Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Agency for Health Care Administration, is the agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapters 455 and 464, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Respondent has been a licensed Registered Nurse, having been issued license number RN 1730452. On July 26, 1993, Respondent was admitted to Palmetto General Hospital where she was given a blood alcohol test. The tests revealed that she had a blood alcohol level of 0.317. The medical records maintained in the regular course of its business reflected that Respondent was diagnosed by Dr. Samuel Pinosky as suffering from depression and alcohol dependency. 1/ On July 29, 1993, Respondent was referred to the Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN), an organization that provides assistance to nurses who suffer from addiction. Respondent refused to cooperate with the IPN and stopped attending meetings during August of 1993. On October 29, 1993, Dr. Pinosky noted in his progress notes that he had seen Respondent and that she has "poor insight into [her] alcoholism" and that her "control issues" were evident. Respondent was subsequently evaluated by Dr. John Eustace, the medical director for the Addiction Treatment Program at Mount Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami. As of December 10, 1993, Dr. Eustace was of the opinion that Respondent suffered from active alcohol abuse and that she was a potential danger to the nursing profession and to patients whom she might serve. Dr. Eustace noted that Respondent was resistant to usual alcohol rehabilitation treatment modalities. On or about December 29, 1993, Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Stephen Kahn, a psychiatrist and addicitionalist. Dr. Kahn prepared a report based on his evaluation and history of the Respondent. His report, dated January 10, 1993 (sic), 2/ provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Ms. Cifuentes presents a very interesting picture, in that she has a history of psychotic episodes over a nine year period, and functioned very little for almost 15 years, and now [has] what appears to be a somewhat long standing, but more recently quite florid, alcoholism. She shows no sign of any psychotic symptomatology at this time, but her mood is clearly very labile. She clearly suffers addiction to alcohol, and although she has some insight into this disease, she is also in a considerable amount of denial. Emotionally, she has not accepted this disease, and clearly does not want to look at this any longer. Given her degree of denial, and her emotional instability, exacerbated by the recent loss of her husband in a plane accident, the prognosis is not good. . . . [S]he is a high risk candidate to relapse. I do not believe it would be safe for this woman to practice nursing without further therapy geared toward recovery from addiction with possible psychiatric intervention as necessary. Kenneth W. Thompson, M.D., was accepted as an expert witness in the field of addiction medicine. Dr. Thompson testified without contradiction that alcoholism is a disease that requires treatment. There was no evidence that Respondent has accepted the offers of treatment that have been made to her by the IPN or that she has otherwise sought or received treatment for her alcoholism. Dr. Thompson opined with reasonable medical certainty that the Respondent is unsafe to practice nursing due to her alcoholism and due to mental illness. Dr. Thompson's opinions are consistent with the uncontradicted evidence in this proceeding. Based on the record of this proceeding, it is found that Respondent is unsafe to practice nursing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that revokes the licensure of the Respondent, requires the IPN to provide her services if she requests assistance, and provides for reinstatement of her licensure on appropriate terms and conditions upon proof that she can safely practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of October 1995.
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License based upon Respondent's president selling, serving or giving an alcoholic beverage, on the licensed premises, to a person under the age of twenty-one contrary, to Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rose Anne, Inc., d/b/a Scooters, holds license number 74-05039 SRX, Series 4COP issued by Petitioner for the premises located at 217 North Woodland Boulevard, Deland, Florida. Scott A. Price is the president and owner of that business. On October 22, 1997, Petitioner, through its agents, made random checks of businesses holding alcoholic beverage licenses issued by Petitioner. Those checks were made in Deland, Florida. In particular, the checks were designed to determine if businesses holding alcoholic beverage licenses were acting in compliance with the prohibition against selling, serving or giving alcoholic beverages on their licensed premises, to persons under the age of twenty-one, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent's premises was one of the licensed premises checked on that date. Petitioner's employees involved in the random checks included Special Agents Betty D. Adazzio, Melissa Winford and Kristin Hunt, operating with the assistance of Sergeant Steve Dovi of the Deland Police Department. The law enforcement personnel were supported in their activities by Ryan N. Luttrell, an under-aged person, who was used to determine if persons within the licensed premises under consideration would sell, serve or give Mr. Luttrell an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Mr. Lutrell was born on November 23, 1978, as reflected on a Florida driver's license issued to him. That driver's license bore a picture of Mr. Luttrell which accurately depicted his appearance at the time. The license also indicated in bold print that Mr. Luttrell was under twenty-one years of age. In contact with Mr. Price, within Respondent's licensed premises, Mr. Luttrell used the license as a means of identification. Mr. Luttrell entered the licensed premises on the date in question. At that moment Mr. Price was tending the bar in the premises. Mr. Price brought Mr. Luttrell a menu and asked Mr. Luttrell if he wanted anything to drink. Mr.Luttrell told Mr. Price to give Mr. Luttrell a minute to decide. Mr. Luttrell then asked Mr. Price for a Bud Lite, an alcoholic beverage which is a beer. Mr. Luttrell also ordered cheese sticks. Mr. Price asked Mr. Luttrell for identification. Mr. Luttrell then produced the driver's license that has been described. Mr. Price briefly looked at the driver's license. Then Mr. Price took the driver's license to another area within the premises and held the license up by a chart. Mr. Price came back to where Mr. Luttrell was seated and asked what Mr. Luttrell would like. Mr. Luttrell repeated that he wanted a Bud Lite. Mr. Price filled a glass with beer and brought it back to Mr. Luttrell's location placing the glass of beer and a napkin in front of Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Price remarked that the cheese sticks would be right out. Mr. Luttrell asked Mr. Price where the bathroom was. Mr. Luttrell took the beer in the glass with him and took a sample of the beer and placed it in a vial. Mr. Luttrell went back to the bar area, and in further conversation with Mr. Price, Mr. Luttrell claimed that his pager had gone off, and used that excuse as a reason to exit the licensed premises. Once outside, Mr. Luttrell realized that he had not paid for the beer and Agent Adazzio sent Mr. Luttrell back into the premises to pay it. Mr. Luttrell re-entered the premises. Mr. Price was still behind the bar. Mr. Luttrell paid Mr. Price for the beer that Mr. Price had given Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Luttrell then again exited the licensed premises. At the time of the incident Respondent was not qualified as a Responsible Vendor pursuant to Section 561.705, Florida Statutes, and entitled to protections against suspension or revocation of its beverage license for the illegal sale of an alcoholic beverage to a person not of lawful drinking age, as envisioned by Section 561.706, Florida Statutes. Respondent's disciplinary history involves a violation of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, for failure to timely file surcharge reports and to remit surcharges collected for periods in 1990. That case was resolved by entry into a Consent Agreement on December 17, 1990, in which Respondent acknowledged the violations and agreed to remit the sum of $250.00, as a civil penalty. This circumstance was in association with Respondent doing business as Scooters Coast To Coast at U.S. Highway #1, MM92.5, Tavernier, Monroe County, Florida, under license number 54-00658, Series 2COP.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: It is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of the aforementioned provisions and imposing a seven day suspension, together with a civil penalty of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan C. Felker-Little, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Scott A. Price, President Rose Anne, Inc., d/b/a Scooters 102½ West Rich Avenue Deland, Florida 32720 Richard Boyd, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner, in response to a question on the application for licensure as a practical nurse, knowingly misrepresented a material fact by denying prior participation in an alcohol recovery program for treatment of alcohol abuse, and, if so, whether Respondent has grounds to deny Petitioner's application.
