The Issue Whether cause exists for the Petitioner's proposed termination of the Respondent's employment as a bus driver for alleged inappropriate conduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Howard Jessie (Respondent) was employed as a bus driver by the Pinellas County School Board. On an unidentified day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the Respondent was observed fraternizing on campus with several Pinellas Park High School students. The Respondent was tossing a football with students in an area which was "off-limits" to students. A female student identified herein as T.C. was present. A school resource officer approached the Respondent, and informed him that the area was off-limits to the students and that it was not appropriate for him to socialize with students at that time. The Respondent informed the officer that he was a bus driver and his association with students was not inappropriate. On a later unidentified day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the school's assistant principal observed the Respondent walking with T.C. in the "mall" area of the high school campus. The assistant principal instructed the Respondent to cease fraternizing with students. On a third day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the assistant principal observed the Respondent standing near the school bus area and speaking with several students including T.C. The assistant principal contacted a supervisor at the school board's transportation department and informed him of the Respondent's behavior. Upon receiving the phone call from the assistant principal, the supervisor summoned the Respondent to his office and directed the Respondent to cease his association with the students. The Respondent agreed to refrain from having further contact with the students. On or about January 10, 1994, the school resource officer observed the Respondent and T.C. standing on campus next to a parked school bus, and watched as the Respondent kissed T.C. on her cheek. The student did not appear to resist the kiss. The officer reported his observations to the assistant principal who contacted another transportation supervisor and requested that the Respondent be removed from his employment as a bus driver at Pinellas Park High School. The Respondent was called to a meeting with the administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. During the discussion of the matter, the Respondent admitted that he had hugged and kissed T.C. on campus. During the discussion, the Respondent also admitted that he and the student had engaged in oral sex in January, 1994. By letter of March 3, 1994, the Respondent was notified that he was suspended with pay and that the superintendent would recommend dismissal to the school board at the meeting of March 23, 1994. A number of stories related to this matter have appeared in the local press, including the March 18, 1994 issues of the St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune. Engaging in sexual activity with a student is conduct serious enough to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school district and to bring the service of the School Board of Pinellas County into disrepute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Howard Jessie. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1876 The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County P. O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Mr. Howard Jessie 15695 Waverly Street, Apartment 2 Clearwater, Florida 34620
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent should be dismissed from her teaching position in the Dade County School System for incompetence and willful neglect of duty. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Patrick Gray, Richard Artmeir, Willie Joseph Wright, Jesselyn Brown, Olga Miyar, and Ira Wax. Respondent testified on her own behalf. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence three exhibits. The Respondent offered and had admitted five exhibits during the course of the hearing. Respondent's Exhibit 6 is a late-filed exhibit accompanied by a stipulation entered into between the parties to this action. This was admitted as a late-filed exhibit and is part of the record. Counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted in this order, they were considered and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, the Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Dade County School Board. Pursuant to a stipulation by and between the parties, the following facts are found: During the 1981-82 school year, Bertha Altuzarra was employed by the Dade County School Board and was located at Riverside Elementary. From January 4, 1982, to June 18, 1982, Respondent was absent on personal leave due to the death of her mother. On August 25, 1982, she was ordered to return to work at Riverside Elementary. Between August 27, 1981, and January 4, 1982, the Respondent was assigned to Riverside Elementary School. During this time period, she was absent from her teaching position thirty-five days. Many of the absences were without any notification to the school. Under her contract with the School Board, she was entitled to 10 days of personal leave during the school year. Prior to December 16, 1982,the Respondent had made no request for personal leave. At a conference on November 20, 1981, Respondent was given a memorandum by the assistant principal of Riverside Elementary School. The memo (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) related to the Respondent's absences from her class and the adverse affects that such absences were having on her class and the school. As of the date of the memo, Respondent had been absent 20 days and present 33 days. The following problems were noted in the memorandum: Excessive absences-33 days present; 20 days absent - causing: severe disruption in student program disruption in classroom teachers' plans administrators' inability to conduct formal observation. You were scheduled for an observation today but you were absent. Loss of mandatory parent permission letters for one of your classes that is now scheduled for another teacher. Failure to submit all class rosters - timeline given: today. Failure to adhere to class times as scheduled: tardiness in meeting groups early dismissal of students Failure to manage classroom and maintain student control: several staff members have broken up disruptions in your groups. The school monitor has been repeatedly summoned to your classroom. These problems were discussed by the assistant principal Olga Miyar, with Mrs. Altuzarra. Subsequent to the conference with the assistant principal, the Respondent continued to accumulate absences. On December 11, 1981, the Respondent was sent a memo from the principal of Riverside Elementary School regarding the absences and inquiring about Respondent's intentions for the remainder of the school year. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On December 16, 1981, Respondent received the memo and responded by letter stating that her mother had been seriously ill and that she intended to be back at her class on December 17, 1981. (See Respondent's Exhibit 2). As of December 11, Respondent had been absent from her class a total of 32 days. Respondent returned to the school on December 17, 1981, and acknowledged she had had some problems with absences but that she would be back after the holiday and do her job. Pursuant to a request and authorization, Respondent went on personal leave without pay beginning January 4, 1982. As of January 4, 1982, when her leave began, the Respondent had been absent from her class a total of 35 days since August, 1981. On or about April 7, 1982, Respondent, while on leave without pay, was sent a letter requesting that she provide the School Board with a letter as to whether she intended to return to active teaching status when her leave ended on June 18. The Respondent's letter of intent was due within 30 days. As of June 7, 1982, no letter or response had been received from Respondent and a second letter was sent to her by the personnel office. On July 12, 1982, the personnel office was informed that Respondent intended to return to active teaching status. Sometime prior to August 25, 1982, Respondent received written notification to return to Riverside Elementary on August 25, 1982. When Respondent reported to Riverside Elementary School on August 25, 1982, she was informed by the principal, Jesselyn Brown, that she had been assigned to another school and was no longer assigned to Riverside Elementary. Ms. Brown called the Area Office and informed Mrs. Altuzarra that the Area Office requested she go to the Area Office. Ms. Brown also informed Mrs. Altuzarra that her position had been reallocated to a different school and that as a result, she had been surplused and reassigned to Pine Villa Elementary School. On August 26, 1982, Respondent again reported to Riverside Elementary School and was again told by the principal, Ms. Brown, that she was assigned to Pine Villa Elementary, not Riverside Elementary. She was again instructed by the principal to report to the Area Office. Mrs. Altuzarra was also informed by the area personnel director and a line director that she was assigned to Pine Villa Elementary and that she should report to Pine Villa. Sometime later, Ms. Brown received a call from Mr. Pollock, a representative of the teacher's union, and she also explained to him that Mrs. Altuzarra had been surplused and was no longer assigned to Riverside Elementary. On August 31, 1982, Respondent received a telephone call from Dr. Willie Joseph Wright, the principal of Pine Villa Elementary School. He informed her she was assigned to Pine Villa and asked why she had not reported to the school. Respondent stated that she had heard about Pine Villa and it was too far from her home and that she was not going to report. On September 20, 1982, the Respondent met with Mr. Meers, Director of the South Area to which Respondent was assigned. He instructed her to report to Pine Villa. This meeting occurred at approximately 11:30 a.m. and the Respondent never reported to Pine Villa. The Respondent, in the meeting with Mr. Meers, stated she would report to Pine Villa Elementary. Sometime prior to September 20, 1982, Respondent also received a telephone call asking her to report to Caloosa Elementary School for a possible position there. She went to Caloosa Elementary, but was informed by the principal that there was no position for her at Caloosa Elementary. The Respondent had not received a letter or writing of any type requesting her to report to Caloosa Elementary. On November 3 1982, Respondent and Mr. Bennie Pollock, United Teachers of Dade County representative, met with Mr. Richard A. Artmeir, Supervisor of the Division of Personnel Control, to discuss Respondent's failure to report to Pine Villa Elementary School and to also discuss her excessive absences during the 1981-82 school year. Subsequent to the meeting, Respondent was sent, by certified mail, a memorandum of the conference which included a reprimand for having willfully been absent from her assigned work location without authorization. On October 15, 1982, Dr. Ira Wax, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Personnel, submitted to the Executive Director of the Division of Personnel Control of the Dade County School Board, a recommendation that dismissal proceedings be initiated against the Respondent. Respondent testified that the only reason she never reported to Pine Villa Elementary was because she had not received a letter or writing assigning her to Pine Villa.