The Issue The issues are whether Respondent verbally disparaged students or grabbed their clothing and, in one case, stepped on a student's foot, so as to fail to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, in violation of Florida Administrative Code rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., or to intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and thus violate section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes; if so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed, pursuant to section 1012.795(1).
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held educator certificate 989254. For over 13 years, she has been employed as a teacher by the Miami-Dade County School District. During the 2016-17 school year, Respondent was teaching fifth grade at a Miami-Dade County elementary school. Approximately 28 students were assigned to her class. On October 11, 2016, Respondent walked her students from the basketball court to her classroom in preparation for the start of instruction at 8:35 a.m. One or more of a small group of students sitting with S.L., also a student, complained to Respondent that S. L. was bothering other students. Directing herself to the class in general, Respondent told the students to stop disrupting and settle down for class. She warned the class that, if she received one more complaint, the misbehaving student would have to change seats. After receiving this warning, another student complained about S.L., so Respondent directed him to take a seat at an empty table. S.L. initially refused to move, but eventually did so. However, he continued to disrupt other students by calling them names, exhibiting aggressive body language, and even getting out of his seat, as though to charge a student. Respondent directed S.L. to stop misbehaving. He retorted, "you're not smart, and the kids are dumb." Trying to restore order, Respondent approached S.L.'s table with a mirror used for science class. Placing it within his reach and extending his comment that his classmates were "not smart," Respondent said words to the effect, "if you could see your behavior, you'd know it's not smart." By using "not smart," rather than a negative term, such as "stupid," to describe misbehavior, Respondent attempted to convey a positive message while trying to reshape S.L.'s behavior. Without permission, S.L. got up from his desk; walked to the door; announced that he was going to the principal's office to complain that Respondent had disparaged him, adding that the principal had told him to come anytime, so she could fire Respondent; defiantly stuck out his buttocks toward the class; and left the classroom. By the time that Respondent was able to call the office to advise that S.L. was headed their way, the principal's secretary advised that he was already there. Having lodged his complaint with the principal, S.L. returned to class, resumed his seat, and, using a sharp object, carved onto the desktop, "Stupid Anderson popo." "Popo" is slang for "police," although Respondent thought that it meant something about shooting. Respondent never abused the children with demeaning terms, such as "pig," "dumbass," "fat," or "ugly," although S.L. used some of these terms when verbally assaulting his classmates. The facts set forth in the preceding six paragraphs track Respondent's testimony, which has been credited. In opposition to this version of events, Petitioner called a single eyewitness, T.F., who was a student in the classroom during the incident in question. By the time of the hearing, T.F. was attending a Miami-Dade middle school, and S.L.'s school assignment was not disclosed in the record. T.F. gave two statements. The first statement, which was typewritten by a Department of Education investigator, was given on October 28, 2016. The second statement, which is in T.F.'s handwriting, was given on October 14, 2016, and the purpose for which this statement was made is undisclosed in the record. The typewritten statement consists of questions and answers. In this statement, with the questions and one irrelevant answer omitted, T.F. asserts: [Respondent] is always calling [S.L.] names. She calls him fatty and ugly. She even put a mirror in front of his face and said, "Look at your ugly face." She did this in front of all of us and I felt really bad for him. She also calls us names. She calls us dumb, stupid and ugly. She even called me dumb and stupid. I went to the bathroom to cry. She made me feel bad. She also calls the boys pigs. * * * . . . she curses at us when she is mad and says we are doing crap, screams and yells a lot, and she told [S.L. and another student identified only as H.] to shut up their fat lips. She also hit [J.F.] and [M.B.] all the time. She grabbed [J.F.] hard by the arm and squeezed his arm and she also hit [M.B.] hard on the head with a closed fist. * * * When she is really mad at us she screams, yells, calls us names, and hits the students. She hits the boys on the head and the arm. * * * . . . I am afraid of her, and she makes me feel bad when she calls me stupid and dumb. I cry all the time. We are all happy in the class when she does not come to school. [S.L.] was the one she mistreated the most. When [S.L.] was in a fight and bleeding, she was laughing because he was hurt. The handwritten statement states in its entirety: The Class/P.E. Court in the class [S.L.] came out of nowhere and start crusing [cursing] my mom my family and puting his body in my face and saying kiss his body and lick his private part. Saying nasty stuff in creol calling me pig stink bug [doudon?] head hiting me. In P.e. he got a stick and treating [threatening] that he is going to cut my neck of [off] and pock [poke] my eyes. whene I don't give him something he get's mad and say lick his boody [body? booty?] and he Hit me with a basketball. when I wrote the bully fomr [form] he got mad and took the form and rip it and he spit in my face whenever I talk to [S., another student] or other people some time he makes me cry. T.F.'s direct testimony consisted entirely of her agreeing with everything in the typewritten statement, although it was unclear, during her testimony, if she independently recalled the comments and actions described in the statement. Also, most of the questions posed to T.F. on direct were leading. On cross examination, T.F. identified her signature on the handwritten statement and recalled some, but not all, of its contents. Specifically, she admitted that S.L. had bullied her and made her cry. Initially, T.F. denied that S.L. had spit in her face, but then recalled that he had done so by accident. She testified that she could not recall that S.L. had threatened to cut her neck with a stick, even though such an action would typically be memorable to the victim. The