Findings Of Fact On December 10, 2014, Petitioner Stephanie DeCelestino ("DeCelestino") submitted an Initial Application for Licensure to Respondent Board of Nursing (the "Board"). Because DeCelestino is a licensed practical nurse ("LPN") in another state, she applied for a Florida LPN license by endorsement (a process which allows an applicant to avoid sitting for another examination). The Board is responsible for reviewing such applications and determining which should be certified for licensure to the Department of Health ("Department"), and which denied. Under the heading "Criminal History," the application which DeCelestino completed asked a single question: "Have you EVER been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, nolo contendre, or no contest to, a crime in any jurisdiction other than a minor traffic offense?" DeCelestino answered, "NO." Under the heading "Health History," the application which DeCelestino completed contained five questions, as follows: In the last five years, have you been enrolled in, required to enter into, or participated in any drug or alcohol recovery program or impaired practitioner program for treatment of drug or alcohol abuse that occurred within the past five years? In the last five years, have you been admitted or referred to a hospital, facility or impaired practitioner program for treatment of a diagnosed mental disorder or impairment? During the last five years, have you been treated for or had a recurrence of a diagnosed mental disorder that has impaired your ability to practice nursing within the past five years? In the last five years, were you admitted or directed into a program for the treatment of a diagnosed substance- related (alcohol/drug) disorder or, if you were previously in such a program, did you suffer a relapse in the last five years? During the last five years, have you been treated for or had a recurrence of a diagnosed substance-related (alcohol/drug) that has impaired your ability to practice nursing within the past five years? DeCelestino answered "NO" to all five questions. The Department orders a criminal background check on all applicants. The results for DeCelestino suggested that she had an undisclosed criminal history. Accordingly, by letter dated December 23, 2014, the Department notified DeCelestino that her application might contain false information and invited her to "modify [her] response to the criminal history question" and provide "a typed self explanation of each charge" together with "all available court dispositions" among other items. DeCelestino complied. By letter dated February 7, 2015, DeCelestino informed the Department (as she would later testify credibly at hearing) that she had been arrested in Tennessee on February 14, 2014, for committing a crime after "consuming large amounts of alcohol." For this offense, DeCelestino had been sentenced, on April 22, 2014, to six months' probation on the conditions that she "continue counseling" and have no contact with the victim. The mandatory "counseling" consisted of attending Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") meetings, which DeCelestino did from April to September 2014. Later, DeCelestino voluntarily received group counseling through ADAP Counseling Services ("ADAP") in Florida, which she completed on November 9, 2014. DeCelestino disclosed these facts to the Department in her February 7, 2015, correspondence, writing: "I attended AA meetings and a strict counseling group here in Florida called Adap." Together with her letter, DeCelestino furnished the Department with a copy of the Order for the Expungement of Criminal Offender Record dated November 20, 2014, by which the Tennessee court having jurisdiction over her criminal offense had dismissed the charge and ordered "that all PUBLIC RECORDS relating to such offense . . . be expunged and immediately destroyed." She also submitted an Application Update on which she switched her answer to "Yes" in response to the criminal history question. The Board accepted DeCelestino's explanation of the criminal charge and does not currently allege that she knowingly misrepresented a material fact by denying the arrest in Tennessee, given that the record thereof had been expunged. On June 30, 2015, however, the Board executed a Notice of Intent to Deny DeCelestino's application for certification as a practical nurse by endorsement, relying upon other grounds in support of such proposed action. In the notice, the Board alleged: As part of a pretrial intervention agreement, the applicant was required to attend substance abuse counseling sessions. The applicant was discharged from the sessions on or about November 9, 2014. The Board accused DeCelestino of having attempted to obtain a license by bribery, misrepresentation, or deceit when she denied, in response to the first health history question on the application, having participated in an alcohol recovery program for treatment of alcohol abuse that occurred within the past five years. The Board's factual allegations are not entirely accurate. The counseling provided by ADAP, which DeCelestino completed on November 9, 2014, was not court ordered, but rather involved services that DeCelestino sought on her own. There is no evidence in the record persuasively establishing that these services were provided as part of a "drug or alcohol recovery program" for the purpose of treating "drug or alcohol abuse."1/ Perhaps more important, there is no persuasive evidence supporting a finding that DeCelestino knew that the ADAP counseling services met these criteria, even assuming that they did, which to repeat was not proven. The undersigned accepts as credible DeCelestino's testimony that she did not interpret the health history question as an inquiry about such counseling as she received at ADAP. As for her court ordered attendance at AA meetings, which DeCelestino was "required to enter into," the undersigned accepts as credible her testimony that she did not consider AA to be an "alcohol recovery program . . . for treatment of drug or alcohol abuse." There is, to explain, no evidence in the record establishing the nature of AA meetings, and, although the undersigned has a general idea of what AA does given that it is a well-known organization with which most adults in the U.S. have at least a passing familiarity through common experience and exposure to the popular culture, it is not clear to the undersigned that AA constitutes an "alcohol recovery program" within the meaning of the health history question.2/ Because the question does not unambiguously inquire about AA, DeCelestino's conclusion that nondisclosure of her attendance at AA meetings was permissible is arguably correct and at worst an honest mistake. Based on DeCelestino's credible testimony, which the undersigned credits, it is found that DeCelestino had no intention of deceiving the Board in hopes her attendance at AA meetings or ADAP counseling sessions would not be discovered. She readily disclosed this information when asked for an explanation of her criminal background, even though no issue had been raised concerning her response to the health history question. Had she intended to conceal her participation in an "alcohol recovery program," DeCelestino surely would not have mentioned AA or ADAP in her February 7, 2015, letter to the Department because she could have responded truthfully to the inquiry about her criminal charge without doing so. The order sentencing her to probation, recall, required her to "continue counseling" but said nothing about attending an "alcohol recovery program." The fact that she volunteered the information while making no attempt to update her application to conform thereto persuasively corroborates her testimony that she did not understand the health history question to be asking about AA meetings or ADAP counseling. Determinations of Ultimate Fact DeCelestino is not guilty of attempting to procure an LPN license by knowing misrepresentations, which is a disciplinable offense and grounds for denial of licensure under section 464.018(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order approving DeCelestino's application for licensure by endorsement as a practical nurse unless it determines that she might be impaired as a result of alcohol abuse, in which case a referral should be made pursuant to section 456.076(3) with further proceedings to follow in accordance therewith. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Teaching Certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Linda Rondone, Jane E. Vowell, Susan C. Vassilev, Kyril P. Vassilev, III and Johnny B. McKenzie. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5 were admitted in evidence. Official recognition, pursuant to Section 90.202, Florida Statutes, was taken of the statutes and violations charged in the case of State of Florida v. Jeffrey Siegfried, 85-1568 MMA02, and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, Section 6B--1.01, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Jeffrey W. Siegfried, failed to appear for the formal hearing despite notice to him personally and to his former counsel who was granted leave to withdraw. Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent held Teaching Certificate Number 440229, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent's Teaching Certificate covers the areas of English and Reading. On or about June 13, 1978, the Respondent applied for a teaching certificate for the State of Florida. The Respondent filled out the application and answered "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" The Respondent signed the application in front of a notary on June 13, 1978, certifying that all information pertaining to the application was true and correct. Petitioner presented charging documents from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, in which the Respondent was charged with three crimes alleged to have occurred on June 7, 1975, to wit: Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance, Corruption of Minors and Disorderly Conduct. Further, the documents indicated that the Respondent was sentenced on December 4, 1975, to the Program of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition on the charges of Possession of Marijuana and Corruption of Minors. The program involved a twenty four (24) month probationary period and payment of $350.00 restitution. The charge of Disorderly Conduct was nolle prossed. On July 20, 1979, the Respondent filled out an Application of Instructional Position for Palm Beach County, Florida. The Respondent in said application again made no mention of his criminal history. He again checked off "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" The Respondent signed the application certifying that all the answers given were true. In the fall of 1980, the Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School District. On January 24, 1986, an Information was filed in the County Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, charging the Respondent with Possession of Marijuana on January 15, 1985 and Child Abuse on December 23, 1984. Susan C. Vassilev, mother of Kyril Vassilev, testified that she had been friends with the Respondent for 3 or 4 years preceding December of 1984. Throughout their acquaintance, the Respondent was employed as a full time teacher for the Palm Beach County School Board. Mrs. Vassilev's son, Kyril, occasionally did yard work and odd jobs for the Respondent. On December 23rd of 1984, Mrs. Vassilev reminded her son about a Christmas Eve dinner invitation at the Respondent's house. He answered her, "No, I'm not going there. He's a fag. I don't want anything to do with him." Mrs. Vassilev than testified as to what her son told her which was again reiterated by her son when he testified later in the hearing. In November and December, 1984, Kyril Vassilev was thirteen (13) years old. He had met the Respondent through his mother and knew the Respondent to be a teacher in Palm Beach County. Kyril went to the Respondent's house in late November or early December of 1984 to do some yard work for the Respondent. The Respondent picked Kyril up and while in the Respondent's van, the Respondent suggested that he knew a way for Kyril to earn a lot of money and only work two hours a day, 2 or 3 times a week. After Kyril mowed the Respondent's yard, he came into the Respondent's house for a drink. He asked the Respondent how he could make such easy money. The Respondent told him it was called child pornography and explained that it involved Kyril posing for nude photographs. The Respondent showed Kyril photographs of a nude boy in a magazine and claimed that he had helped the boy earn money by arranging for him to pose nude. Kyril told the Respondent that he wasn't interested and went back outside to continue staining the backyard fence. After a while, Kyril went back inside for another drink. The Respondent at that point told Kyril that the photographers had called and were willing to pay him $200.00 for posing nude. Kyril again told the Respondent that he was not interested. After finishing work, Kyril again came into the house and the Respondent told him the photographers had called again and upped the price to $500.00. Kyril told the Respondent no again. The Respondent sent Kyril to buy camera film at Eckerds. Kyril testified that he was afraid, but he went and got the film and brought it back. Again the Respondent asked Kyril if he would reconsider. Kyril, again, declined. Before Kyril left, the Respondent informed him that he couldn't tell his mother or anyone else. The Respondent told Kyril that he need not worry about his mother finding out, because the Respondent would open a secret bank account for him, where he could keep the money. Before leaving for the day, Kyril testified that, the Respondent told him "they" had called and were now willing to pay up to $1,000. The Respondent took Kyril home and enroute again tried to talk him into posing nude. Kyril again declined. The Respondent indicated that Kyril could make even more money doing things with other boys in front of the camera. Kyril was waiting until after Christmas to tell his mother, but because of the invitation to the Respondent's residence for Christmas Eve dinner, he decided to tell his mother on December 24, 1984. Mrs. Vassilev confronted the Respondent with her son's allegations and he claimed to be working undercover for school security to infiltrate a child pornography ring. Johnny B. McKenzie testified that as Director of Security for Palm Beach School Board that he had no knowledge of the Respondent working for school security. On July 11, 1985, the Respondent pled no contest to Count I, Possession of Marijuana less than 20 grams and Count II, Child Abuse. Judge Karen Martin, County Court Judge in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, withheld adjudication as to Count I and adjudicated the Respondent guilty of Count II. The Respondent was placed on twelve (12) months probation with special conditions that he: (1) make no contact with any child under the age of 18 years without another adult being present; (2) make no contact with the mother of the victim and/or the victim, himself; (3) undergo substance abuse evaluation and treatment if needed; and, (4) undergo psychological evaluation and counseling if needed. Ms. Jane E. Vowell, then acting as Assistant Superintendent, testified that on or about January 17, 1985, the Respondent was called into her office and she informed him of the charges against him, and told him that she would recommend to the Superintendent that he be suspended with pay and given an opportunity to resign. The Respondent resigned on February 4, 1985. Ms. Vowell testified that the Respondent's teaching certificate should be permanently revoked because he lacked the moral character needed to be a teacher responsible for children. On March 6, 1985, the Respondent submitted an Application for Instructional Position to the Broward County School Board. The Respondent again answered "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" He again signed the application certifying that all the information given on the application was true and correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking the teaching certificate of Jeffrey W. Siegfried. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 5th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2020 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Proposed findings of fact 1-33 are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1-33. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Street, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey W. Siegfried Post Office Box 172 Truro, Massachusetts 02666 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, number 61-00005, 2-COP be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: DABT is the division within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Beverage Law of the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a series 2- COP alcoholic beverage license, number 61-00005, authorizing the Respondent to sell only beer and wine on the premises of East Side Tavern (Tavern), located on Cummer Road, 1 mile east of Highway 301, Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida. Around 12:30 a.m. on May 16, 1994, Special Agents Ashley Murray and Keith B. Hamilton went to the Tavern in an undercover capacity. This undercover activity was initiated due to a request of the Pasco County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) concerning allegations of drugs sales on the premises of the Tavern. Agent Murray has been a sworn law enforcement officer for five and one- half years. Agent Murray completed a two-week basic Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) drug school regarding the identification, sale and the manner of use of drugs. Agent Murray also completed a three-day undercover DEA school. During her five and one-half years as a sworn law enforcement officer, Agent Murray has been involved in at least 100 occasions where drugs were being sold or used. Agent Hamilton has been a law enforcement officer since 1981. During Agent Hamilton's tenure as a law enforcement officer he has been involved in numerous training classes regarding the identification, sale and manner of use of drugs, including courses taught by DEA. Agent Hamilton has been trained to recognize the scent of burning marijuana. Agent Hamilton has been in at least 70 different establishments where drugs, including marijuana, were being sold and used. As the agents approached the Tavern, they noticed a large number of people (100-150) standing in front of the Tavern and in a vacant lot across the road from the Tavern. Additionally, cars were parked along Cummer Road in front of the Tavern. The agents also testified that a "lot" of the people standing outside appeared to be "young". Upon entering the Tavern, the agents noticed that no one was checking identification at the door. The Tavern consists of two rooms divided by wall with a door between the two rooms. The bar is located in one room. The second room is a disco/dance area. Based on the description of the inside of the Tavern, a person behind the bar would not have clear view of all of the disco/dance area. On May 16, 1994, the Tavern was crowded with customers. Agent Murray saw what appeared to her to be a "lot of really young kids" in the crowd. Upon entering the Tavern on May 16, 1994, Agent Hamilton detected a scent in the air that resembled, based on his training and experience, the odor of burning marijuana. Agent Hamilton did not actually see anyone smoking marijuana inside the Tavern. Agent Murray also noticed, both on the inside of the Tavern in the dance floor area and outside the Tavern by the entrance, what appeared to her to be a hand-to-hand exchange between customers of what appeared to be money for something that she could not identify. As Agent Murray left the Tavern she noticed what appeared to her, based on experience and training, to be customers passing and maybe smoking marijuana. However, Agent Murray did not actually see the marijuana or the customers actually smoking marijuana. Agent Murray also noticed a customer with a closed fist going to another customer and placing the closed fist over an open palm and then the release of the closed fist. Based on her training and experience, this appeared to Agent Murray to be an exchange of crack cocaine between the customers. Agent Murray did not see or confirm that any crack cocaine was actually being exchanged. Upon reentering the Tavern, the agents were together at the bar and saw a black female customer place a large bottle of liquid on top of the bar close to where