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter an order dismissing the Respondent and denying her request for back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 21st day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse James McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 William DuFresne, Esquire Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire DuFresne & Bradley 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moses Green, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 232099, Graduate, Rank II. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega School during the 1976-1977 school year. Thereafter he was reassigned as one of three deans of students at Pinellas Park High School, and he served in this capacity during the 1978-1979 school year. Moses Green has been in the field of education since his graduation from Florida A & M University more than 21 years ago. After teaching several years in South Carolina and Georgia he came to Boca Ciega High School in Pinellas County in 1964 where he started as a teacher. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega High School from 1974 until 1977 when he was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as a dean of students. In October 1976 enroute from his home to school in a vehicle described both as a van and a motor home, Respondent stopped to give a ride to Jacqueline Blackshear and Stephanie Bellamy, two ninth grade students at Boca Ciega High School. When they entered the van Jackie sat on the housing covering the engine between the two front seats facing the rear of the van and Stephanie sat in the front right-hand passenger's seat. Enroute to school Respondent commented that Jackie was growing up and placed his hand on the inside of Jackie's thigh. At the time, Jackie was enroute to school for cheerleader practice and was wearing shorts. Jackie looked and moved towards Stephanie and Respondent removed his hand. Before arriving at school Respondent again placed his hand on Jackie's thigh and removed it when she moved. Upon arrival at school Respondent told Stephanie to get out as he wanted to talk to Jackie. When Stephanie left the van, Respondent was standing facing Jackie whose back was to the closed door. Respondent grabbed Jackie and attempted to kiss her. She pushed away, opened the door and left the van. When she left the van, Jackie was upset and Stephanie suggested she tell her parent. Near noontime Jackiie went to Gail Weston, a physical education teacher at Boca Ciega High School and told her about the incident in Respondent's van. Stephanie accompanied Jackie on this visit. Ms. Weston described Jackie as nervous and upset. After a few minutes of conversation Ms. Weston realized that it was not something she could handle and she told Jackie and Stephanie that they needed to tell their story at the Dean's office and she took them to Jean Johnson, a dean of students at Boca Ciega High School. There both girls told their story to Ms. Johnson who prepared a statement for them to sign. The story repeated to Ms. Johnson was essentially the same told to Ms. Weston. After typing up their statements, Ms. Johnson told Mr. Demps, the principal. He had the girls brought to him, where the story was again repeated. Demps called Respondent in and confronted him with the story. He also advised his area superintendent and the director of personnel, who investigated the allegations made by these two girls. Demps also arranged for a meeting with Jackie's and Stephanie's parents the following day. Following the investigation, Green, on October 19, 1976 was issued a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for his role in the events that had come to the school's attention regarding the two girls noted above and warned that a recurrence of such conduct would result in dismissal. By letter dated 9 November 1976 Respondent was sent another letter (Exhibit 2) regarding a reported and inappropriate remark made by Green to another female student, which Respondent had denied, and the letter suggested Respondent and the girl take lie detector tests. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Exhibit 3) the Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that the results of the polygraph test he had voluntarily taken indicated his answers were deceptive, while the girl's polygraph test indicated her responses were honest. Respondent was placed on probation for the remainder of the 1976-1977 school year and for all of the 1977-1978 school year. Although his principal at Boca Ciega High School, Mr. Demps, considered Respondent's effectiveness at Boca Ciega High School seriously impaired by the notoriety given to the events involving Respondent in 1976, he remained at Boca Ciega High School for the remainder of that school year. For the school year 1977-1978 Respondent was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as dean of students. Upon his transfer to Pinellas Park High School, Demps gave Respondent a good evaluation report. During Respondent's first year at Pinellas Park High School, no incidents were reported to form the basis of any of the charges here considered. This school year 1977-1978 included the probation period set by Exhibit 3. The school year 1978-1979, while Respondent was dean of students at Pinellas Park High School, produced the majority of complaints and testimony at this hearing regarding improper comments made to female students by Respondent, improper contact of a sexual nature with female students by Respondent, and corroboration of this testimony by other witnesses. Ten female students who attended Pinellas Park High School during school year 1978-1979 testified against Respondent regarding incidents between Respondent and these students of a sexual nature. Some of these incidents involved contact or attempted contact such as hugging, kissing or attempting to kiss, touching breasts or attempting to do so, and rubbing the front of his body against students' backsides when passing them when adequate room for passing without contact existed. Several testified to improper comments made to them by Respondent such as "You have a nice set of tits," "I'd like to get in your pants," "You have a nice pair of legs," "Why don't we go to a motel," "You drive an old man crazy," "You have a nice butt and look good in those pants," "One of these days it's going to be you and me," and similar comments regarding female students' anatomy. Much of this testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who overheard the remarks or observed the bodily contact. Additionally, some of the witnesses had complained to their parents or to other faculty members shortly after the incidents. Others first came forward with their complaints when they learned the police were investigating Green's conduct at the school and they became convinced their isolated incidents wouldn't appear unbelievable. Some of these students tolerated and perhaps encouraged the comments to provide them leverage to insure a cover-up for numerous "skips" of classes. Some of these witnesses skipped classes without punishment due to Respondent's position as dean and to whom their infractions were referred. Respondent denied each and every testimonial utterance of misconduct on his part while admitting the situation described by the witnesses, in which the improper actions of Respondent were said to have occurred, were real. During his testimony Respondent referred to school records which would corroborate his testimony, but he made no effort to produce these records or to account for their non-production. Respondent was subjected to three criminal trials on charges stemming from allegations of fact similar to those testified to in these proceedings. He was acquitted on charges alleging battery and false imprisonment and convicted of the offense of attempting to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Those trials resulted in considerable publicity and the allegations became well-known throughout the Pinellas County School System. Several witnesses testified that Respondent's effectiveness in the Pinellas County School System was totally destroyed by virtue of the notoriety gained by Respondent due to this adverse publicity.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), and 6B-1.006(3)(h), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Reopel holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 973284, covering the area of social science. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2008. At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Reopel was employed as a social studies teacher and an assistant softball coach at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge) in the Orange County School District (School District). In April 2007, Ms. Reopel was 25 years old. In the 2006-2007 school year, Tiffany Pagan was a senior at Oak Ridge. She turned 18 years of age on April 6, 2007. She was not a student in one of Ms. Reopel’s academic classes. At Oak Ridge, a student was not to assist a teacher unless the student had been assigned to the teacher as a student assistant. Ms. Pagan was not a student assistant assigned to Ms. Reopel. However, Ms. Pagan was a member of the girls’ softball team for which Ms. Reopel coached. Ms. Pagan was part of a work-study program at Oak Ridge, in which she took some academic classes and then left the school campus to work. Once a student who was participating in the work-study program completed classes, the student was to leave the campus. Ms. Pagan has engaged in a sexual relationship with more than one girl while she was a student at Oak Ridge. Ms. Pagan did not make it a secret that she liked girls, and Ms. Reopel was aware that Ms. Pagan was a lesbian. In April 2007, Ms. Reopel’s classroom was a portable classroom with windows facing a covered hallway located outside the classroom. In order to see into the classroom from the outside, one would have to lean toward the window and press one’s face to the glass. Based on Ms. Reopel’s and Ms. Pagan’s independent drawings of the configuration of the classroom, Ms. Reopel’s desk was located in a corner area of the classroom where no windows were located and near an area in which three- drawer file cabinets were placed in front of the windows. Based on their description of the location of the room’s furnishings, it would be difficult at best to see the desk from outside the classroom while walking past the classroom. On April 12, 2007, Edward Smith, a technology support representative at Oak Ridge, was inventorying the computer equipment at the school. At mid-day, he went to Ms. Reopel’s classroom and found it locked.2 Using his master key, he entered the classroom. The lights were off, but there was sufficient light coming from the windows so that he could see clearly. He walked into the classroom, thinking that there was no one in the room because the lights were out. He heard a movement and looked up. Mr. Smith saw Ms. Reopel sitting in a chair behind and slightly to the right side of her desk. There was a female student on the floor on her knees facing Ms. Reopel. The student had her left arm propped on the desk. Mr. Smith does not recall seeing any papers on the floor near Ms. Reopel and the student. Mr. Smith observed Ms. Reopel make two downward and upward motions as if she were pulling her clothes up. Ms. Reopel asked Mr. Smith if she could help him, and he told her that he was counting computers. He counted the computers in the room and left. Neither Ms. Reopel nor the student got up. The student never turned around. After Mr. Smith exited the classroom, he went past the windows and looked toward the classroom. He could not see inside the classroom. After making sure that he was past the classroom windows, he used his radio to call the assistant principal at Oak Ridge, Michael Scott Hanson, to let the assistant principal know what he had just seen. Mr. Hanson and Mr. Smith advised Maxine Risper, the principal at Oak Ridge, of what Mr. Smith had seen. Ms. Risper advised Orange County School District Employee Relations (Employee Relations) of the situation. The following day Ms. Reopel was relieved of her classroom duties and told to report to Employee Relations. After some investigation, it was revealed that Ms. Pagan was the student that Mr. Smith had seen in Ms. Reopel’s classroom. Ms. Pagan was called into Ms. Risper’s office to discuss the incident with Ms. Reopel. At first, Ms. Pagan denied any relationship with Ms. Reopel, but later admitted that she did have a relationship with Ms. Reopel. Ms. Pagan said that the relationship had not begun until she turned 18 years old. Ms. Pagan’s mother was called to come to the school. When Mrs. Pagan learned of the allegations, she became angry with her daughter. Ms. Pagan wanted to know whether the incident would affect Ms. Pagan’s graduation. The day after the incident, April 13, 2007, Melissa Moser, the head softball coach and Ms. Reopel’s friend and colleague, became concerned that Ms. Reopel was not at school. That evening, she went to Ms. Reopel’s apartment to learn why Ms. Reopel had not been at school. Ms. Reopel told Ms. Moser that the day before she and her boyfriend had been caught in her classroom while involved in sexual activity, and that was why she had been relieved of her teaching duties. On Monday, April 16, 2007, Ms. Moser had heard students talking about Ms. Reopel not returning to the classroom. That evening Ms. Moser sent a text message to Ms. Reopel asking Ms. Reopel whether Ms. Reopel’s having been relieved of teaching duties had anything to do with Ms. Pagan. At first, Ms. Reopel replied that it did not, but, after further questioning, Ms. Reopel told Ms. Moser that nothing physical had happened with Ms. Pagan until Ms. Pagan was 18 years old. By letter dated April 17, 2008, Employee Relations requested Ms. Reopel to attend a meeting to discuss the allegations. By letter dated April 18, 2008, Ms. Reopel submitted her resignation to the School District. Both Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan deny that any romantic relationship existed between them until after Ms. Pagan graduated from high school. However, Ms. Pagan made statements to numerous witnesses concerning her romantic involvement with Ms. Reopel prior to April 12, 2007. During the 2006-2007 school year, Nestor Velazquez was a classmate and close friend of Ms. Pagan. In February 2007, Ms. Pagan told Mr. Velazquez that she was having sexual relations with another female. At the time, Ms. Pagan did not reveal the identity of her lover. During this time, Ms. Pagan was also having romantic relationships with another female, Marianne Pena, and a male. Sometime between March 13 and April 12, 2007, Ms. Pagan confided to Mr. Velazquez that she had been having a sexual relationship with Ms. Reopel. Ms. Pagan described sexual acts that had occurred with Ms. Reopel, including the use of sexual aids. While at the Oak Ridge school library, Ms. Pagan and her friend, Liz Ortiz, told Mr. Velazquez about an incident in which Ms. Reopel, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Pagan, and Cindy Rivera had gone to Ms. Reopel’s apartment where Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan had sex in the bedroom and the other couple had sex in the living room. Ms. Pagan told Mr. Velazquez that Ms. Reopel’s cat had scratched one of the females in the living room on the female’s buttock, while she was engaged in sexual activity. Mr. Velazquez’s mother, Rosa Cruz Flores, became good friends with Ms. Pagan, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Rivera. All three students came to Ms. Flores’ home at various times. Ms. Pagan and Ms. Flores had worked at the same movie theater. Ms. Pagan would tell Ms. Flores personal things. Ms. Flores knew that Ms. Pagan dated both males and females. Ms. Pagan had told Ms. Flores about her relationship with a person, Ms. Pagan referred to as “baby.” In March 2007, Ms. Flores, had a birthday party for Mr. Velazquez. Ms. Pagan arrived at the party late. As she was talking to Ms. Flores, Ms. Pagan began texting a message on her telephone. Ms. Flores asked Ms. Pagan to whom she was texting, and Ms. Pagan replied that it was “baby.” Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Rivera, who were also at the party, urged Ms. Pagan to tell Ms. Flores the identity of “baby.” Ms. Pagan told Ms. Flores that she was dating her softball coach, Ms. Reopel. Ms. Pagan had sent a text message to Ms. Reopel to come to the party to pick her up. Ms. Reopel did go to Ms. Flores’ home to get Ms. Pagan. Ms. Reopel did not get out of her vehicle, and Ms. Flores did not see Ms. Reopel. Ms. Flores candidly admitted that during the birthday party, she served alcoholic beverages to underage students, including Ms. Pagan. Ms. Flores claims that she had 12 Smirnoff beverages, which were served to the party attendees. Ms. Pagan claimed that she drank “a whole six-pack . . . maybe a little less.” Ms. Pagan claims that she called Ms. Reopel to come and get her because she was intoxicated and that there was no one else to take her home because Ms. Flores was the only adult at the party, and the rest of the attendees did not have cars. Ms. Pagan further contends that she called Ms. Reopel as an emergency measure because she could not let her father know that she had been drinking and that Ms. Reopel had told her softball team that they could call her in an emergency. Ms. Pagan’s testimony is not credible. Ms. Pagan had been texting messages to Ms. Reopel while Ms. Pagan was at the party and prior to texting a request for a ride home from the party. Such action indicates that Ms. Pagan was not making an emergency call for help to Ms. Reopel in the context of a student calling a teacher for help. The request was made in the context of a relationship that went beyond teacher and student. Additionally, it is not credible that Ms. Flores would have allowed Ms. Pagan to consume a six-pack of alcoholic beverages. Sometime in the spring of 2007, Ms. Flores went to Oak Ridge to pick up Mr. Velazquez. While she was there, Ms. Flores saw Ms. Pagan, who began to tell Ms. Flores about the cat scratching one of the girls at Ms. Reopel’s apartment. During the conversation, Ms. Pagan confided that she and Ms. Reopel had been having sex in another room when the scratching incident took place. On April 17, 2007, Ms. Pagan wrote a letter to Ms. Ortiz concerning the incident with Ms. Reopel on April 12. Ms. Pagan wrote: I feel like my whole life is slowly coming to an end. I don’t know what I will do if this all ends really badly. My life as I know it will be nothing. I just don’t know what to do! I don’t think I will be able to handle this. I have dealt with something like this before but its different this time because I didn’t love the other person. I love her so much and what have I done, I have ruined her life. I don’t deserve to have her love me. I don’t even deserve to have her in my life at all. I don’t deserve to have anything good in my life. But then I can’t be without her because then I feel like nothing. Ms. Pagan now claims that the love for Ms. Reopel to which she was referring was just the love that a friend has for another friend and not a romantic love. Given statements that Ms. Pagan made to others concerning her relationship with Ms. Reopel, Ms. Pagan’s assertion that she was not talking about a romantic love is not credible. After the April 12, 2007, incident between Ms. Pagan and Ms. Reopel, Ms. Flores got a telephone call from a friend who told her about the incident. Ms. Flores tried to contact a local television station concerning the incident, but was put on hold. Ms. Flores contacted Mr. Velazquez’s father and told him what she had heard. Mr. Velazquez contacted another television station about what Ms. Flores had told him. A reporter