reference in the handwritten statement to a bully form is a form that T.F. and a few other students submitted, at the urging of Respondent, a few days after the October 11 incident, but the record does not disclose what action, if any, the school or district administrators took in response to these complaints about S.L.'s bullying. In testifying, T.F. withdrew her typewritten statement about Respondent's calling her dumb and stupid and instead stated that she liked Respondent as a teacher. Also, T.F. testified that S.L. had called the entire class dumb, as Respondent testified. On redirect, T.F. admitted, evidently as to the handwritten statement, "most of this stuff I don't remember." As noted above, the hearing took place three years after the earlier of the two alleged incidents, and it is obvious that the 2016-17 school year had presented some challenges for T.F. T.F. impressed the administrative law judge as a child who was trying to tell the truth, but was under considerable pressure in October 2016 and continuing pressure, even through the time of the hearing. When T.F. testified that she had cried, not from Respondent's actions, but from the bullying of S.L., her father interjected by asking his daughter why she had not told him about this, and she replied that "you wouldn't care." T.F.'s father was not a witness, and his statement is not noted to support a finding that T.F. did not tell him about the bullying; however, his interjection and T.F.'s response depicted some of the stress to which T.F. has been subjected over the matters described above. In general, the typewritten statement lacks the spontaneity and inattention to grammar and diction that characterize the handwritten statement. It is questionable whether one word in the typewritten statement--"mistreated"-- would be a word chosen by T.F. It is not so much that the word requires an advanced vocabulary, but the word requires a level of abstraction that is not evidenced in the handwritten statement, which is graphically episodic. It is impossible to find by clear and convincing evidence that the typewritten statement records the words of T.F., free of substantial editing by the investigator. Additionally, the handwritten statement effectively impeaches the typewritten statement. S.L. bullied T.F. to the point of making her cry at school. The handwritten statement suggests the possibility that S.L. forcefully tried to intimidate T.F. in her effort to report his bullying. Significantly, S.L. still had daily access to T.F. when she gave the typewritten statement. Lastly, T.F.'s testimony was unpersuasive. She did not appear to recall independently what she testified to on direct. It did not appear that she was even willing to read aloud her typewritten statement, as she was willing only to agree to it in response to a series of leading questions. For reasons undisclosed in the record, Respondent, who was represented by a union representative, agreed to a suspension of 25 workdays without pay for the October 11 events. Respondent did not try to explain her choice not to contest the charges, nor is it necessary to infer one, because any weight that could be assigned to such a choice, on these facts, does not establish or help to establish clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing. This suspension seems to have followed an earlier job action removing her from student contact for 90 days, based on a verified finding of mental injury to S.L. by a protective investigator employed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF)--an administrative action that is entitled to no weight for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the allegations arising out of the October 11, 2016, incident. Respondent testified that she did not grab students by their collars or step on their feet. The only evidence to the contrary is the discredited evidence provided by T.F. As was the case with the October 11 incident, Petitioner did not call as witnesses the alleged victims in this April 6, 2017, incident. The Miami-Dade County School District issued a reprimand for the alleged April 6 incident. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent had a right to contest this charge, and, given the mildness of the punishment, it is impossible to infer that she did; but, again, a choice not to contest this charge would not support an inference of guilt by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the allegations involving grabbing students by their collars or stepping on the foot of a student.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED THAT the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) 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 (eServed) Branden Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed)
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked based upon conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, as contained in the Petition for Revocation filed by Petitioner on or about May 11, 1979. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew allegations B, E and J, which are set forth in the Petition. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties waived the thirty-day period prescribed in Subsection 120.56(3), Florida Statutes, requiring the undersigned to file a Recommended Order within the prescribed thirty-day period.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the legal memoranda submitted by counsel for the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Respondent, Michael S. Park, has been employed by the Broward County School System as an instructor in art at Plantation High School since 1970. He was continuously employed until his suspension on April 19, 1979. Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 274996, Post Graduate, Rank III, valid through June 30, 1985, covering the areas of art and junior college. Respondent currently enjoys continuing contract status. While employed by the Broward County School System, Respondent taught several courses, including design, drawing, craft, sculpture and ceramics. Pursuant to a probable cause determination made by the Commissioner of Education on May 11, 1979, the Petitioner, pursuant to authority contained in Chapter 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, filed a Petition seeking revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate based upon the following allegations: During the school year 1974-75, MICHAEL S. PARK locked a female student in his classroom office, presented her with a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex, and asked her if she had ever read such an article. During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL PARK asked a female student to go 'bumming' with him and to meet him at the night spot, 'Crown', and telephoned the home