they were sitting. The customer ordered something from the bar and left with the bottle. Agent Murray testified that by observing the label on the bottle she was able to identify the liquid as scotch whiskey. Agent Hamilton testified that he observed the same black female with a bottle of "alcohol, distilled spirits" and further identified the liquid as a "bottle of gin". Neither Agent Murray nor Agent Hamilton testified that the bottle bore the manufacturer's insignia, name or trademark. Both agents were apparently close enough to the customer to be able to observe the label. Neither agent smelled or tasted the contents of the bottle. For reasons of their own, the agents did not seize the bottle. Agent Murray thought she saw the Respondent behind the bar on that day. Agent Hamilton referred to the person behind the bar that day as the clerk but did not identify the Respondent as being the clerk on May 16, 1994. On August 8, 1994, ten DABT agents and 20 deputies from the PCSO conducted a walk-through inspection (inspection) of the Tavern. The agents and deputies were dressed in such attire as to be visibly recognized as law enforcement officers. During the inspection on August 8, 1994, DABT Sergeant Allen Ray observed an individual inside the Tavern in possession of a cup of beer, which individual Sergeant Ray suspected of being under 21 years of age. Sergeant Ray testified that this person identified herself as Tamieka Ranell Shaw and that Shaw advised him she was under 21 years of age. Sergeant Ray then took Shaw outside and placed her in the custody of Agent Hamilton for processing. Agent Hamilton testified that Shaw advised him that she was 16 years of age. At this time, Shaw did not have a driver's license or any other type of identification in her possession that would verify her age or date of birth. Furthermore, Shaw was not identified by a family member or anyone else having personal knowledge of Shaw's age or date of birth. Neither Shaw nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Shaw's age testified at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence of Shaw's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Shaw was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. There was no evidence that Respondent or any person working for Respondent had sold, given, served or permitted the beer to be served to Shaw. During the August 8, 1994, inspection, DABT Sergeant John Allen observed three individuals in the Tavern that he suspected of being under 21 years of age that were in possession of what Sergeant Allen considered to be an alcoholic beverage. Sergeant Allen escorted each of these individuals out of the Tavern separately. None of these individuals had a drivers license or any other type of identification to verify their age or date of birth. Sergeant Allen testified that each of the individuals identified themselves and admitted to being under the age of 21 years. However, one of the individuals managed to leave the premises before any other identification could be made. Sergeant Allen testified that Ronald Adair, one of the alleged underage customers referred to in Finding of Fact 15 above, was identified by his mother as being under 21 years of age in a telephone conversation with Sergeant Allen on August 8, 1994. However, neither Adair, his mother nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Adair's age was present at the hearing to testify as to Adair's age. Furthermore, DABT did not present any type of documentary evidence of Adair's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Adair was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. The person identifying himself as Marlon Inmon, another of the alleged underage customers referred to Finding of Fact 15 above, was alleged to have been in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the Tavern on August 8, 1994. Sergeant Allen testified that he talked to a relative of Inmon's over the telephone and that this relative identified Inmon and advised Sgt. Allen that Inmon was under 21 years of age. However, this person did not talk to or see the person claiming to be Inmon. Neither Inmon nor the person identifying Inmon over the telephone or anyone else with personal knowledge of Inmon's age testified at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence of Inmon's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Inmon was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. The third alleged underage person referred to in Finding of Fact 15 above in possession of an alcoholic beverage on August 8, 1994, was never identified by anyone before he left the premises. Neither this person nor anyone else having personal knowledge of this person's age testified at the hearing as to this person's age. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence as to this person's age. DABT has failed to prove that this person was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. During the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, DABT Special Agent Michael Freese seized a 1.75 liter of Seagrams gin, alcoholic beverage. The gin was in plain view on a table in the dance floor area. In attempting to seize the gin, Agent Freese had a confrontation with a customer who claimed the gin belonged to him. There was no evidence that the gin had been purchased on the premises. This gin is not the type of alcoholic beverage allowed to be possessed by the licensee or anyone else on the licensed premises of a licensee holding only a 2-COP alcoholic beverage license such as Respondent. The Respondent was present at the Tavern on August 8, 1994, and either directly observed, or was in such a position at the bar to have easily detected the presence of the unauthorized alcoholic beverage on the table. Also during the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Agent Freese observed a small plastic bag containing a substance that resembled marijuana on the floor behind one of the speakers around the "DJ" booth. Agent Freese seized the bag and identified it as marijuana by sight and smell. A field test conducted by Agent Freese indicated that the substance was marijuana. However, Agent Freese testified that the field test may not be 100 percent accurate. No laboratory analysis was made of the substance suspected of being marijuana. DABT failed to prove that the substance was in fact marijuana. Likewise, DABT has failed to prove that Stewart was aware of alleged marijuana being present on the premises. During the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Lieutenant Bruce Schmelter, PCSO, seized a loaded 22-caliber revolver that was protruding from beneath one of the speakers near the "DJ" booth. The revolver was turned over to DABT. However, DABT failed to prove that Stewart was aware of the revolver being present on the premises. After the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Sergeant Allen gave Respondent official notice of the problems encountered during the inspection. On September 18, 1994, a second walk-through inspection (second inspection) was conducted at the Tavern by ten DABT agents and 25 PCSO deputies. The DABT agents and the deputies from the PCSO were dressed in such attire as to be visibly recognized as law enforcement officers. During the second inspection, agents Murray and Aikens advised Respondent that they intended to go behind the bar to secure that area. After advising Stewart of their intended action, there was a confrontation between Stewart and the agents wherein Stewart's daughter became involved. The agents became concerned because of the crowd and notified Sergeant Ray of the problem. Sergeant Ray advised Stewart of why they were there and that DABT agents had the authority to secure the area behind the bar. After this explanation, Respondent allowed Sergeant Ray and another DABT agent behind the bar without further incident. After the incident at the bar during the second inspection, Agents Murray and Aikens seized a bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin, an alcoholic beverage, which they found on the floor against the wall in the area of the bar inside the Tavern. This gin is not the type of alcoholic beverage allowed to be possessed by the licensee or anyone else on or at the licensed premises of a licensee holding a 2-COP alcoholic beverage license such as Respondent. The Respondent was present in the Tavern on September 18, 1994, and either directly observed, or was in such a position as to have easily detected the presence of the unauthorized alcoholic beverage. During the second inspection, Agent Hamilton observed an individual in possession of a bottle of beer which individual he suspected of being under 21 years of age. Agent Hamilton testified that the individual was identified as Corey Anthony Owens, 20 years of age. Neither Owens nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Owens' age were present to testify at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence as to Owens' age. Agent Hamilton testified that Owens advised him that he had purchased the beer in the Tavern from a black male behind the bar. DABT presented no other evidence that the beer had been purchased in the Tavern. Although DABT has proven that Owens did have beer in his possession while in the Tavern on September 18, 1994, DABT failed to prove that Owens purchased or was served or given the beer in his possession on September 18, 1994, by Stewart or his servant, agent or employee. Furthermore, DABT failed to prove that Owens was under 21 years of age on September 18, 1994. On December 7, 1994, Captain Bruce Ashley met with Stewart at Stewart's request to discuss the Administrative Action that had been served on Stewart. At Stewart's request, Captain Ashley marked an X by the first box on the Request For Hearing which states as follows: "I dispute issues of fact. (Please list which of the charges and counts in the Administrative Action you dispute and why)." Also at Stewart's request, Captain Ashley wrote the following: "There are facts and issues that are not true that need to be discussed. I have documents and facts to bring out about this matter." (Emphasis supplied) Below this statement Captain Ashley wrote "Written On Behalf Of Licensee By" and signed his name. Below the above underlined statement there was an X with Isaiah Stewart's signature. On December 8, 1994, Captain