 school year, S.B. visited Respondent at his home on at least four and possible as much as six different occasions. Each visit occurred in the evening at Respondent's home when S.B. and Respondent were the only persons present. Respondent was a 33-year-old teacher and S.B., a 17-year-old student. Respondent and S.B. kissed and embraced each other on each of the visits by S.B. to Respondent's home. On the last visit, Respondent removed S.B.'s shirt, fondled her breasts through her bra and touched her vaginal area through her clothing. Respondent laid on top of S.B. and pressed his penis against her vagina through their clothing. Respondent professed his love for S.B. and talked to her about a future together following her graduation from high school. Respondent and S.B.'s relationship became the subject of rumors at Milton High School in March of 2001. Approximately three teachers had conversations with the Milton High School assistant principal that something was going on between S.B. and Respondent. The assistant principal confronted Respondent on March 16, 2001. Respondent denied any involvement with the two female students, S.B. and J.N., beyond two visits with them at his home where, he claimed, nothing happened between him and S.B. The assistant principal spoke with S.B. on March 16, 2001, and again confronted Respondent. This time, Respondent confessed to the relationship. He admitted to three or four occasions when he had kissed S.B. in the course of her visits to his house and that he had rubbed her breasts over her shirt. Respondent's improper conduct with S.B. became common knowledge among faculty, parents, and students at Milton High School. As a result of his admitted misconduct with S.B., the Santa Rosa County School District suspended Respondent on April 12, 2001, and that suspension continues in effect pending the outcome of this proceeding. Respondent's actions with regard to S.B. is immoral. A 33-year-old male teacher kissing, fondling, and hugging a 17-year-old student is an act of moral turpitude. Respondent's involvement with S.B. and the resulting publicity have seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent's conduct and actions with S.B. exposed the student to conditions which were, or could have been, harmful to her mental and physical health. Respondent's actions knowingly and intentionally exposed S.B. to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Respondent exploited his relationship with S.B. for personal gain. Respondent carried on a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old girl in order to satisfy his own romantic and sexual desires.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate No. 720360. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined because of Respondent's misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Background and parties Mr. Negedly holds Florida Educator's Certificate 836720, in English, which was valid through June 30, 2008. At all times pertinent, he was employed by the Volusia County School District as a language arts teacher at Heritage Middle School (Heritage). The Department of Education, which was headed by Petitioner at all times material to this case, is the state agency charged with investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida Educator's Certificates. The Education Practices Commission is charged with, among other things, imposing discipline on teachers. The Becker incidents During the 2004-2005 school year, Jami Lynn Becker was a consultation teacher at Heritage. A consultation teacher advises and otherwise aids teachers who have exceptional student education (ESE) pupils in their classes. She ensured that ESE students were provided the accommodations to which they were entitled. Mr. Negedly taught sixth-grade language arts at Heritage. There were three ESE students in his class. Ms. Becker's duties included visiting his class in order to provide services to those three students. On September 16, 2004, immediately before the commencement of classroom activities, Ms. Becker went to Mr. Negedly's room to inquire if he needed any help. During the conversation, Mr. Negedly mentioned that he and his wife had by happenstance seen Ms. Becker driving into New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Ms. Becker related that she was there to receive counseling regarding a recent divorce. Mr. Negedly moved the subject of the conversation to his own marriage and related that he was having problems and was sexually frustrated. He stated that he was having impure thoughts. He suggested that he was willing to engage in a physical relationship with Ms. Becker if she was willing. Ms. Becker was completely shocked by this conversation. Ms. Becker knew Mr. Negedly's wife, Joely Negedly, because she taught at Heritage also, and Ms. Becker suggested that he should direct his intimate conversations to his wife, not her. Mr. Negedly then revealed that he had the same feelings with another teacher, Jaqueline Brame, in the previous year. At that point in the conversation, the school bell rang, students entered the classroom, and Ms. Becker told Mr. Negedly that she would pray for him and then departed for her office. She also made it clear to him that she hoped that this type of conversation would not be repeated. However, that was not to be the case. About 45 minutes later, Mr. Negedly provided Ms. Becker with a note saying that he was sorry if what he said was too much, too fast, and that he hoped that he had provided her with some help. During the seventh period, which was Mr. Negedly's planning period, he came to Ms. Becker's office and renewed the conversations about his sexual frustration and stated that he didn't understand why God intended for man to be with one woman for his entire life. He asked Ms. Becker not to tell others about the conversations. On one or more occasions, Mr. Negedly came into Ms. Becker's office at the end of the school day and talked to her for as long as 45 minutes. Both his presence and his conversations during these times made her feel uncomfortable. Ms. Becker is a self-described non-confrontational person and could not bring herself to tell him to leave. These sort of encounters occurred about seven times over several weeks. Ms. Becker felt that the conversations he initiated were inappropriate. His words made her