from the television station contacted Ms. Flores for an interview, but Ms. Flores refused to give an interview. Mr. Velazquez did talk to the reporter and gave his views on the matter. Ms. Flores went to see Ms. Risper. At that point, Ms. Risper was still investigating the allegations against Ms. Reopel. Ms. Flores told Ms. Risper that Ms. Pagan was probably the student who was involved in the incident. As a result of the incident of April 12 and the attention that resulted from the media and students at Oak Ridge, Ms. Pagan was not allowed to walk with her classmates at Oak Ridge for graduation. Ms. Pagan did walk with students from Freedom High School at graduation and did receive a diploma from Oak Ridge. Additionally, as a result of the situation created by the relationship between Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan, Ms. Pagan’s brother, who had been attending Oak Ridge, was transferred to another high school. As of the date of the final hearing, Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan were engaged in a romantic lesbian relationship and were living together in the home of Ms. Pagan’s parents. Both Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan claim that their romantic relationship did not begin until after Ms. Pagan graduated from high school. Their contention is not credited. Based on the clear and convincing evidence presented, Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan had begun an inappropriate personal relationship prior to Ms. Pagan turning 18 years old and prior to Ms. Pagan’s graduation from high school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Reopel violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes; finding that Ms. Reopel violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), and 6B-1.006(3)(h); and permanently revoking her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, David L. Smith, is a teaching veteran of twenty years and holds a teacher certificate by Florida. He is employed by Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, as a teacher by means of a continuing contract. During times material, Respondent was assigned as a teacher at Pinellas Park High School. At the beginning of the 1991-92 school year, Respondent's father passed away and Respondent was allowed bereavement leave for a period of approximately eight days. The incidents alleged in Petitioner's charging letter and which is at issue herein occurred over a 5-day period from September 9-13, 1991, after Respondent returned from the burial of his father in the Midwest. During early September 1991, Respondent found a black student, Gregory Mills, sitting in his chair whereupon he replied to the class, "How far to you think I can throw this negro?" The term "negro" is offensive to some black students and Petitioner discourages the use of racial slurs in the school setting. The student to whom the remark was made, Gregory Mills, did not view the remark as offensive and considered that Respondent was making a joke of the incident. Mills view Respondent as a good teacher who gets along well with all students and was particularly concerned about the welfare of minorities, exemplifying such by assisting them in achieving their career objectives. At least one student, Robia Brown, who was in Respondent's class when Respondent made the "negro" remark to Mills thought that Respondent used the term "nigger" instead of "negro." However, the facts failed to support Robia Brown's recollection and it was not borne out by the testimony of Respondent and the student to whom it was directed, Gregory Mills. During times material, Bihn Vo was an oriental student at Pinellas Park and was an office assistant whose duties included taking messages and information from the office to individual classrooms. On one occasion following September 9, 1991, Vo was delivering information to Respondent's classroom. When Vo entered the wrong door, Respondent replied, "What do you want, you oriental son of a bitch?" On a separate occasion during early September 1991, information was delivered to Respondent's classroom for Kelly Slusser, a student. When the file which contained the information was given to Respondent, he threw the open file across the room and remarked, "[I] do not like her anymore." Also, during the same time period, Respondent grabbed Slusser by the neck and pushed her backwards leaving marks on her neck which were later visible by the assistant principal, Pamela Jones. As a result of those incidents, Slusser and another student, Robia Brown, withdrew from Respondent's class. During this period of time in early September 1991, Respondent openly used profanity in the presence of students. On September 9, 1991, Respondent experienced restlessness and an inability to sleep because of the mental state that he was experiencing following his father's burial and the internal strife that was brought upon him by his family members and some chicanery that was ongoing between Respondent and other family members about estate property which his father left. Respondent and his father enjoyed a very close relationship. His father's death was untimely occurring during a period when he (Respondent's father) appeared to have been enjoying good health. Respondent's father would spend most summers with him and they would vacation in and around Central Florida. As a result of the depression that Respondent appeared to suffer following his father's death, he visited his physician, David R. Newsome, M.D., for medication which would allow him to sleep at night. All of the incidents which are at issue occurred over a 5-day period from September 9-13, 1991. Following those incidents, Respondent took an 8-day leave from September 16-27, 1991, and received psychotherapy. On September 27, 1991, Respondent returned to his teaching duties and continued his employment with Petitioner until October 19, 1991, without further incident, at which time he was suspended by Petitioner. It is undisputed that Respondent was a popular teacher who often kidded with students. He appeared sleepy and drowsy during early September 1991 and at least one of Petitioner's supervisory employees questioned him about his well-being and suggested that he request administrative leave, which he did. Respondent's actions during the period September 9-13, 1991, came about as a result of his despondency over his father's death and he received medical treatment which appeared to have alleviated the problem. Respondent enjoys teaching and it does not appear that his effectiveness has been reduced to the point whereby he would be an ineffective teacher if he is afforded an opportunity to return to a classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner enter a Final Order (1) reversing its recommendation that Respondent be dismissed from his position of employment with Petitioner as an instructional employee, (2) that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year under terms and conditions designed to assure that no further similar acts/occurrences that were displayed by him in September 1991 are manifested, and (3) that Respondent be reinstated with all other rights and benefits of a tenured instructor employed by continuing contract with the Pinellas County School Board. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: BRUCE P TAYLOR ESQ SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS PO BOX 2942 LARGO FL 34649 2942 LAWRENCE D BLACK ESQ 650 SEMINOLE BLVD LARGO FL 34640 3625 J HOWARD HINESLEY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS PO BOX 2942 LARGO FL 34649 2942 BETTY CASTOR COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 May, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, misconduct in office and absent without leave as more fully alleged in letter dated November 7, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Joseph A. Tourney held an Educator's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education (Ex. 1) and has been on continuing contract since 1972 with the Pinellas County School Board (Ex. 2). He has taught in the Florida School System for approximately 20 years with the last 14 years at Pinellas Park High School (PPHS) as a social studies teacher. As early as 1970, while a teacher at Lakewood Senior High School, Respondent's negative attitude toward strict compliance with school policies was noted (Ex. 9). Much of this attitude was exhibited by arriving later than and departing prior to the time designated for teachers to be at the school (Ex. 10). Following a review of Respondent's evaluations and conferences with him regarding his attitude respecting school policies and procedures to which Toumey did not agree, a recommendation was made by the Principal at Lakewood that Toumey be transferred (Ex. 12). Toumey was transferred to Largo High School. No problems were reported regarding Toumey during his tenure at Largo. When Pinellas Park High School opened circa 1976 Toumey was transferred to that school. Hugh Kreiger was principal at Pinellas Park High School. Krieger was a hands-on administrator who closely observed those under his supervision. The first time he observed Toumey depart school early he called him in and assigned Toumey permanent parking lot duty which required Toumey's presence at the parking lot until after the designated departure time. For the next five years no further problem was noted regarding Toumey's punctuality at school. Krieger was replaced by Louis Williams and Toumey's attendance problems resumed. After repeated warnings about leaving school in the afternoon prior to the scheduled departure time for teachers (30 minutes after students are released) and a conference between Williams and Tourney, Williams requested a conference with Tourney and John Mixon, Director of Personnel Services for the school board. This conference was held October 14, 1982 (Ex. 13). During this conference Respondents's early departures from school, his attitude toward school policies to which he disagreed, and his insensitivity to students was discussed and Tourney was advised that improvements in these matters was expected. By memo dated February 28, 1983 (Ex. 15) Williams noted several occasions where Toumey had departed school early and Tourney was charged with one-half day's leave and given a written reprimand. A subsequent documentation of Tourney leaving school early is contained in a memo dated November 7, 1986, from Williams to Tourney (Ex. 16). On September 21, 1987, Nancy Blackwelder, Assistant