Ashley wrote a memorandum setting forth what Captain Ashley considered to be the conversation between he and Stewart on December 7, 1994. However, because of the circumstances under which this conversation with Respondent occurred and the conflict between the statement signed by Respondent and Captain Ashley's memorandum, the memorandum is somewhat suspect and a cause for concern, and thereby lacks credibility. DABT's exhibit 4 consist of computer records from the PCSO listing the calls that the PCSO responded to around the Tavern from May 12, 1993 through June 29, 1994. Using these computer records DABT summarized the type of calls and the total number of each type of call received between February, 1994 and June 29, 1994. This summary shows a total of 69 calls of various types responded to by the PCSO during the period covered by the summary. Of the 69 calls listed in the summary, 22 were calls to backup units which apparently were backup for some of the other 47 calls. Ten calls were to assist a sick person. The balance of the calls were as follows: 2-affray/incite or encourage riot; 1- special patrol request; 1-juvenile problem; 3-miscellaneous incident; 2-field interrogation report; 4-shooting in area; 1-battery (simple); 4- disturbance(noise); 1-accident traffic; 1-illegal parking; 1-suspicious person; 3-narcotics violation; 1-throwing a deadly missile; 1-obstructing police without violence; 1-warrant arrest; 1-robbery, strong arm; 1-simple assault; 2-traffic warning; 1-aggravated assault; 1-weapons; 1-shooting into occupied dwelling; 1- battery on officer and 2-special detail. It is clear from the PCSO computer printout that the whole area around Cummer Road, not just the area around the Tavern, kept the PCSO busy responding to calls during the period in question. DABT presented no evidence as to the legitimacy of the call or if the call involved the activity of the Tavern's customers on the premises of the Tavern or the activity of someone else in the vicinity of the Tavern or what action was required upon the PCSO responding to the call. DABT failed to prove that Respondent kept or maintained a premises which was resorted to by persons who use or sell illegal drugs. DABT failed to prove that between the dates of February 1994, and September 1994, the Respondent maintained a public nuisance at his licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts 5 and 8 of the Administrative Action and for this violation that DABT assess an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 against Respondent. It is further recommended that DABT dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Administrative Action. RECOMMENDED this day 27th of September, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 27th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1482 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1-3(2); 4-5(3); 6(6); 7(7); 8(8); 9(9); 10(5); 11(10); 12(4,10-11); 13(11); 14(12); 15(13); 17-18(15); 21-22(19); 24-25(21); 26(22); 27(23); 28-29(24); 30(25); 32(27); and 34(28). Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in Finding of Fact 14, except that portion regarding the age of Shaw, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 19 is adopted in Finding of Fact 16, except that portion regarding the age of Adair, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 20 is adopted in Finding of Fact 17, except that portion regarding the age of Inmon, which is rejected. Proposed finding of Fact 23 is adopted in Finding of Fact 19, except that the field test did not absolutely prove that the substance was in fact marijuana. Proposed finding of fact 31 is adopted in Finding of Fact 26, except that portion regarding the age of Owens and that Owens purchased the beer in the Tavern, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 33 is rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The Respondent elected not file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Harris, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard A. Grumberg, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Isaiah Stewart, Pro se Post Office Box 429 Lacoochie Florida 33537
The Issue At issue is whether Petitioner St. Lucie County School Board (School Board or Petitioner) should terminate the employment of Respondent Judith Lee Heuter (Respondent or Heuter) following her second conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
Findings Of Fact Heuter has served as a teacher in the St. Lucie County school system for over 13 years. At all times material to this case, Heuter is party to a professional services contract with the School Board. Heuter's personal and professional reputations were unblemished until November 12, 1999, when she was arrested for DUI. By letter dated December 14, 1999, Respondent was notified by the School Board Personnel Director, Susan Ranew (Ranew), that she was to meet with Ranew on January 11, 2000, regarding the arrest. The meeting took place as scheduled. Ranew gave Heuter a letter signed by Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Russell Anderson. The letter stated, in pertinent part: . . . [Y]our recent arrest could be a violation of the Florida Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees and the General Personnel Policies of the St. Lucie County School Board Policies section 3.56. State Board of Education Administrative Rule 6B-1.001 states at subsection (3) that the educator is [sic] “aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one’s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. . . . . . . [Y]ou are directed to refrain from this type of behavior in the future. Your failure to follow this directive will result in more severe disciplinary action. . . . The letter further advised Heuter that she was to be recommended for a two-day suspension, a disciplinary action which she did not contest. In due course, the suspension was formally imposed and was served by Heuter. In addition, the 1999 arrest resulted in an investigation by the state's Education Practices Committee (EPC). On September 7, 2001, the EPC issued a Final Order, which included a letter of reprimand and three years' probation. The terms of the probation included a provision that Heuter refrain from alcohol consumption and engage in substance abuse counseling. Legal proceedings relating to the 1999 DUI concluded on February 14, 2000, when Heuter plead no contest to the charge in St. Lucie County Court. As a first time DUI offender, Heuter was directed to alcohol abuse treatment. Thus, at the time the EPC entered its Final Order requiring treatment, Heuter was already in treatment. Although cooperative with treatment, Heuter was not persuaded that she suffered from alcoholism, a chronic disease requiring lifelong treatment. Such denial is a classic symptom of alcoholism. Heuter was arrested a second time for DUI on June 17, 2003. This event proved the catalyst for her acknowledgment that she was an alcoholic and would, without treatment, remain a danger to herself and others. Heuter promptly reported the arrest to her principal at the time, Diane Guffey (Guffey), to Jane Summa (Summa), who was slated to take over as principal at Heuter's assigned school for the 2003-2004 school year, and to personnel director Ranew. Heuter also returned to alcohol abuse counseling with appropriately credentialed professionals, and an understanding she had previously lacked concerning the seriousness of her illness. Heuter plead no contest to the second DUI and was convicted of the criminal charge on December 17, 2003. She was still on EPC probation at the time of the second offense, and an investigation in that forum is pending. More than one month elapsed between Heuter’s no contest plea and the time she was informed of the Superintendent's intent to recommend termination. Petitioner contends that Heuter knew or should have known from the time of the second arrest that a conviction would automatically result in her termination. In support of this contention, Petitioner asserts that Heuter was told by Ranew at their January 11, 2000, meeting of an "unwritten policy" which required that she be terminated upon conviction. The "unwritten policy" upon which Petitioner relies is not a School Board policy, but rather a district policy. The difference between School Board policy and district policy in St. Lucie County includes, but is not limited to, the fact that School Board policies are promulgated in writing following a period of deliberation which includes an opportunity for public comment. After careful consideration of all of the record evidence regarding the existence of an unwritten (district level) policy, the fact-finder is not persuaded that such policy existed. At most, one or more current and former district officials, neither of whom testified, held the view that any person who might commit a second alcohol or drug-related criminal offense should be terminated without regard to any mitigating factors which may exist. The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in St. Lucie County, in that the School Board has never undertaken to address the question of whether teachers or other employees should be terminated automatically upon a second DUI conviction. However, in other contexts relating to substance abuse, the School Board has crafted written policy which demonstrates careful attention to what people, places, and circumstances are intended to be brought within the scope of the policy, and what, if any, discretion the School Board reserves to deal with the offender on an individualized basis. For example, School Board Policy 3.59 addresses substance abuse in the workplace. This policy specifically provides: DRUG FREE WORKPLACE It is the intent of the School Board that work environments be free of the presence of illegal drugs and alcohol. Therefore, employees are prohibited from possessing, using, manufacturing, dispensing, distributing, or being under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol while on duty. For the purposes of this policy, illegal drugs are those controlled substances as defined by federal or state law, or any counterfeit of such drugs or substances. For purposes of this policy, “workplace” means the site for the performance of work done in connection with employment. Workplace includes any school building or any school premises; and any vehicle used