feel uncomfortable, and she felt that it was necessary for her to take evasive action in order to avoid him and therefore avoid repeat occurrences. She also honored his request not to reveal the nature of his conversations. At some point, Ms. Becker approached Ms. Brame, the person Mr. Negedly had identified as a previous target of his affections, and told Ms. Brame of her experiences. Ms. Brame related her experience with Mr. Negedly, and Ms. Becker ascertained that they were very similar. As a result, Ms. Becker resolved to inform higher authority. This plan was shelved, however, by the intervention of Hurricane Jeanne, which resulted in the suspension of school activities. On September 28, 2004, when school resumed, Mr. Negedly came into her office and after about 45 minutes Ms. Becker told him that his conversation was inappropriate. A few days after that, Ms. Becker reported these events to Mrs. Gunderson, who was an assistant principal and supervisor of ESE. All of these encounters occurred on school grounds. However, there was no evidence that any student observed or heard Mr. Negedly's suggestions. Mr. Negedly never touched Ms. Becker, threatened her person, or used sexually explicit language. His actions disturbed her to the extent that her ability to teach was affected. However, her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board was not seriously compromised. The Brame incidents Jacqueline Brame is currently a teacher at River Springs Middle School in the Volusia County School District and was a teacher at Heritage during all times pertinent to this proceeding. Ms. Brame was Mr. Negedly's mentor when he began teaching at Heritage and worked with him on a sixth-grade team of teachers providing education to the same 150 children. By the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, Ms. Brame, Mr. Negedly, and Joely Negedly had become close friends. They mingled socially and would visit one another in their homes. Ms. Brame confided in Mr. Negedly, and Ms. Brame described their relationship as "best friends." Ms. Brame was having marital problems, and she shared intimate details about this with Mr. Negedly. She valued his advice and respected his opinions about her problems. After the 2003-2004 school year commenced, Mr. Negedly attempted to move the relationship into a romantic one. He told her that he cared for her deeply and that he was in love with her. These comments made Ms. Brame uncomfortable. She reminded Mr. Negedly that he was married, that she, Ms. Brame, was Mrs. Negedly's friend, and that his son was in her class. This conversation occurred in school, during the school day. He told Ms. Brame that he wanted to have a physical relationship with her. This continued even when Ms. Brame was seven months pregnant. After each advance and rebuff, Mr. Negedly would apologize. His pursuit continued for almost a year. On numerous occasions she would tell him that his advances were unwelcome and inappropriate. Ms. Brame, like Ms. Becker, described herself as someone who did not like confrontation, and she did not firmly tell him that his behavior was unacceptable. Once when Ms. Brame had temporarily abandoned her marital home as the result of a domestic dispute, Mr. Negedly invited her to stay at his home. Ms. Negedly was out of the area at this time because of her duties as a consultant for the college boards, but their children were present in the home. Ms. Brame refused. However, she did not take the invitation to be an invitation for sex. She said that had Ms. Negedly not been away during this time, she might have accepted the invitation. Mr. Negedly's pursuit made Ms. Brame uncomfortable and occasionally sick to her stomach. It adversely affected her emotions and affected her teaching. The events happened in school, in the school cafeteria, and after school, but in connection with school activities. As a result of his unwelcome overtures she had to attend counseling. However, her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board was not seriously reduced or compromised. Eventually Ms. Brame restructured their relationship. She transformed it into a professional friendship and maintained this status through the 2003-2004 school year. At no time during these encounters did Mr. Negedly touch Ms. Brame inappropriately or use sexually explicit language. Most if not all of the encounters occurred on school grounds or in connection with school activities. However, there was no evidence that any student observed or heard Mr. Negedly's overtures. Ms. Brame did not tell anyone in authority about Mr. Negedly's behavior. She cared deeply for Mr. Negedly and his family. She believed remaining silent was her Christian duty. She stated during the hearing that she does not believe he should be removed from the teaching profession. Ms. Brame's allegations surfaced during the investigation into Mr. Negedly's conduct that resulted from Ms. Becker's allegations. The Hepsworth incidents Ms. Kuuleialoha Hepsworth was a teacher's assistant at Heritage during the first semester of 2004. She was in charge of the "lunch club." This informal organization provided lunches to teachers who desired to have their lunch prepared by commercial providers. Ms. Hepsworth would collect money from participating teachers, acquire the food at nearby restaurants, and deliver them to those who had placed orders with her. Once when Mr. Negedly handed her money to be used for purchasing lunch, she claimed he inappropriately brushed the bottom of her hand. Mr. Negedly was the sponsor for the school yearbook and in connection with that duty, he was taking pictures of children in a seventh-period classroom Ms. Hepsworth was teaching. Ms. Hepsworth testified that he said that he was intrigued with her and that "he wanted to pursue her." She said she asked him, "What about your wife?" She said he then asked her if "I would do his wife too, because that would be too cool." Ms. Hepsworth claimed that she was "freaked out." She related that this latter incident occurred on the Friday before Mr. Negedly was removed from the school because of the Becker allegations. She was asked on October 28, 2004, to give a statement to an investigator and that is when she revealed her alleged encounters. The alleged behavior of Mr. Negedly as related by Ms. Hepsworth was so dissimilar to the