of the same student stating that 'Mike' from Plantation was calling. During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL PARK stated to a female art student that he knew for a fact that the she was going to bars for the purpose of meeting male teachers and eventually sleeping with male teachers. During the month of February, 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student who was not under his supervision as a teacher to come to his office during the school day at which time MICHAEL S. PARK questioned the student about family and personal problems stating that he knew the only reason a certain boy took her out was to make love to her. Further, MICHAEL S. PARK asked this student whether or not she participated in or agreed with the practice of oral sex. During the spring of 1978, MICHAEL S. PARK hugged one or more female students, grabbed one female student from behind and pushed himself up against her buttocks. During the spring of 1978 and 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the buttocks on one or more occasions. During 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the breasts on one or more occasions. Based thereon, it is alleged that the Respondent violated Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and rules 6A-4.37, 6B-1 and 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code. As such, the Petition concludes that the Respondent's alleged conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee. It is alleged in paragraph 1, subparagraph A. of the Petition that: During the school year 1974-75, MICHAEL S. PARK locked a female student in his classroom, presented her with a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex, and asked her if she had ever read such an article. The Respondent denied the allegation. Darlene Wilcox is the female student referred to in the allegation (TR 96-98). The thrust of student Wilcox's testimony is that Respondent invited her to stay after class one day and when her classmates left, he handed her a psychology magazine opened to an article on sex and asked her if she had ever read a magazine like that before (TR 97). Student Wilcox, who was a ninth-grade student of Respondent, testified that Respondent sat down across from her in a chair and asked her questions about how she was that day. They were interrupted by another student, whereupon Respondent immediately got up, opened the door, and told her he would see her in class the following day (TR 98). Respecting this allegation, the evidence reveals that it was impossible for Respondent to secure the lock on his classroom door from the inside, as alleged (TR 243-244 and 359). The evidence reveals that student Wilcox could have left the room by turning the doorknob. Student Wilcox told her parents about her encounter with Respondent, whereupon her parents replied that she should keep clear of Respondent and not be over-friendly with him. Paragraph C of the Petition alleges, in pertinent part, that: During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student to go 'bumming' with him and to meet him at a night spot, 'Crown', and telephoned the home of the same student stating that 'Mike' from the Plantation was calling. The female student referred to in the above-described allegation is Cathy Weber. The evidence respecting the above allegation reveals that during the fall of 1977, while a twelfth-grade student, Cathy Weber, was at a local establishment called the "Crown" bar with other students one evening. Student Weber was not a student of Respondent, although Respondent joined Weber and a group of her friends and started conversing with her at the "Crown" bar. During the conversation, Respondent took student Weber's wrists, stated that he could read her mind and proceeded to tell her birth date. On another occasion, Respondent telephoned student Weber at her home although she declined to talk to him. Additionally, during late November or early December, Respondent entered Linda Whealin's class and asked permission from instructor Whealin to excuse Cathy Weber when she finished her work in order that she could help in the office. Ms. Whealin agreed, but Cathy testified that she was afraid of Respondent and, therefore, took as much time as she could to complete her work because of the "too personal attitude" the Respondent evidenced toward her. The matter was brought to the attention of the Principal and Assistant Principal, which resulted in a counselling of Respondent by the Principal. During these counselling sessions, Respondent admitted that he told student Weber that he could read minds; that he called student Weber at her home because she wanted to talk to him and that he had asked for her to help him inventory an art order. Respondent was warned of his conduct by school officials and advised to restrict his student contact to classroom situations. A summary of the warning is embodied in a memorandum dated December 5, 1977, which Respondent signed acknowledging that he had read the warning contained therein. Respondent also submitted a rebuttal reciting his version of circumstances involving the student (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 and the testimony of Respondent and witnesses Lawton, Weber, Whealin and Hanes). The Respondent acknowledged talking to student Weber at the Crown bar; however, he testified that he was merely attempting to joke with the student, rather than, as contended by Petitioner, to advance a sexual topic to achieve a lustful objective. Paragraph D of the Petition alleges, in pertinent part, that: During the school year 1977-78, MICHAEL S. PARK stated to a female student that he knew for a fact that she was going to bars for the purpose of meeting male teachers and eventually sleeping with male teachers. The student referred to in the above paragraph is Susan Clement. During the 1977-78 school year, student Susan Clement was a student of Respondent. Student Clement testified that during the school year, she smoked marijuana approximately three times a week and was sometimes under the influence of marijuana while attending classes. However, she testified that her ability or memory was not impaired and that she was able to concentrate in her art classes. She testified that on several occasions, Respondent grabbed her neck with his hand, pinched her buttocks, and pushed up against her buttocks with his body from behind while she was washing her hands at a sink in the classroom. Student Clement testified that Respondent told her that there were rumors going around that she was going to bars and meeting male teachers there. Following one of these incidents, student Clement complained to the school's Principal about Respondent's conduct. The Respondent denied making such statements to student Clement and testified further