to transport students to and from school and school activities off school property during any school-sponsored or school-approved activity, event or function, such as a field trip or athletic event, where students are under the jurisdiction of the School District. As a condition of employment, each employee shall notify his or her supervisor of his or her conviction of any criminal drug statute for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction. An employee who violates the terms of this policy may be nonrenewed or his or her employment may be suspended or terminated. However, at the discretion of the School Board, such employee may be allowed to participate in and satisfactorily complete a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved by the School Board in lieu of a nonrenewal, suspension, or termination. Sanctions and discipline against employees, including nonrenewal, suspension, and termination, shall be recommended within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of an employee’s conviction. Within ten (10) days of receiving notice of an employee’s conviction in violation of this rule, the Superintendent shall notify the state and federal department of education. A drug-free awareness program is hereby established, and is to be implemented by the Superintendent, to inform employees of the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, of the School Board’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, of available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and assistance programs, and of the penalties to be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace. As a part of this program, all employees and applicants for employment shall be given notice of the School Board’s policy regarding the maintenance of a drug- free workplace. . . . [A]t the discretion of the School Board, such employee may be allowed to participate in and satisfactorily complete a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved by the School Board in lieu of a non-renewal, suspension, or termination. At all times material to this case, Heuter is actively participating in treatment as prescribed by appropriately credentialed professionals involved in her care. The opportunity to do the work for which she was trained provides a powerful incentive for Heuter to continue to cooperate in her treatment. Heuter’s employer-based insurance provides partial coverage for her treatment. Her treating professionals regard her illness as medically similar to diabetes, heart disease, or other types of chronic and potentially life-threatening illnesses. So long as Heuter remains in compliance with her treatment program, she is well able to perform her job. There is no evidence that symptoms of Heuter's alcoholism ever surfaced in the classroom, or elsewhere on school grounds or on school time. Rather, at all times material to this case, Heuter enjoys the unqualified support and respect of experienced school principals she has served for and with over the course of her career. On March 23, 2004, following the decision to terminate Hueter’s employment, Jane Summa (Summa), who was to be the principal at Heuter's assigned school the following academic year, prepared Heuter's performance review for the current year. She wrote: It is with great pleasure that an EXCEPTIONAL OVERALL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL RATING be granted to this highly effective teacher! Yet it comes as no surprise due to the fact that performance consistently exceeds the requirements of this position. As a direct result, students are consistently afforded an opportunity to perform at the highest possible level. Add to this one who always works in a positive, effective manner with all stake holders and you have a staff person that I am very proud to say is a true WEATHERBEE MARINER. (Emphasis in original). Diane Guffey (Guffey), Respondent’s principal at the time of both DUI infractions, would welcome Heuter back to her teaching staff. In a letter dated April 22, 2004, Guffey wrote: Ms. Hueter is a teacher who has made a difference in the lives of many children. . . . Teaching and children are a passion for her and she gives the job her best. Although Ms. Hueter has made some mistakes of bad judgment in her personal life, I have never seen any adverse effect on her teaching. As an administrator, I sometimes have to work with marginal teachers. Mrs. Hueter is an example of a mentor teacher who can help other teachers become better. Mrs. Hueter is an excellent teacher whom I would be proud to work with at anytime in any school. Robert Dougherty (Dougherty) provided glowing testimony concerning Heuter's teaching of his two sons. According to Dougherty, Heuter had extracted success from his sons in situations where other teachers had tried and failed. His personal knowledge and focus is narrowly based upon his parent/teacher relationship with Heuter, and, like the testimony of Summa and Guffey, was considered only as it may bear upon the alleged violation of Rule 6B-1.001(2) and (3). No evidence was presented in support of Petitioner's request for back pay and benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Heuter, having committed the single act of driving under the influence on June 17, 2003, violated School Board Policy 3.56 (3) (b) (7) (19), (29) and (37); dismissing the remaining charges; that acknowledging the violations proved warrant the substantial discipline of suspension without pay from March 11, 2003, to and including the date of the entry of a Final Order; and denying the claim for back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 10th day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine J. Chamblee, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. The Barrister’s Building, Suite 500 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 David Miklas, Esquire Elizabeth Coke, Esquire J. David Richeson & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Lannon, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 4204 Okeechobee Road Fort Pierce, Florida 34947
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Hurner, currently holds Florida teaching certificate 447579, covering the area of Mental Retardation, from the Florida Department of Education (DOE). At all times material, the Respondent was licensed by DOE and employed as an ESE teacher at Paxson Junior High School, in the Duval County School District. On October 31, 1988, the Respondent was cleared to be issued a teaching certificate by Professional Practices Services after he acknowledged a 1984 conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. On January 7, 1990, the Respondent was arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. On March 19, 1990, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol and was adjudicated guilty by the court. On March 19, 1990, the court sentenced the Respondent to three months' probation and ordered him to pay $926.50 in court costs and fines. In addition, the Respondent's driver's license was revoked for five years, and he was referred to the North Florida Safety Council. On June 15, 1993, the Respondent applied for a renewal of his teaching certificate. On his application, the Respondent acknowledged his 1990 conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Respondent has been a respected teacher with good evaluations from the Duval County School Board for seventeen years, despite his alcohol-related convictions. Neither of the arrests nor the underlying behaviors associated therewith occurred during school hours or in relation to any school sponsored events. No bodily harm or property damage was shown to be incident thereto. Respondent made no effort to hide his convictions from Petitioner agency and unrefuted testimony shows that his job performance and teaching reputation have not been affected thereby. The second event in 1990 occurred when Respondent was at a very low emotional ebb in his personal life. His mother was terminally ill. The North Florida Safety Council, in conjunction with the court and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, referred the Respondent to the Chemical Dependency Counselling Clinic. He successfully completed the requirements of all referring agencies. Although not required to do so, Respondent voluntarily increased his rehabilitation program with the Clinic to a full twelve weeks: five weeks awareness education and seven weeks of group and individual therapy. He did not use his personal problems as an excuse to fail, but was enthusiastic and made up any sessions he missed due to reasonable excused absences. On August 17, 1993, Respondent was discharged with such a good prognosis that no treatment recommendations were made by any of his three counsellors. Currently, he is diagnosed as "an alcoholic in recovery working on a lifestyle change." One of his former counsellors with the Chemical Dependency Counselling Clinic, Ms. Tibbett, testified on Respondent's behalf. She was trained by the U.S. Navy in the identification, treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation of drug and alcohol addiction. She has worked 16 years in the field and was certified by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in 1985 and as a Certified Addiction Associate Professional (CAAP) by the Department of Professional Regulation in 1989. She currently is completing the successor agency's requirements for the higher ranking Certified Addiction Professional (CAP) certification. She now teaches other addictionologists and drug/alcohol treatment personnel in both the public and private sectors in addition to her own clinical work. She volunteers to the Duval County School Board on occasion. As evidence of Respondent's dedication to his recovery as well as of his recovery itself, Ms. Tibbett pointed to Respondent's record of never failing a random alcohol test while he was in the Chemical Dependency Counselling Clinic program, even on a holiday Saturday morning at 6:00 a.m. and even after his mother died after a long illness in May, 1993. Ms. Tibbett believes Respondent's sobriety record on those occasions is good reason to believe he will never relapse into alcoholism. She opined that he is no risk to the public in general nor specifically to any school children in his care. She further testified that she gladly would have her own seventeen year old son taught by him. Although she explained that no alcoholic is ever "cured," in her opinion Respondent is rehabilitated. Her well-reasoned professional opinion is accepted. Upon the unrefuted testimony of Respondent; of Mark S. Kager, a colleague and professional teacher for fifteen years; of Albert George Day, Respondent's housemate; of William Dale Tackett, a colleague and another professional teacher for seventeen years; and of Angela Hornbeck, Respondent's steady girlfriend for four years; it is found that Respondent voluntarily has imbibed no alcoholic beverages since April 2, 1990.