events related by Ms. Becker and Ms. Brame that it is deemed unworthy of belief. Mr. Negedly Mr. Negedly's targets were women who did not like confrontation and who sought unsuccessfully to communicate their discomfort passively. Had they been confrontational with him, or if they had reported his behavior to higher authority immediately, the behavior could have been corrected locally, and the downward spiral of unpleasantness which has resulted, could have been avoided. On the other hand, these two women may have been selected as targets because of Mr. Negedly's perception that they were unlikely to either harshly react to his overtures or immediately report him to those in authority. Mr. Negedly's certificate expired June 30, 2008. He was employed as a teacher from the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year until the latter part of the school year 2005-2006. Mr. Negedly received a certificate of appreciation for his outstanding dedication to education from the assistant principal of Heritage, on May 7, 2002. All of his performance assessments indicated that he met standards, and he had no disciplinary record prior to the discipline at issue in this case. As previously noted, he was given the additional duty of yearbook sponsor at Heritage. He was also made sponsor of the Junior Beta Club. Heritage Principal Dennis Neal wrote a recommendation dated May 7, 2004, when Mr. Negedly applied for a Stetson University Teacher Scholar Grant that related, "Mr. Negedly continues to demonstrate high professional standards and a dedication to his students' success both in and out of the classroom. He is a valuable team player who can be counted on to go above the norm in all his endeavors. I commend Mr. Negedly on taking on the challenge of an advanced degree and professional growth." When Mr. Negedly was teaching English at David Hinson Middle School, he was chosen teacher of the month for October 2005 by students and teachers. Subsequent to the exposure of Mr. Negedly's transgressions, he attended counseling with his wife at Associated Psychiatric Services in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. As late as April 13, 2005, counseling continued. The counseling was ordered and paid for by the Volusia School District. In January 2005, the school board punished Mr. Negedly by suspending him for five days without pay. As a result of Mr. Negedly's lack of judgment, he was taken from his classroom at Heritage and transferred to the district headquarters; his wife had to obtain a transfer to another school; Mrs. Negedly and her child were the subject of incorrect and hurtful conversations by students, faculty, and others; and Mr. Negedly, who sincerely loved teaching, lost his career.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joan Stewart, Esquire FEA Legal Services 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 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 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in conduct that violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and/or Florida Administrative Code 1 All references to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, are to the 2020 codification. Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed against her Florida Educator's Certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator's certificate, and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 717826, which is valid through June 30, 2025, and covers the area of physical education (PE"). As of February 28, 2018, the date on which the conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred, Respondent was employed by Petitioner in a partial assignment as a PE teacher at Coral Gables Preparatory Academy ("CGPA"), formerly known as Coral Gables Elementary School, within the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"). Respondent was simultaneously employed in a partial teaching assignment at a different school in the District. The Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in inappropriate conduct on February 28, 2018, consisting of throwing students' book bags, resulting in damage to electronic devices that were in the book bags. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the damage to the electronic devices was over $2,000.00. Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(j)3 by having violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession adopted by the State Board of Education. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.,4 by having failed to 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. Evidence Adduced at the Hearing As noted above, the incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 28, 2018, at CGPA. At the time of the incident, some students were on their way out to the athletic field outside of the school for PE class, while others were on their way out to the field for recess. An indeterminate number of students left their bookbags in the walkway near the exit door to the field, despite previously having been told by Respondent to place their bookbags against a wall adjacent to the walkway in order to ensure that no one tripped over bookbags. Respondent moved the bookbags out of the walkway by "tossing" or "throwing" them.5 There is conflicting evidence regarding the force with which Respondent moved the bookbags. 3 All references to chapter 1012, Florida Statutes, are to the 2017 codification, which was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding. See Orasan v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 668 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(law in effect at time of alleged violations applies in disciplinary proceedings). 4 The version of rule 6A-10.081 that was adopted by the State Board of Education on March 23, 2016, was in effect at the time of the conduct giving rise to this proceeding, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. See Orasan, 668 So. 2d at 1063. 