Principal at PPHS, submitted a memorandum to Tourney memorializing a conference with him in which he was again reminded of his need to improve in classroom atmosphere conducive to learning, judgment, and routine duties; and noting that if he failed to perform routine duties he would receive a written reprimand (Ex. 17). On October 8, 1987, a conference was held between Tourney; Nancy Zambito, who replaced Dr. Mixon as Director of Personnel Services; the principal of PPHS, M. Heminger; and a union representative. The summary of this conference is contained in a memo from Zambito to Tourney dated October 3, 1987, (Ex. 18). In this conference Tourney's inappropriate behavior in class involving his participation in a program adopted by the school, Patriot Educational Partners (PEP), was discussed, Tourney was again reminded of the need to support school board policies and programs in his contact with students, and Tourney agreed to improve. In November 1987 Tourney and the School Board entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (Ex. 19). In this Agreement Tourney acknowledged that he had been given less than satisfactory evaluations for the school years 1970-71, 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1986-87, that he had received numerous counseling sessions to discuss his failure to adhere to established school procedures and his negative comments to students. He also acknowledged that during the 1987-88 school year while assigned as advisor to a group of students with whom he is supposed to meet for five minutes each morning, he has frequently been late; that he referred to this program in the presence of students in negative and profane terms; and on one occasion he threw financial aid papers in the trash can and told students they could get them from there if they wanted them. For these infractions Tourney agreed to a suspension without pay for five days. He also acknowledged that further infractions may lead to a recommendation for his dismissal. In his testimony at this hearing Tourney averred that most of the students who were given financial aid applications threw them on the floor from which they had to be picked up and placed in the trash baskets, and that he was merely shorting the process by throwing these applications in the trash can rather than pass them out to the students who would throw them on the floor. On May 9, 1989, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand (Ex. 20), by Principal Heminger for inappropriate conduct in his class during a visit to the class by members of the committee conducting a ten-year evaluation of the PPHS for accreditation during the period of April 25-28, 1989. In this reprimand he was also found to have arrived late at the final meeting of the Visiting Committee and to have returned from lunch with the odor of alcohol on his breath. On September 12, 1989, a conference was held between John Reynolds, Assistant Principal at PPHS and Tourney to discuss Tourney's 1988-89 evaluation. This conference is memorialized in memorandum dated September 19, 1989, (Ex. 21). The areas in which improvement is expected in the evaluations are attitude, judgment and routine duties. October 13, 1989, was an in-service day for teachers. This is a normal school day which only teachers attend. It was one of several similar days during the school year that teachers hold meetings, catch up on the grading of papers and perform tasks other than conducting classes for their students. It is a day all teachers are expected to be present at school. At PPHS in-service days have always been more informal than regular school days and in the past teachers have departed early once their tasks were completed. Prior to 1988 there had been no sign-in sheet for teachers at PPHS but such a procedure was instituted and in effect for the in-service day of October 13, 1989. Respondent appeared at school on October 13, 1989, as required but slightly late. Around 9:00 a.m. he received a telephone call from his good friend and fellow teacher in the social studies department, David Smith, who told respondent that he, Smith, had just awakened after not having slept well during the night, and Smith requested Respondent to sign him in and he would arrive shortly. Respondent did so. After making the call, Smith went back to bed and when he again awoke it was afternoon and he realized he was suffering from flu-like symptoms and was too sick to go to school. Several people were aware that Smith did not report to school on October 13, 1989 and reported same to the authorities. When confronted with the accusation both Tourney and Smith denied that Tourney had signed Smith in and that Smith was not at school that day. When he finally acknowledged his absence from school on October 13, 1989, Smith was suspended for three days without pay. The October 13, 1989, incident was the culmination of a long history of Respondent's failure to comply with school policies and directives, to "trash" school programs to which he did not agree, and to be in the forefront of rebellion against such programs and policies which led to the proposed action of the school board to dismiss Respondent from his continuing contract as a teacher in the Pinellas County school system at the expiration of the 1989-90 school year.
Recommendation It is recommended that Joseph Tourney be dismissed from his position as a continuing contract teacher in the Pinellas County School System at the conclusion of the 1989-90 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 5th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Dr. Scott N. Rose, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Bruce Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, FL 33675-0638
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a settlement agreement which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED on this the /7 day of 5.erf=l/lYlfJk , 2009 in Tallahassee, Florida. HollyBeson, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 1 Filed September 22, 2009 3:49 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies Furnished to: Peter A. Lewis, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 2931 Kerry Forest Parkway, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (U.S. Mail) Brevin Brown, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (Interoffice) Carlton D. Snipes, Deputy Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #8 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice) Wesley Hagler, MPA Administrator Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #21 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice) _t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addresses by U.S. Mail on this the of ke,209' 9' RICHARD SHOOP, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 ' . STATE OF FLORIDA
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent has been employed by the Escambia County School Board since 1967. On or about October 3, 1973, he was suspended from his position as Principal of Scenic Heights Elementary School because criminal charges had been filed against him. Sometime during the year 1971, Respondent and Mr. Alfred F. Brown went to an auction of leased office equipment at the Holiday Inn on Highway 29. Items for bids were on display in a room and identical items were in boxes in a trailer outside. Persons in the display room were able to bid on the displayed articles or to purchase boxed items at the same price which the highest bidder had paid. Respondent did not bid at the auction, but he did purchase two Bell and Howell projectors, two Wollensak tape recorders and a Panasonic portable television set. Respondent did not notice any school markings on these items and he kept them in his home from 1971 until October of 1973. On August 9, 1973, Respondent went to Zoellner Music House to pick up Mr. James Justice, a blind piano tuner, and take him to his residence to tune an eight to ten year old Story and Clark piano located in Respondent's living room. Mr. Justice was under the impression that said piano belonged to Scenic Heights Elementary School, and that the tuning was being done because Respondent was having an open house for the teachers at his school . Mr. Justice was also asked by Respondent to give his opinion as to the condition of a ten to eighteen year old Wurlitzer piano located in Respondent's garage. Pursuant to instructions from Respondent, the secretary at Zoellner's made out the bill for the tuning to Scenic Heights School. Mr. Justice brought said bill to Respondent's residence when he tuned the piano and Respondent signed the bill on the same day. Respondent did not pay for the twenty dollar tuning bill. In March of 1973, Respondent and his wife purchased a home located approximately one block from Scenic Heights Elementary School. They moved into their new home in July, 1973. Respondent used one of the rooms in the house as an office. In mid-July of 1973, Respondent purchased from Bill Thompson's Office Equipment Center a 30-compartment cabinet, an executive chair, an executive and a secretarial plastic chair mat and a file cabinet. The statement for these items in the total amount of $328.20 was made to Scenic Heights Elementary School. It was the testimony of Respondent and his wife that Respondent told Thompson's that he intended to pay for those items used in his home office, but that he requested Thompson's to sell him the items at the same discounted price which the county schools would be charged. The bill was not paid by Respondent as of October 3, 1973--the date he was suspended by the school board. On August 11, 1973, Respondent purchased two lawn rakes and the bill in the amount of $17.02 was made to Scenic Heights School. Respondent explained that he purchased these rakes for the Boy Scouts to use when they wished to contribute something for the school. These two rakes were not found at the school. At the time Respondent and his wife moved into their new home in July of 1973, Respondent owned an old, dark Wurlitzer piano which did not match his wife's new living room furniture. Sometime in July, Respondent and his wife drove over to Santa Rosa County to the Treasure House to look at antiques. While there, Respondent met the owner, Mr. Franklin Willis, and Inquired whether Willis had or ever got any used pianos. Mr. Willis told Respondent that he did not ordinarily stock pianos because of their size, but said he would call Respondent if he ran across any. Respondent left his business card with Willis