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(e) F.S.; not guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c) F.S.; and ordering him to fulfill a one year probationary period including random drug and alcohol testing as prescribed by the Educational Practices Commission. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 29th day of November, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent's alleged possession of marijuana and paraphernalia commonly associated with its trafficking and sale justifies suspension or revocation of his Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. BAKER holds Florida teaching certificate No. 403108. From 1976 to 1980, he taught fourth and fifth grades at Fessenden Academy, an elementary school located in a rural area of northern Marion County. He was a competent classroom teacher. In 1979, upon recommendation of his school principal, the Marion County School Board granted him continuing contract status--a form of tenure. (Testimony of Broxton, Prehearing Stipulation.) II. In the early part of 1979, BAKER--against the advice of his school principal--became involved in helping operate a small nightclub in Ocala known as the Club Aquarius ("Club"). Although there was no School Board policy against part-time employment by teachers, BAKER's principal advised against becoming involved with the Club because of its poor reputation in the community. However, BAKER's subsequent operation of the Club Aquarius did not adversely affect his teaching performance. (Testimony of Broxton.) During his employment at the Club, several members of the community informed BAKER's school principal that they suspected illicit drugs could be obtained there. In response to his principal's inquiry, BAKER repeatedly denied that anyone at the Club was involved in drug dealing. (Testimony of Broxton.) II. The owners of the Club (Mr. and Mrs. Clyde Howard and Dr. Ernest Lamb 2/ ) applied for and were issued a "2-COP" license by the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, in 1977. Only beer and wine may be sold under such a license. Possession of distilled liquor on the premises is not allowed. In accordance with the Division's requirements, a "Sketch of the Licensed Premises" was made by the Division of Beverage agent, verified by one of the owners, and attached to the application. The owners also executed an attached affidavit swearing that the sketch was "substantially a true and correct representation of the premises to be licensed and . . . [agreeing] that the place of business, if licensed, may be inspected and searched during business hours . . . without a search warrant . . . ." (P-1.) The sketch depicts those portions of the Club Aquarius building where the license is intended to be in effect-- where routine beverage inspections may be conducted without a search warrant. The owners understood that adjacent property which they controlled and which was accessible by passage from the nightclub was considered part of the licensed premises and subject to warrantless search under the Beverage Law. In order to remove such adjoining property used for residential purposes from the licensed premises (and sketch attached to the application) they understood that the passage way must be permanently sealed. (Testimony of Scroggin; P-1.) The sketch shows the licensed premises of the Club consists of two floors. The first floor includes the main bar, dance floor, kitchen, restrooms, storage room, and package sales area. Stairs on each side of the dance floor lead to the second floor, which consists of restrooms, a balcony overlooking the dance floor, and several additional rooms, one of which contains a wooden bar. The second floor area provides a quiet atmosphere for customers preferring to enjoy drinks and dance floor entertainment from the overlooking balcony. The second floor area permits free passage and is directly connected to the Club's first floor business area. (Testimony of Scroggins, Jones, Imperial; P-1.) III. At approximately 4:45 p.m., on January 24, 1980, Richard Jones and Michael Imperial--Beverage officers employed by the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco--began an inspection of the Club Aquarius to determine compliance with the Beverage Laws. Neither officer suspected or had reason to believe that illegal alcohol or illicit drugs might be found on the premises. The last time Agent Jones had inspected the Club to ascertain compliance with the Beverage Laws was in February, 1979; during that inspection, no illegal alcohol or illicit drugs had been found. Agent Imperial had inspected the Club early in 1978, and found nothing out of order. The practice of their Division was to routinely inspect the premises of licensed alcoholic beverage establishments at least once per year. On that afternoon of January 24, 1980, the Beverage agents decided on their own initiative to inspect the Club because they were in the vicinity and had time to conduct a periodic routine inspection. (Testimony of Jones, Imperial, Deen.) After identifying themselves, the two Beverage officers informed BAKER and his brother, Clyde Baker--who were operating the Club--that a routine beverage inspection would be conducted. The officers then inspected the cooler, bar, and surrounding first floor area. After finding some empty cognac bottles in a trash can, Officer Jones informed Clyde Baker that the presence of such bottles on the premises was unlawful. Jones then asked him to show him the upstairs part of the Club. Together they climbed the stairs to the second floor. There, Officer Jones observed that a door, with an "Office" sign on it, was ajar. He entered the room and observed two bottles of distilled liquor in plain view on a bar: that bar is depicted on the "Sketch of Licensed Premises" attached to the beverage license application, infra. After placing Clyde Baker under arrest for allowing distilled liquor on an establishment with a 2-COP license, Officer Jones continued to inspect the room for additional contraband. He searched a chest of drawers and found in the bottom drawer a triple beam balance scale and approximately 40 small paper envelopes commonly referred to as "nickel bags" --paraphernalia commonly used by drug dealers to measure and sell illicit drugs. He also discovered two plastic bags--one, 6" x 6", and another, 10" x 10". The smaller bag contained what appeared to be marijuana; the other contained what appeared to be marijuana residue. Upon discovery of what appeared to be marijuana, Officer Jones exclaimed "marijuana". BAKER, who had just come upstairs with his wife, entered the room and responded: "That's not marijuana, that's just my seeds." (Tr. 43.) Agent Jones immediately arrested BAKER for possession of marijuana, and escorted him downstairs. After resuming his search of the second floor area, Jones entered another room depicted on the "Sketch of Licensed Premises"; there he found a metal can--approximately 10" x 12"--which appeared to contain marijuana residue. (Testimony of Jones; P-1.) The two upstairs rooms where the marijuana and paraphernalia were found were depicted on the beverage license application as a part of the licensed premises. They were unlocked and accessible from the first floor; one room contained a bed, chest of drawers, dresser, clothes, and other personal effects; the other room contained a cot. Both rooms looked as if someone might sleep in them for several hours or an evening. At hearing, the parties stipulated that BAKER sometimes used one of the rooms as his residence. Immediately after the marijuana was found, Clyde Baker stated that he was manager of the Club and responsible for the marijuana and liquor being there. It is concluded that the Club manager exercised dominion and control over the second floor rooms. However, most of the equipment and supplies normally used in the operation of the nightclub, such as beer, wine, coolers, dance floor, and barstools, were located on the first floor. Customers could come and go without entering the second floor area. (Testimony of Jones, Prehearing Stipulation; P-1.) BAKER was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana pursuant to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. The School Board of Marion County thereupon suspended him from his teaching duties at Fessenden Academy. Crime lab analysis confirmed that the two plastic bags and metal can contained marijuana residue with a total weight of less than 20 grams. Fingerprints on the metal can, and plastic bags were identified as belonging to BAKER. On May 7, 1980, BAKER pled guilty to the charge of possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana. The County Court of Marion County withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced BAKER to pay $500 in court costs, and suspended a sentence of one year of imprisonment in the county jail upon the condition that BAKER would commit no further criminal offenses for a period of one year. (Testimony of Broxton, Prehearing Stipulation; P-2, P-3.) III. School Board hearings involving BAKER's suspension were televised and his involvement with marijuana has become widely known in the community. Newspapers have published accounts of the criminal charges and their disposition. His arrest and subsequent plea of guilty to the charge of possession of marijuana have gained notoriety and seriously reduced his effectiveness as a teacher for the Marion County School Board. Parents of children at Fessenden Academy would object to BAKER resuming his teaching duties there. Teachers must serve as examples and impart character and moral values to their students. BAKER's involvement with marijuana has interfered with his ability to effectively carry out this important function. (Testimony of Broxton, Jones.)