5 A key issue disputed by the parties is whether Respondent "tossed" or "threw" the bookbags. This dispute appears to center around Respondent's culpability because, presumably, if she "threw" them, she did so in anger, without regard to whether the contents would be damaged, thereby warranting a more severe penalty than if she had merely Student J.R. credibly testified that he saw Respondent "furiously" throwing the bookbags, including his bookbag. He testified that as a result of Respondent's actions, his iPhone, which was in the bookbag, was broken and had to be replaced. A photograph that was admitted as part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 depicts J.R.'s iPhone with the glass having been shattered. J.R.'s signature and "3/14/18," the date on which he was interviewed as part of the District's investigation of the incident, are written below the photograph. J.R. also testified that his glasses, which were in his bookbag, also were damaged as a result of Respondent's conduct.6 Another student, H.B., testified, credibly, that she witnessed Respondent throwing the bookbags "really hard." She testified that as a result, her iPad and her brother's iPad, both of which were in her bookbag, were broken. Two photographs that were admitted as part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 depict the damaged iPads. H.B.'s signature and the date of March 14, 2018, the date on which she was interviewed as part of the District's investigation of the incident, are written below the photographs. A.A. also testified that she saw Respondent throwing the bookbags, and that Respondent threw her bookbag with such force that it broke her water bottle, which was inside the bookbag. A.A. testified that this upset her, because the water bottle was her favorite one.7 Salvatore Schiavone, the former principal of Southside Elementary School ("SES"), testified on behalf of Respondent. Respondent is assigned to "tossed" them, and the damage to the electronics was accidental. The undersigned does not find this label dispositive of the penalty imposed in this proceeding. 6 Because the Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with having damaged students' property other than electronic devices, damage to J.R.'s glasses cannot form the basis of discipline in this proceeding. However, the fact that J.R.'s glasses were damaged is probative regarding the force with which Respondent threw the bookbags. 7 See footnote 3, above. Damage to A.A.'s water bottle cannot form the basis of discipline in this proceeding because it was not charged in the Administrative Complaint. However, the fact that her water bottle was broken as a result of Respondent having thrown her bookbag is probative regarding the force with which Respondent threw the bookbags. SES, and was so assigned during the time period of 2006 through 2017, when Schiavone was principal. Schiavone testified, credibly, that he viewed Respondent as "the consummate professional" and an outstanding teacher; that he had never observed her having anger issues or causing property damage; and that she was very well-liked by her students. Respondent testified that on the day of the incident, students from four classes were entering and exiting the sole doorway to and from the athletic field, and that many of them had thrown their bookbags in a pile in the walkway. She asked them more than once to move the bookbags, but most of them did not do so, so she, with help from a few students, moved them from the walkway to against the wall adjacent to the doorway exit to the athletic field. She testified, credibly, that she did not know electronic devices were in the bookbags. She denied smashing the bookbags on the ground and intentionally damaging students' property. Respondent entered into an agreement with the District under which she received a written reprimand and agreed to pay $558.00 in restitution for the damage to the electronic devices. Respondent has taught for over 27 years and has not previously been subjected to discipline. Findings of Ultimate Fact The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent threw some students' bookbags with sufficient force to damage electronic devices inside the bookbags. This determination is based on the credible testimony of the students who testified at the final hearing. Respondent moved the bookbags from the walkway, where students were entering through, and exiting from, a doorway between the inside corridor and the outside athletic field. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the bookbags had been piled in a location where they posed a potential tripping hazard. However, even if the bookbags were obstructing the walkway and presented a potential tripping hazard, and notwithstanding that Respondent had told the students to place their bookbags against the wall, that did not justify Respondent throwing the bookbags with the amount of force sufficient to damage the contents in some of the bags. Thus, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that in moving students' bookbags with sufficient force to damage electronic devices inside the bookbags, Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect the students from conditions harmful to students' mental health and safety. To this point, as discussed above, the evidence establishes that at least some of the students were distressed as a result of their electronic devices being damaged. Thus, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. As a result of having violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j). However, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent did not know that students' electronic devices were in some of the bookbags that were thrown, and the evidence does not establish that Respondent intended to damage students' property. Additionally, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent's actions caused over $2,000.00 worth of damage to the electronic devices in students' bookbags. Although the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent's actions damaged some students' electronic devices, no competent evidence was presented regarding the value of the damaged electronic devices. There was no evidence presented showing that students' physical health or safety was in any way harmed or adversely affected by Respondent's actions in throwing the bookbags.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to section 1012.796, the Education Practices Commission issue a written reprimand to Respondent, with a copy placed in her certification file, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(f). DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Peter Caldwell, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