that Clement confided in him without any prompting on his part with respect to her relationship with males. Additionally, the Respondent urges that student Clement generally spoke to others about her personal life in an unguarded manner (testimony of Dan Van Fleet)(TR 134 and 236). Paragraph F of the Petition alleges that: During the month of February, 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK asked a female student, who was not under his supervision as a teacher, to come to his office during the school day at which time MICHAEL S. PARK questioned the student about family and personal problems stating that he knew the only reason a certain boy took her out was to make love to her. Further, MICHAEL S. PARK asked the student whether or not she participated in or agreed with the practice of oral sex. The student with whom the Respondent allegedly addressed the above remarks is Tammy DeCarlo. In this regard, the evidence reveals that the Respondent had four conversations with student DeCarlo. Respondent acknowledged that he initiated the first conversation with DeCarlo. Evidence reveals that the above-referenced conversations occurred during February of 1979 while student DeCarlo was a senior at Plantation High School. DeCarlo was not a student of Respondent. While DeCarlo was conversing loudly with another student in a school corridor, Respondent joined the conversation based on DeCarlo's "frantic behavior" and the fact that she was shouting that "I'm going to kill him", referring to Mr. Kinder, the yearbook advisor, in a tone which was loud enough for Respondent and others to overhear the conversation (TR 76, 77 and 376). DeCarlo was the school yearbook editor and had been having problems with its publication. The thrust of the problem appeared to be that DeCarlo was of the opinion that although she was exerting all the effort towards the publication of the yearbook, advisor Kinder was receiving or attempting to receive all credit for her work. While the Respondent initially injected himself into the conversation with DeCarlo and another student concerning differences that DeCarlo was having with the yearbook advisor, Kinder, she later conversed with Respondent about various problems that she was having with the yearbook in the following weeks. During the third of approximately four conversations with Respondent, the evidence reveals that the Respondent told another student (Chris Sarko) that he wanted to speak with DeCarlo, whereupon Sarko summoned student DeCarlo to go to his office where he later joined her, bringing a paper flower with him to give her. In Respondent's office, they discussed the yearbook deadline and Respondent mentioned that he had "ESP". Respondent gave student DeCarlo several examples in that regard. Respondent requested DeCarlo to keep their conversations between the two of them, although DeCarlo later mentioned the conversations to her parents. DeCarlo's parents later spoke with the Assistant Principal about Respondent. Within a few days, DeCarlo received a note telling her that Respondent wanted to see her and again Respondent took her into his office. During this conversation, Respondent told DeCarlo that she did not trust him because she had been hurt by her boyfriend. Respondent later told her to close her eyes and concentrate and told her that the boy just took her out so that she could make love with him and that he had tried to make her do something she did not want to. DeCarlo replied that she did not know what he was talking about, and Respondent inquired "What is it, oral sex?". According to DeCarlo, Respondent asked her to give him something personal, whereupon she took her necklace off and gave it to him. Respondent also inquired of her the type birth control pill she used and DeCarlo told him. Approximately one week later, student DeCarlo saw Respondent again. He asked her to come to see him during her lunch hour, but she declined. DeCarlo later asked a friend (Sarko) to get her necklace from Respondent, which was returned by the student, together with Respondent's picture. DeCarlo's parents made a written complaint to school authorities concerning Respondent's conduct. Respondent testified that he was regarded as a confidant among the students and that they frequently conversed with him about personal matters. He testified that the DeCarlo relationship, which was initiated by him, was motivated by a normal concern for a student who was visibly upset, and he felt that he could offer some assistance to student DeCarlo in resolving a crisis. Paragraph G of the Petition alleges that: During the spring of 1978, MICHAEL S. PARK hugged one or more female students from behind and pushed himself up against their buttocks. The primary incident in which Respondent is alleged to have gone beyond a mere touching of the shoulder is when he grabbed student Clement from behind and touched his lower torso against his buttocks. As stated earlier, Respondent denied this allegation. In this regard, several of Respondent's former students testified that they had never seen him act improperly in class or inquire into the personal lives of students. These students considered Respondent to be a warm, friendly teacher who occasionally would pat a student on the back or put his arm around a student's shoulders. In this regard, Van Fleet testified that the Respondent was a "touching, feeling type of friendly" person (TR 254). Other students testified that the Respondent often placed his arms around the shoulders of various students. During the period 1971 through 1979, Respondent's Principal warned him approximately four or five times concerning his involvement with female students (testimony of witnesses Graff, Wilcox, Landers, Cirillo, Larkin, DeCarlo, Evans, Jackson, Hanes and Van Fleet). Paragraph H of the Petition alleges that: During the spring of 1978 and 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the buttocks on one or more occasions. The two students involved in this allegation are Susan Clement and Lori Evans. The Respondent testified and denied that he pinched students Evans and Clement on the buttocks; however, he conceded that he might have grabbed Clement's neck when she did not "clean up her mess" in the classroom. Student Clement was not sure of the time when the Respondent allegedly pinched her or of the number of times when such acts were allegedly committed by Respondent. Instructors Dan Van Fleet and Gail Altman testified that students Clement and Evans both complained and were upset that the Respondent gave them failing grades. Noteworthy, also, was the fact that student Evans testified that there were students present at the time that the Respondent pinched her, although no corroborating student witnesses were called upon to verify said acts. Paragraph I of the Petition alleges that: During 1979, MICHAEL S. PARK pinched one or more female students on the breasts on one or more occasions. During the hearing, the only student who claimed to have been pinched by Respondent was Lori Evans. Again, the Respondent denied that any such conduct occurred on his part. Although Evans testified that there were student witnesses to the incident, no witnesses were called upon to testify during the hearing. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent, for the most part, denied that he engaged in any conduct which could be considered grossly immoral or inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience or conduct which would not be a proper example for students. He further denied that such conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring him and the educational profession into public disgrace and respect, or that it otherwise reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee. He testified that students confided in him and that he was an instructor who was overly concerned about the plight and well-being of students. In that regard, he testified that he interjected himself into conversations in situations wherein students appeared to have needed his counsel and guidance. Respondent denied pinching Lori Evans above the breast or on the buttocks or slapping her on the buttocks with a ruler. He testified that Evans' motive for giving testimony supportive of the charges is that she was a problem student who was unreliable when assigned a task. Additionally, Respondent denied pushing against student Susan Clement at the classroom sink or pinching her buttocks; however, he conceded that he might have grabbed her neck inadvertently as stated earlier, when she failed to "clean up her mess". Respondent's stated reason for visiting the "Crown" bar to join students with whom he taught was merely an effort to socialize with students and that respecting the Cathy Weber allegation, he was merely trying to assist her to resolve the problem that she was having with her boyfriend. He testified that the fact that he asked her to go shopping in a public shopping center indicates that he had no ulterior motive in making such request. Respondent voiced his opinion that student Weber was probably drinking due to that problem and that he wanted to inspire confidence in her to prevent her from drinking to resolve problems. Respondent's version of the incident surrounding the Tammy DeCarlo incident is much the same as his involvement with student Weber. That is, that he was simply trying to console her, which was prompted, in part, by counselling from the Assistant Principal to the effect that students and parents complained that he was not consoling enough to students. However, Respondent's testimony and inquiries, admittedly, as they related to his giving of flowers to student DeCarlo and inquiring into her sexual activity, missed the mark of a proper teacher-student relationship. Respondent's denial of the incidents involving student Wilcox, Evans and Clement as they related to his alleged physical contact is denied based upon the entire record, including other admissions by Respondent, including his inquiries into students' personal/social lives. In this regard, Respondent's inquiries relative to students' birth control pills, talks about oral sex, the giving of paper flowers to students and the embracing of students are considered immoral in a student-teacher setting and certainly does not inspire or set a proper example for students, as required in Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate, No. 274996, be suspended for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The facts which resulted in the filing of these administrative charges are not in great dispute. The Respondent, Henry Gooch, taught the class of Marriage and the Family during the summer term of 1975 at Santa Fe Community College. The college class schedule listed this course and indicated that the course included the weekend of July 12 and 13. Classes began around July 2, 1975, and Respondent informed the students that class attendance was required for this course, any student who missed over three classes would receive a "W" (for which a student does not receive a course credit), that the weekend experience would count as five class sessions, and that the course would, because of this weekend, terminate two weeks earlier than normal. Respondent Gooch stated that the weekend experience was a requirement for the course and that any student that did not attend would receive a grade of "W." At no time were any students given an indication of what was to take place during this required weekend "experience." The weekend experience took place on Little Lake Santa Fe outside Gainesville, Florida. One student advised the Respondent that because of religious reasons, she could not attend. This student did not attend the weekend experience and received a "W" for the course. Failure to get credit for this course caused this student not to graduate after the summer term and required her continuing attendance and enrollment at Santa Fe Community College. Students were permitted to bring their spouses to the weekend experience and several of them did. After the students arrived, the Respondent began a group discussion on the topic of public nudity. This discussion became very heated and apparently some of the students got the impression that nudity was part of the program for this weekend. Several of them, in fact, asked Mr. Gooch whether he intended to require nudity as part of the weekend experiences. Mr. Gooch assured them it was not. After this discussion had ended Mr. Gooch began what has been called "the machine game." Basically what happened is that one student was asked to come into the center of the room and imitate a machine. After this had begun, the other students were advised to join in by forming a circle or a line and to imitate the machine in unison. Each student was then asked to exchange pants with the student in front of then. At this time, at least one student found this activity to be extremely objectionable. Several other students did not participate in the exchange of clothing. One student, Ron Griffith, who found the activities objectionable, left the room and shortly thereafter left the weekend with his wife. The student Griffith eventually filed a formal complaint with the School Administration outlining his version of the activities of the weekend and his feelings that the Respondent's conduct was extremely unprofessional. This statement was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The Respondent stated that the factual allegations in that complaint are accurate. At least one other student left the weekend after the machine game had been completed and that student also