for that purpose. While Respondent was at the Treasure House, he also saw Harley Carmen Phillips, whom he knew previously from having Mr. Phillips work on his cars. Within a week or two after this, Respondent again had Phillips do some work on his car and they discussed the purchase of a fishing boat. On or about August 3, 1973, Respondent bought the boat from Phillips, who delivered it to Respondent's residence. Respondent paid for the boat by a $700 check. Phillips had trouble cashing the Respondent's Pensacola bank check at a bank in Milton. During this period of time, Phillips and Willis were in the business of transporting stolen automobiles from one state to another and selling them. At a later time they were both convicted for violations of the Dyer Act and served time in the penitentiary. Respondent was unaware of the illegal activities engaged in by Phillips and Willis until October of 1973. A week or two after his visit to the Treasure House, Respondent received a telephone at the school from Mr. Willis. Willis informed Respondent that he had a piano he thought Respondent would be interested in. Respondent said he would have to see it first. About noon, Mr. Phillips brought in Willis truck a Story and Clark piano to Respondent's residence. Respondent called Willis to negotiate the price he would pay. Respondent thought he could sell his old Wurlitzer for about $400 and he therefore offered Willis $400 for the Story and Clark. Willis agreed. Due to the trouble Phillips had had previously cashing the Respondent's check for the boat, Respondent paid for the piano in cash. Phillips helped Respondent move his old Wurlitzer into the garage. When the Story and Clark piano was being delivered, Respondent's maid, Ms. Magnolia Long, now deceased, told Respondent that she would like to have a cheap piano for her child. Respondent therefore told Willis on that same day to be "on the lookout" for a piano costing $100 or $125. On or about August 17, 1973, Willis called Respondent at school and told him he had a piano for Respondent's maid. Respondent told him to bring it to his residence around 3:00 p.m. and he and the maid would look at it. Again, Phillips was driving Willis' truck with two pianos on it. Ms. Long said she wanted the piano so Respondent called Willis to negotiate the price. They agreed upon a price of $125. While on the phone, Willis offered to sell the other Wurlitzer piano on the truck to Respondent. Respondent said he would buy it for a good price, figuring that he could sell it at the same time that he sold his old Wurlitzer. He thus bought the second piano on the truck for $225 by a check made out to cash. That piano was placed in Respondent's garage along with the originally owned Wurlitzer, and the $125 piano was taken to the home of Ms. Long. Respondent told Ms. Long that he would deduct any profit he made on the sale of the $225 piano from the cost of the $125 piano he bought for her. Respondent then placed a classified ad in the Pensacola News Journal advertising the two Wurlitzer pianos for sale. He sold them both, receiving $350 from John Boazman for the piano Respondent had paid $225. Thus, Respondent did not charge Ms. Long anything for the $125 piano. Mr. Boazman testified that Respondent had told him at the time that he was selling this piano for a friend, and went to the house to call said friend to see if he would accept $350. Sometime thereafter and at the request of Ms. Long, Respondent called Willis and inquired about obtaining another piano for Ms. Long's church. This time, Willis himself brought the piano to Respondent's residence. Respondent thought that Ms. Long's church could raise the money for the piano and, if not, Respondent could get the P.T.A. to buy it for his school. With the exception of the Wurlitzer piano originally owned by Respondent, all of the other pianos were stolen from churches outside the Pensacola area. The only evidence that Respondent had knowledge that these pianos were stolen came from Mr. Willis, who testified that Respondent told him to get the pianos from areas other than Pensacola. Respondent purchased from Willis a riding lawn mower for $140 and approximately 54 bundles of shingles. These items were also stolen by Willis. Sometime in late September of 1973, Mr. Willis was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He also had federal charges pending against him for transporting stolen automobiles across state lines. In exchange for information on Respondent, the State granted Willis immunity on the stolen property charge. The possession of a firearm charge was dropped for insufficient evidence. The State also agreed to help Willis on the federal charge by explaining to the judge that Willis had given information regarding Respondent. Based upon information from Willis that certain reported stolen items were located in Respondent's home, a search warrant was executed on October 1, 1973. Respondent was not home at the time, and law enforcement officers seized the Wurlitzer piano located in Respondent's garage, the Story and Clark piano located in Respondent's living room and a Zenith radio having a school board property number on it. Respondent was arrested on the same date while at a conference in Santa Rosa County. Another search of Respondent's residence was conducted on or about October 19, 1973, and the following items were found: two tape recorders, two projectors, a Panasonic television set and a riding lawn mower. There was evidence that the television set had the name of Fideles School written on it in indelible ink. The shingles were found in the carport at a rental home owned by Respondent or his wife. During October 22-24, 1973, three tape recordings of conversations between Respondent and Willis were taken with the consent of Willis and without the knowledge of Respondent. Respondent's attorney had advised him to talk with Willis and to obtain any information he could from him regarding the charges against Respondent. Respondent had many conversations with Willis between October 1 and the dates of the tape recordings. At the time of the recordings, Respondent had already been told by Willis that the items sold to him had been stolen. Respondent explained that he had taken the Zenith radio from the school in order to listen to the election returns at his home. He further explained that it was always his intention to personally pay for the piano tuning and the office equipment in his home. His suspension on October 3, 1973, prevented him from doing so.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of six years, effective August 31, 1973. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P. 0. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James A. Johnston, Esquire One North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Hugh Ingram, Administrator Professional Practices Council Room 3, 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: GLENN PORTER DISMUKES DOAH CASE NO. 76-1776 /
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a music teacher at Lehigh. His primary areas of interest and teaching responsibility were vocals and keyboard, and he taught varying levels and types of chorus and piano/keyboard classes. Respondent also was very proactive in initiating and coordinating extra-curricular music programs and competitions for the benefit of his music students. Respondent received a bachelor's degree in music education, with a choral emphasis, from Florida A & M University (FAMU) in 2002. He completed a summer master's program at the University of Florida and received his master's degree in music education in 2010. Respondent is a certified educator in music, K through 12, meaning that he is qualified to teach music at all levels from kindergarten through 12th grade. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner since August 5, 2002, but has only been at Lehigh since the 2008-2009 school year. Respondent was the choral director at Dunbar High School for three years; music teacher at Orange River Elementary for one year; and music teacher at Orangewood Elementary for two years. Respondent testified that these frequent transfers were his idea, and there was no evidence to the contrary. Respondent testified that he left Dunbar High School because that school's music program downsized, and the school wanted to hire a music teacher whose emphasis was on band, instead of chorus, so he requested a transfer elsewhere and Orange River Elementary was what was available. Respondent testified that things did not work out there between the administration and him, so he transferred to Orangewood Elementary. However, Respondent did not feel challenged teaching music to elementary school students, and so he requested a transfer to Lehigh when the music teaching position opened up. Respondent testified that he believes his talents are best used in a high school setting, where he can work with talented singers and pianists to prepare them for college and professional careers. By all accounts, Respondent is a very talented musician. His performance evaluations show that he was generally considered a satisfactory teacher throughout his years in Petitioner's employ; some areas needing improvement tended to balance out with other areas in which his performance was above average. Petitioner's performance as a teacher is not in question in this proceeding. Instead, what is in question in this proceeding is Respondent's conduct with several female students. This matter first came to Petitioner's attention when Douglas McKeever, assistant principal at Lehigh, contacted Petitioner's Department of Professional Standards and Equity (DPS), which is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by school district employees and making recommendations to the superintendent as to discipline. Mr. McKeever informed the DPS that he had received information regarding possible inappropriate physical contact by Respondent with several female students. At DPS' direction, on November 3, 2011, Mr. McKeever conducted interviews of two students, P.P. and B.G., who alleged they were subjected to Respondent's inappropriate physical contacts, and one student, M.M., who was a witness to one student's encounter with Respondent. Mr. McKeever had these three students summarize what they told him in written statements. He provided this information to DPS. The students' statements were reviewed by DPS, and based on the seriousness of the allegations, Respondent was suspended with pay and benefits on November 