Conclusions Petitioner has established that Respondent's possession of marijuana and paraphernalia commonly associated with its trafficking and sale violates Section 231.28, Florida Statutes (1979). Permanent revocation of his teaching certificate is warranted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the teaching certificate of Respondent, Clinton Baker, be revoked permanently. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1981.
The Issue This case concerns a Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate brought by the State of Florida, Department of Education, through Lynnl Guettler, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council, against Stephan P. Lee, Respondent, who holds a Florida teaching certificate number 339018, Special Post Graduate, Rank IA, valid through June 30, 1987, covering the areas of social studies and junior college. The allegations of the Administrative Complaint accuse the Respondent with writing one or more notes to Alice Ann Lee during the fall of the school year 1978-79 at a time when Alice Ann Lee was a thirteen-year old student at Ft. Caroline Junior High School, Duval County, Florida. The allegations further assert that Ms. Lee is not a family relation of the Respondent. It is contended through the complaint that in one of the notes the Respondent indicated his apartment address and invited Alice Ann Lee to visit him at that apartment. It is alleged that on one evening during the first nine weeks of the 1978-79 school year, Alice Ann Lee and one Laura Edenfield went to the Respondent's apartment, where he served alcoholic beverages to the two named individuals, at a time, when these individuals were students and had not reached their majority. In connection with events of that evening, the Petitioner asserts that the Respondent smoked a "joint", viz. marijuana, which the students had brought to his apartment. Finally, it is alleged that the Respondent, through one of the notes written to Alice Ann Lee, invited her to go to St. Augustine, Florida, with him for a "day on the beach and in the shops" and to go "to a nice restaurant for dinner and drinks". For these acts, the Respondent purportedly has violated Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in that the conduct alluded to constitutes gross immorality and personal conduct which reduces the effectiveness of the Respondent as an educator. The Respondent is also charged with the violation of Subsection 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, for not setting a proper example for students. The Respondent is further charged with a violation of Rule 6H-1.02(c), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health and safety and with a violation of Rule 6B-1.02(d), Florida Administrative Cede, for conducting professional business in a way that exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Education, Professional Practices Council's petition for the revocation of teaching certificate of Stephen P. Lee, Respondent. The exact details of that petition are related in the issues statement of this Recommended Order and that account in the issues statement is made a part of the Findings of Fact herein. The Respondent has answered the petition and requested a formal hearing under the provisions of subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The facts reveal that the Respondent was employed as a school teacher during the year 1978-79 in a position at Ft. Caroline Junior High School, Duval County, Florida. Two of the students who were being taught by the Respondent were Alice Ann Lee and Laura Edenfield. These individuals were students of the Respondent in separate classes. In the fall of 1978, Alice Ann Lee was thirteen years of age and Laura Edenfield was sixteen years of age. Both of the students were attending the ninth grade. The students in question in the academic year 1978-79 had made a poor academic showing and their attendance record was not satisfactory. In the first nine weeks of the school year, Alice Ann Lee wrote a note to the Respondent indicating that she felt that the Respondent was a nice teacher and she would like to be his friend. The Respondent replied to that note by a letter, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit #1 admitted in evidence. Beyond that point of the first reply there ensued a series of notes from the student Lee, two or three in number, and three additional notes or letters from the Respondent. Copies of the additional notes or letters written by the Respondent may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibits #2 through #4, admitted into evidence. In the Respondent's correspondence, Petitioner's Exhibit #2, he mentions his home address and tells Alice Ann Lee that she may call him by telephone when she feels so compelled. That correspondence also tells Alice Ann Lee that she is "welcome to drop by. . ." the Respondent's apartment if she would so desire. The student, Laura Edenfield, was a friend of Alice Ann Lee, and Edenfield had also been extended an invitation to visit the Respondent at his apartment. To assist the students in finding his home, the Respondent had drawn a diagram map directing them to his apartment and a copy of that diagram may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit #5 admitted into evidence. The students acted on Respondent Lee's invitation and called him one Friday night during the fall term of 1978-79. The call was made while the Respondent was at home in his apartment and the Respondent indicated that it would be acceptable if Alice Ann Lee and Laura Edenfield came to visit him on that evening. The students arrived at the Respondent's apartment between eight and nine p.m. on the night referred to above. The visit lasted until approximately midnight. While the students were in the apartment, the Respondent asked them if they would like to have a drink and among the choices offered were alcoholic beverages, to include beer and bourbon. Respondent recognized that the students were minors and not entitled to consume alcoholic, notwithstanding the fact that both students had previous experiences with alcoholic beverages before this occasion. The conversation between the Respondent and the students was social in nature as opposed to tutoring for school work or counseling. At one point during the visit, the Respondent put his arm around the shoulders of Alice Ann Lee. Alice Ann Lee consumed a number of glasses of bourbon which glass the Respondent continued to fill when the contents would be consumed. Laura Edenfield drank five or six containers of Coors beer. When the students left the apartment, Alice Ann Lee was inebriated and Laura Edenfield, who was driving, had less control of her faculties than when she entered the apartment. The Respondent walked the girls to their car and kissed Alice Ann Lee on her lips. The students returned to the Respondent's apartment on the next day, arriving between eight and nine p.m. and staying until approximately midnight. While at the apartment, the students consumed more alcoholic beverages, namely, beer. In addition, the students had brought marijuana with them to the apartment and offered the Respondent the opportunity to smoke the marijuana with them. The Respondent agreed and the students smoked the marijuana. Again, the nature of the conversation was as stated in discussing the first visit made by the students to the Respondent's apartment. Subsequent to these visits, Alice Ann Lee's mother discovered some of the letters which the Respondent had written her daughter, and in the course of attempting to have her daughter readmitted from a suspension situation, revealed the existence of these letters to the principal of Ft. Caroline Junior High School. This information was imparted in November, 1978. Alice Ann Lee's mother also went on a local television station news program at six p.m. and made comments about her daughter's relationship with the Respondent concerning the letters, etc. A knowledge of the circumstances of the relationship also was gained by students in the school and by faculty members and Alice Ann Lee felt embarrassed by the situation and missed classes as a result of the circumstances; however, Ms. Lee does not feel that the situation affected her overall classroom performance. The Respondent also asked Alice Ann Lee to go to St. Augustine, Florida, with him and the details of this proposed trip are set out in the Petitioner's Exhibit #4, one of the aforementioned notes from the Respondent to Alice Ann Lee. They did not make such a trip. After being confronted with the accusation concerning the letters and the visits by the students to his apartment, the Respondent tendered his resignation to the Duval County School Board without the necessity for further investigation by that body. The Respondent's explanation of this matter, which was offered in the course of the administrative hearing, was to the effect that be had no immoral or inappropriate intentions in his relationship with the students, particularly Alice Ann Lee. He stated that he was attempting to counsel troubled youngsters who had not been reached by other methods of counseling. He also stated that after conferring with members of his family and the faculty, he determined to write the letters in the fashion that he did, hoping to discourage Alice Ann Lee's infatuation by scaring her through proposals which made it appear that he was interested in her romantically. In retrospect, the Respondent indicated that he felt that his approach was wrong and that he did not have the necessary qualifications to undertake counseling directed to these young people.
Recommendation It is recommended that the teaching certificate of the Respondent, Stephen P. Lee, be suspended for a period of two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Harry B. Mahon, Esquire Mahon, Mahon and Farley 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Dr. Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Council Room 3, 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: STEPHEN P. LEE CASE NO. 79-1069 /