received a "W." Shortly after student Griffith filed his formal complaint with the School Administration, the Respondent Gooch was suspended from teaching responsibilities at Santa Fe. This occurred on August 1, 1975. Another instructor took over the responsibilities for teaching Marriage and the Family and in that manner the course was completed. It is admitted that the school regulations regarding field trips was not complied with by the Respondent Gooch. A copy of the school regulations in the school policy manual had been assigned to Gooch as Department Coordinator. Mr. Gooch claims he was not aware of the field trip policy and would have complied with it had he known. For several students that did not attend the weekend trip or left before its completion and who received "W's" for their final grade, there was no real showing that an alternative requirement for course completion was made available to them. It is true that the Respondent Gooch testified he intended to give several of these students an opportunity to make up the missed time at this weekend, but whatever effort he put into this was certainly inadequate, particularly in light of the fact that his prior announcements would give any reasonable person the absolute impression that failure to participate and complete this weekend made the grade of "W" mandatory. There is certainly no question that the Respondent, Gooch, did violate provisions of the College Policy Manual. The pleadings filed in this case admit such did occur. The crucial issue is whether these were mere technical violations or whether the nature of the Respondent's conducts should be considered serious infractions. It is undisputed that the Respondent required the attendance of students in this course at this weekend experience. The charges filed on behalf of the college state that the students were coerced to attend this weekend. Perhaps coerced is not the most appropriate word to use, but it is certain attendance at this weekend was mandatory on a threat of receiving no credit for the course. It is also undisputed that the students were not given any indication of what to expect during this weekend. The Respondent should have known that his planned activities for this weekend would be objectionable or distasteful to at least some of the students in this class. Those students were given no choice or alternative course of study by which they could have received credit for this course as a substitute for this weekend experience. As a result, these students, as mentioned above, did not participate in the weekend experience and received a grade of "W" for the course of Marriage and the Family. The failure of these students to receive credit for this course was a direct result of the Respondent's not complying with school policy. Even though the Respondent advised the class the weekend experience was a mandatory requirement in time for the students to drop this course and add another one to receive required credit, that opportunity was not very meaningful without a better explanation of what was involved in the "weekend experience." The students could not be held responsible for having made a choice in this matter when they were uninformed as to what they were choosing. A student should not be subjected to requirements found to be personally distasteful without at least the sanction of the University and the informed consent of the student. In this case, neither occurred, as the school policy on field trips was not followed and the students were kept in total ignorance as to what the itinerary was for this weekend. The students who received a "W" grade cannot be said to have failed to meet the minimum requirements in this course when one of the announced requirements, the unapproved field trip, violated school policy. It must, therefore, be concluded the Respondent Henry Gooch did violate School Policy 1- 5.17 by causing several students to receive the grade of "W" for not participating in the weekend. Were it only that the weekend turned out to be less than completely successful, this matter might be dismissed as nothing more than exercise of poor judgement on the part of the Respondent that caused no real harm. However, the violation of school policy combined with this poor judgement caused several students to lose credit for the course and at least one not to graduate in time. The loss to the students cannot be replaced and the harm to them is real, not speculative. Therefore, it is recommended that the Respondent Gooch be found to have violated school policy, and suspended until the end of the Fall Quarter of 1975, thereupon to be returned to faculty Status on an annual contract status. Furthermore, he should not be considered for reinstatement on a continuing contract basis for one year and during this probationary period, not be eligible for pay adjustment. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Cates, Esquire Attorney for Respondent 635 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida Robert V. Bookman, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 222 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY 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 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact Except for the matters at issue, the Petitioner is full qualified for licensure as an agent and to obtain an agency license. The Petitioner served twenty (20) years in the US Army, retiring as a sergeant-major in 1973. His last ten (10) years in service were involved directly with work which the agency concedes is the equivalent of the work done by an employment clerk. The Petitioner, since retiring from the US Army, has been employed as a teacher/career counselor in the Detroit school system at the high school level. There he instructed high school ROTC six (6) to seven (7) hours per week. The remainder of his time was spent in counseling and duties associated with administration of the ROTC department of which he was head. The Petitioner has counseled more than 200 students regarding careers to include helping them fill out applications, helping to place them in programs, and encouraging them to develop job skills. He held this position until applying for this license. The petitioner also served for more than three (3) years immediately preceding his application on the Harper Woods School Board. As a member of the school board he had to approve the hiring, firing and granting of tenure to school board employees, and review negotiated contracts for employees of the school board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Ralph E. Young for an employment agency/agent license be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ralph E. Young 2117 South East Erwin Road Port St. Lucie, Florida