7, 2011. Thereafter, the allegations were investigated by DPS' chief investigator, Craig Baker. Mr. Baker took the written statement of an additional student, C.R., who had been identified as someone who had allegedly been subjected to Respondent's inappropriate contacts, but who had not been present when Mr. McKeever conducted the initial student interviews. As part of his investigation, Mr. Baker made inquiries to identify any other alleged victims or witnesses. After the investigation was completed, a pre- determination conference was held on December 7, 2011, at which Respondent was given an opportunity to present his side of the matters described in the student statements, which were provided to him. Respondent was represented by counsel at that conference. The results of the investigation and pre-determination conference were then reviewed and discussed by the school district's chief human resources officer, the head of the DPS, other human resources staff, and counsel for the school district, to formulate a recommendation. The recommendation was to terminate Respondent. Respondent was informed of the recommendation and was advised that he was suspended without pay or benefits, effective December 19, 2011, pending a final determination as to whether Respondent would be terminated. The Petition for Termination of Employment sets forth the alleged conduct by Respondent on which Petitioner relies to establish the charges of misconduct in office and policy violations. The alleged misconduct involves three different students; the findings with respect to the allegations for each student are addressed in turn below. P.P. P.P. is a 15-year-old female. In the 2011-2012 school year, P.P. was in the tenth grade at Lehigh. Respondent testified that P.P. was "one of the best singers." As a ninth- grade freshman during the 2010-2011 school year, P.P. took Respondent's beginning chorus class. There were approximately 20, mostly-freshmen, students in this class, about three-quarters of whom were female. During that first year in Respondent's chorus class, P.P. sometimes would feel like she was being watched and would notice Respondent staring at her. She also observed him "checking out" other girls. The manner in which P.P. saw Respondent looking at other girls gave her discomfort, because she thought Respondent should not be conducting himself that way. As the 2010-2011 year progressed, when P.P. would get that feeling that she was being stared at, she would look up and catch Respondent looking down the v-neck of her shirt; P.P. always wore v-neck style shirts and blouses. When P.P. looked up at Respondent, he would look away. This bothered her. Respondent denied ever trying to look down P.P.'s shirt or blouse; however, he specifically recalled that she would wear v-neck type shirts and blouses. P.P. is a friendly, outgoing young lady, and as she acknowledged, it is not unheard of for her to hug a teacher. Respondent testified that while he may have hugged P.P. during her first year, there were not hugs every day, like the frequency of hugs between them in P.P.'s sophomore year. Consistent with that testimony, P.P. testified that when she began her sophomore year at Lehigh, she noticed a difference with Respondent. As she described it, she would get hugs from Respondent, but those hugs were not like other hugs. When Respondent hugged her when they were both standing, he would grab at a lower altitude than normal, considering he is taller than her, with his hands dropping down from her lower waist to the edge of her pants. These low-altitude hugs made P.P. feel uncomfortable. The hugging between P.P. and Respondent took place in his office, in the big classroom at the piano or the projector, or at the classroom doorway. There were other students around most of these times, but not for those hugs taking place in Respondent's office. P.P. described the hugs Respondent would give her in his office when he was seated and she was standing. According to P.P., Respondent would put his arm around her at a relaxed stance, "over my butt," instead of reaching his arm upward to account for their differing heights with him seated and her standing next to him. Then, when he would release back out of the hug, she would feel his hands brushing over her buttocks. Though the impropriety of these "hugs" is obvious from P.P.'s description of them, P.P. said that she was not sure if Respondent was "intentionally improperly touching" her. Respondent freely admitted hugging P.P. and others. As Respondent put it, he is "a hugger." Though there was some disagreement as to whether Respondent always initiated the hugs with P.P. (as P.P. testified) or whether Respondent only sometimes initiated the hugs with P.P. (as Respondent admitted), it was clear that there was frequent hugging going on between P.P. and Respondent during the few months of P.P.'s sophomore year prior to Respondent's suspension in November. Additionally, though there was some disagreement as to where Respondent placed his arms and hands during all of these hugs, Respondent acknowledged that he could have made "coincidental contact" with lower waists, buttocks, or other parts while releasing from hugs. P.P. described an incident that took place in October 2011, at school, in the evening after she attended a performance of The Fantasticks. Respondent was also at school after hours, as were many others, because Respondent was coordinating an all-county music competition that took place on the same evening as The Fantasticks. According to P.P., she had seen Respondent earlier that evening when she and others were milling about at intermission. There were concession stands set up by parents and other volunteers, but P.P. did not have any money. Respondent was walking by with some chips in his hands and asked P.P. if she was hungry. She said no, she was going home for dinner later. After the show, she left the "Black Box Theater," where The Fantasticks show was performed, and parted ways with her friend so she could go down the outside corridor to the parking lot where her grandmother was picking her up. P.P. ran into Respondent, and he again asked her if she was hungry and if she needed a ride home. She said that she had a ride and was going home to dinner. At that point, he hugged her in a way that she felt was even more out of the ordinary than his other hugs. He had his arms around her waist and then he moved his hands to her belt area and gripped her tightly. This hug lasted for five-to- ten seconds, until someone came out of another door and then he released her. Respondent admitted the core facts of this encounter, but disputed some of the details. According to Respondent, he was under the misimpression that P.P. had been helping him with the all-county music competition, which is why, he said, that he went up to her to hug her when he saw her leaving. Thus, he admitted to having initiated this hug, but claims it was a simple "thank-you" hug. Respondent denied any belt-gripping or tight grabbing. He thought that the hug lasted for more like two-to- three seconds, not five-to-ten seconds. Whether the hug lasted two, three, four, or five seconds, that is a long hug that could fairly be described as more of an embrace than the sort of split-second pat-hug that might be viewed as a handshake equivalent and that one could arguably accept as not beyond the bounds for a teacher. Between the time of his pre-determination conference and the final hearing, Respondent added a few details that would have been material, but inexplicably were missing from his early version of events. One new detail added by Respondent at the final hearing, which he did not offer at the pre-determination conference was that there were a lot of other people around when he hugged P.P. on the evening of The Fantasticks. He admitted that this fact was important and had no explanation for why he would not have offered this information at the pre-determination conference. Moreover, despite offering the testimony of several supportive witnesses, including two who confirmed they were concession volunteers that evening, there was no witness to testify that he or she was one of the "many people" around to see Respondent hugging P.P. The other embellishment of this incident at the final hearing was Respondent's new claim that his hug with P.P. on the night of The Fantasticks was the last time they hugged, because he "told her that it wouldn't look appropriate."2/ Respondent testified that "it concerned me that P.P. would think it was more than--more to our interaction than was there." Respondent's only explanation for failing to mention this detail at his pre-determination conference was: "I thought about it, but I didn't think, you know, I needed to go into more detail. I would go into more detail here, if we had come to it." Respondent's testimony, offering new details about this incident that he did not provide in December 2011, was not credible. It is not credible that Respondent would have held back material details at the pre-determination conference, which was his opportunity to tell his side of the story before the decision was made whether to initiate disciplinary action. Respondent's failure to provide what would have been material details at a point when those details may have affected the decision regarding disciplinary action, suggests that those new details are not true and were made up to bolster Respondent's story. Respondent urges that P.P.'s allegations should not be believed, because she never told Respondent that she was uncomfortable with their hugs. Respondent suggests that if P.P. were truly uncomfortable after her freshman year, she never would have enrolled for advanced chorus for the 2011-2012 school year because his class is an elective.3/ P.P. never told Respondent that she did not want him to hug her and never expressed her discomfort to him. P.P. explained that she felt like she was supposed to trust her teacher, and she would feel uncomfortable saying something to him because she would feel even more uncomfortable every time she saw him after that. Acknowledging, as Respondent does, that P.P. was one of the best singers at Lehigh, it is understandable that after her freshman year, P.P. would have enrolled in Respondent's advanced chorus class, despite her discomfort. While chorus may have been technically an elective, there were no other options besides taking Respondent's classes for talented singers wanting to pursue their area of interest and talent. M.M., a 