Findings Of Fact Richard L. Gryte holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 323641, issued on January 4, 1983, covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education, emotionally disturbed education and Junior College. Until his resignation on March 13, 1984, Gryte was employed by the Seminole County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students at the Milwee Middle School located in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. Gryte was initially hired by Douglas Smith, assistant principal at Milwee, in the summer of 1981, to serve as an emotionally handicapped (herein referred to as EH) resource teacher. This was based on Gryte's prior work history, as well as his educational background; including a master's degree in exceptional education. As a resource teacher, Gryte did not have academic responsibilities, but was used as a counselor who would work with students for a period during the day. These students would be assigned to the resource room by their regular classroom teachers, primarily if they had problems regarding behavior. As a teacher involved with emotionally handicapped students, it was necessary for Gryte to prepare forms known as Individual Educational Plans (hereinafter referred to as IEP's). The IEP's were required by Federal and State law and were necessary in order for the school district to obtain funding. From the beginning of his employment and assignment at Milwee Middle School, Gryte had difficulty performing administrative duties regarding documentation and other paperwork. Gryte recognizes that correct documentation is the responsibility of a good teacher, but also acknowledges his weakness in that area. When this problem was brought to the attention of Douglas Smith, assistant principal, he immediately sent memos and spoke with Gryte regarding the problem. During the 1981-82 year, out of the 22 IEP's necessary for Gryte to complete, at least 12 were incomplete or not done. The IEP's that were done were incomplete in that they lacked objectives, goals and other qualitative methods by which to determine the progress of the child. Even as a resource teacher, Gryte failed to prepare lesson plans which were required of all teachers. In fact, Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans for the entire 1981-82 school term, despite being counseled and informed about the necessity of preparing and submitting lesson plans. Overall, Gryte's teaching performance for the 1981-82 school term was not in keeping with minimum standards required of his profession. In addition to the paperwork and other administrative tasks, Gryte had a problem maintaining classroom discipline and control and would violate school rules by leaving the class unattended. During the 1982-83 school term, Mr. Willie G. Holt became the principal at the school. He first became concerned regarding Gryte's performance because of safety concerns he had for student's in Gryte's resource class. Due to the nature of these children and their behavioral problems, it was a policy of the school that children would not be left alone and unattended. Gryte knew of this policy. During the 1982-83 school year, Gryte would periodically leave his class unattended. On two occasions in the spring of 1983, a female student was involved with and performed sexual acts including masturbation and oral sex in the presence of two male students. These acts occurred when Gryte left his class unattended. Gryte recognized that it was wrong to leave the class unattended, but felt he could trust the boys involved and was only gone for a brief period of time. Due to concern for the safety and welfare of the students entrusted to Gryte and because of a need to relieve the previous self-contained teacher, Mr. Holt, school principal, and Mr. Smith, assistant principal in charge of the exceptional education program, decided to place Gryte in the self-contained EH class for the 1983-84 school year. This was thought to be appropriate since the self-contained class had a full-time aide, Betty Manly, who would always be present in the event Gryte would leave the class unattended. Gryte objected to this assignment, but based on his certification and education, he was qualified to be in the self- contained classroom and he was so assigned. Gryte's teaching performance in the self-contained classroom during the 1983-1984 school term was extremely unsatisfactory in all aspects. As in previous years, Gryte was required to submit weekly lesson plans. This was a requirement of all teachers. As in prior years, Gryte was derelict in preparing his lesson plans. From the beginning of the school term until January, 1984, he submitted lesson plans for the first five weeks, but failed to submit any lesson plans thereafter. He next submitted lesson plans for two weeks during the weeks of January 20 and 27, 1984. Thereafter, he did not submit any additional lesson plans until the date of his resignation in March, 1984. The assistant principals, Gordon Hathaway and Douglas Smith, repeatedly instructed Gryte to submit lesson plans timely, but he failed to do so. Even the lesson plans which were submitted were not proper in that they were too generalized and did not serve the proper function. In addition, for the 1983-84 school term, Gryte still had problems completing his IEP's timely and in a proper manner. It was a concern of the school officials that if they were ever audited, they would lose funding. Gryte was counseled by Dr. Daniel Scinto and Dr. Robert Carlton regarding the preparation of IEP's, as well as class management, but little improvement occurred. Gryte's classroom was extremely noisy, unruly and out of control. Dr. Carlton worked with Gryte on several occasions regarding implementation of behavioral management techniques. However, no improvement was noted. The excessive noise from Gryte's classroom was disturbing to the adjoining classes. Mr. Holt started receiving complaints from other teachers. Mrs. Poole indicated that students in her classroom actually complained about the noise from Respondent's class, as did she. The teacher's aide, Betty Manly, observed that Gryte did not assert control. He allowed the students to do as they pleased and demonstrated an apparent lack of classroom control. Gryte himself recognized that there was an excessive amount of noise in his class which was disturbing to other teachers. Some of the noise was due to Gryte's policy of allowing students to use curse words and engage in verbal altercations, which at times led to physical violence. He would permit the students to use "damn", "hell", and other similar curse words. On occasion, fights would break out among the students because Gryte would allow an argument to become too heated and would not assert control. He thought it was necessary for the children to have the freedom to release their anger in this manner. He ultimately hoped to be able to work with the students and this was part of his counseling therapy. Gryte often imposed corporal punishment as a means of discipline with the students. However, he frequently imposed the punishment in violation of State law and School Board policy. The School Board policy, as set forth in the student disciplinary code, requires that all corporal punishment be administered in the presence of another adult and not administered in the presence of other students. On numerous occasions, Gryte paddled a student in the classroom without the presence of another teacher or administrator as a witness and also while in the presence of other students. This practice was against direct orders of the principal. In addition, students were embarrassed by punishment being administered in front of other children. Further, the practice is not appropriate when dealing with any student, but even less so when dealing with emotionally handicapped students. On one occasion, Gryte lined the entire class up for "licks." The noise of the paddling and the student's yelling brought an adjoining teacher to see what had occurred. When she arrived, a student was lying on the floor and his leg was shaking and the student was grimacing and in pain. The teacher advised Gryte not to administer any more punishment, because it was in violation of the school policy. During the first nine weeks of the 1983-84 school year, Gryte failed to provide grades for the students in his class. He was unable to give grades because students had not performed a sufficient amount of work in order for Gryte to evaluate their progress and to assign a competent grade. This was in violation of the school policy as well as the State law, and was upsetting to the administration. The school was required to send blank report cards, with the exception of P.E. grades. Gryte was told to produce his grade book and test papers which had been performed by the students. A review of the grade book showed tests and work had not been required or performed or recorded in order to evaluate the students. What papers were produced by Gryte were not of sufficient quality or quantity to effectively grade the students. The policy of the school was to assign enough work each week to allow the students to receive periodic grades. Gryte recognizes his duty to maintain paperwork and other documentation. He understands this is part of being a competent and effective teacher, even though he would place greater emphasis on the students. Jeanette Burgess was a female student in Gryte's self- contained classroom his last year at Milwee. Gryte had a propensity to touch Jeanette in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner. He would periodically touch her on her face, ears and buttocks. This was embarrassing to Jeanette. On one evening, Gryte called Jeanette's home to speak with her. Her mother, Diana Oliver, answered the phone and inquired as to the nature of the call. Gryte indicated it was a private matter and he needed to speak with Jeanette personally. This offended the mother and she refused to allow him to speak with her daughter and advised him that any matters pertaining to Jeanette in school should be discussed with her. In addition, in the mother's opinion, Gryte had been drinking. She formed this opinion based on slurred speech and other mannerisms. On another occasion, Betty Manly entered the classroom and discovered Gryte standing extremely close to Jeanette and, in Ms. Manly's opinion, touching Jeanette inappropriately. Jeanette was forced back against Ms. Manly's desk and was obviously embarrassed by the situation. Gryte had dismissed the other students to attend P.E. class and was left in the room alone with Jeanette. The situation was upsetting to Jeanette, because she dropped her head and started crying when she was questioned about what had occurred between Gryte and her. Following the telephone incident, Gryte, the principal, and Jeanette's mother had a conference and Gryte was directed not to administer corporal punishment or otherwise touch Jeanette for any reason. Gryte violated this direct order in that he did subsequently administer corporal punishment to Jeanette. Another student in Gryte's self-contained class was a child by the name of Kelly Owens who had self-destructive tendencies and frequently would injure herself. On one occasion, Gryte sent her to the office alone and on the way, she took a piece of glass and cut her wrist and neck, not severely enough to cause death, but enough to result in extensive bleeding. Gryte had been specifically advised not to leave this child unattended. On one occasion, he gave her a pass to leave the school and go to an area known as the "swamp". This is an area off campus where students gather to smoke marijuana and allegedly participate in other similar activities. This occurred after a conference with the child's parents which Gryte attended and in which it was emphasized that the child needed close supervision. On another occasion, Gryte actually left the child in the classroom asleep. This was at the end of the school day. Another teacher came by and found the child sleeping in the class by herself. Gryte indicated he was unaware that Kelly was still in the classroom. In addition to the incident involving the telephone conversation with Jeanette Burgess' mother, Gryte appeared at an open house held on the school campus in the beginning of the 1983-84 school term. It was apparent that Gryte had been drinking. Those teachers present were definitely under the·impression that he had been drinking too much due to his slurred speech and demeanor. When confronted by Mr. Holt, Gryte admitted he had been drinking, but stated he only had one drink prior to the meeting. Based on Gryte's conduct and performance at Milwee, the principal and assistant principal felt he was neither effective nor competent and would not employ Respondent in a teaching position. Respondent recognizes he is not qualified and competent to teach certain areas of his certification. He basically desires to be a counselor and not a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate of Richard L. Gryte for a period of three years, subject to reinstatement thereafter pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: L.Haldane Taylor, Esquire 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard L. Gryte 7703 Meadowglen Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Marlene Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practice Service 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes any specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-31 are all adopted in substance. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Respondent filed no Proposed Findings of Fact.