15-year-old female sophomore who was a friend of P.P.'s, was an eyewitness to one of Respondent's improper hugs with P.P. M.M. is a quiet, soft-spoken student who took Respondent's chorus classes as a freshman and as a sophomore. M.M. testified that she saw Respondent hug P.P. with his hand on her buttocks. She did not think much about that until, in conversation with P.P. and B.G, P.P. was describing an incident outside the classroom when Respondent had pulled her close and grabbed her buttocks, when B.G. piped up that that had happened to her, too. That is when M.M. told P.P. and B.G. that she had seen Respondent hugging P.P. and grabbing her buttocks. M.M. also said that C.R., a senior, told M.M. that she also had something happen with Respondent. After this discussion, M.M. went home and told her stepmother what P.P. and B.G. had said about Respondent, what M.M. had observed, and what C.R. had told her about Respondent. M.M.'s stepmother contacted Lehigh to report the matter. Immediately thereafter, on November 3, 2011, M.M., P.P., B.G., and C.R. were called down to the assistant principal's office. The assistant principal, Mr. McKeever, separately interviewed M.M., P.P., and B.G.; C.R. was not in the class when she was called. Mr. McKeever had the three girls write down what they told him in the interviews. The students were separated throughout this interview-statement process. M.M.'s written statement is consistent with her testimony, that she witnessed Respondent hugging P.P. in Respondent's office about two weeks earlier (i.e., approximately October 20, 2011), and that she saw "Mr. Sparrow growp [sic] P[.]'s butt while hugging her."4/ M.M. testified that Respondent never hugged her or made any other overtures toward her. M.M. said that she and Respondent were not close at all. In his pre-determination conference, Respondent characterized M.M. as "noble." By this, he meant that M.M. may have offered to support the allegations of P.P. and B.G. to help them out and be their friend after seeing the other students treating P.P. and B.G. badly after their allegations against Respondent came to light. However, M.M.'s statement came before any allegations against Respondent came to light; indeed, M.M. was the catalyst for the information coming to light by telling her stepmother, who reported the matter to the school. Trying another tack to cast doubt on M.M.'s testimony, Respondent suggested that perhaps M.M. was just looking to share in the spotlight by testifying against him. He added that M.M. had academic troubles in his keyboard class and was not a very good student. However, M.M. transferred to a different school shortly after Respondent was suspended and was not at Lehigh any longer when she testified in this case. Respondent's attempts to discredit M.M. were ineffective. B.G. B.G. is a 15-year-old female, who was P.P.'s best friend and a fellow sophomore at Lehigh in the 2011-2012 school year. From the first time B.G. met Respondent in her freshman year taking his beginning chorus class, B.G. observed that Respondent looked at girls in ways she thought were inappropriate for a teacher, such as "checking them out" when they turned away or staring at girls' chests when standing together talking. B.G. did not discuss her observations with P.P. that year. However, she did tell her mother. Besides B.G.'s observations of Respondent looking at female students inappropriately, there was nothing else about Respondent's conduct that caused B.G. concern that first year. B.G. described an incident with Respondent occurring on October 31, 2011, that made her extremely uncomfortable. Since this incident was so recent at the time B.G. and the others were interviewed and wrote statements on November 3, 2011, B.G. was able to provide a very detailed description and repeated the same details in her testimony in this case. Respondent acknowledged the incident and admitted many of the details. B.G. had to see Respondent after class to obtain a signed pass authorizing her absence from class a day or two earlier. The bell had rung, and B.G. was waiting at his office while he finished up with other students. After everyone else had left the classroom, Respondent went into his office and sat at his desk. B.G. stood in the doorway while he signed the pass. Respondent then told B.G. to "come here," directing her to stand next to him while he remained seated. B.G. had a large book bag hanging from her right shoulder, and she stood next to Respondent's left side. Respondent then reached his arm under her book bag and touched her buttocks on the way to stretching his arm under her book bag to encircle her around her lower waist area. That made her very uncomfortable. She thought maybe Respondent touched her buttocks by accident; however, that was somewhat difficult to accept because as she made clear, "it was not a brush past. It was like reaching around and like touching as you're going." Respondent, with his arm around B.G., started talking to her about a piano performance she had that morning at which she had gotten nervous. With Respondent's arm around B.G., he told her that she needed to get over that if she wanted to be a performer some day. Then Respondent retracted his arm, pulling it back under her book bag. This time, he "kind of grabbed as he went"--"it was pretty much a firm grasp all the way back around." This made her extremely uncomfortable and she did not know what to do, so she gave a nervous laugh. As she noted at that point, if it had been an accident, she would have expected him to quickly apologize and back away, but that did not happen. As she stated, "But if you think about it, most people, most teachers wouldn't hug a student anyways." Nonetheless, like P.P., B.G. testified that she honestly could not say that Respondent's intention was to do something inappropriate. B.G. left to go to her next class, but was preoccupied thinking about what had happened, worrying about what she was supposed to do, and talking to a boy sitting next to her about what had happened and what he thought she should do. She was concerned about whether she should report the incident to an administrator, because, as she put it, she did not want to ruin Respondent's life. B.G. told her mother about this incident that night or the next night. They discussed whether B.G. should report the incident and that it was a big deal that could ruin his life. B.G. also told M.M. about the incident and M.M. told her stepmother, who reported the matter to assistant principal McKeever, triggering the investigation that led to this proceeding. Respondent acknowledged the October 31, 2011, encounter in his office, alone, with B.G. He admitted that he was the one who asked her to come stand next to him while he was seated and that he put his arm around her despite the fact that his arm would have been aligned with her hips and rear end. His rationale was that he thought she needed comforting while he talked with her about getting nervous at her piano performance. However, it was not as if she came to see him about the performance or said anything to indicate she was upset about it when she came to his office--she just needed him to sign her absentee pass. Respondent initiated the proximity, then brought up the subject of the piano performance after he had already engaged B.G. in the "comfort" grip that did anything but comfort her. At Respondent's pre-determination conference, he admitted that B.G.'s statement describing the setting was accurate, including the fact that he was seated at his desk and beckoned her to come stand next to him, the fact that she had a book bag on her shoulder, and the fact that he reached under her book bag to put his arm around her waist. While Respondent did not admit to having purposely grabbed or touched her buttocks, he admitted that he had to get his hand back, and in pulling his hand down from B.G.'s waist and out from under her book bag, he could have brushed or touched her buttocks. Indeed, it may have been physically impossible for Respondent to retrieve his arm from across B.G.'s body and under a large book bag without his hand sliding across her buttocks. At the final hearing, four months after the pre- determination conference, Respondent modified his story regarding the October 31, 2011, incident with B.G. Respondent testified at hearing that he did not put his arm around B.G.'s waist; instead, he said that his hand was perhaps at the small of her back. Of course, from B.G.'s description, with which Respondent agreed at the pre-determination conference, the small of B.G.'s back was probably covered by her book bag. Therefore, Respondent also changed the part of his story where he had agreed with B.G.'s description that Respondent snaked his arm under her book bag. At the final hearing, he claimed that he did not reach under the book bag, because he remembered that her book bag was on her left side. Respondent reiterated that "[i]f there was any incidental contact [with her buttocks], that's what it was, in passing." Respondent's changed story was not credible. As described three days after the incident by B.G., confirmed in her testimony and confirmed in all salient respects by Respondent's admissions in the pre-determination conference, Respondent's physical contact with B.G. on October 31, 2011, was intentional and clearly inappropriate. Respondent's attempt to change the story supports the finding that he acted intentionally. Respondent attempted to eliminate the facts showing that he put himself in a position that virtually assured that his hand would have to slide across B.G.'s buttocks at least twice, once on the way out to the left side of her waist and once on the way back. Respondent's improper touching was distressing to B.G. and understandably so. B.G. described one other time earlier in the 2011-2012 school year when Respondent touched her in a way that made her uncomfortable. This incident occurred while B.G. was sitting at a piano practicing, alone, in one of the small piano practice rooms. Respondent came in and reached over her shoulders to put his hands on the keys, which he had done several times before, to demonstrate how to correctly play the piece she was practicing. In this position, his upper arms were touching her shoulders. After about ten seconds of demonstrating on the piano keys, he brought both arms back, and while doing so, his left hand touched the area of her chest right above her left breast and then continued up onto her shoulder. B.G. said that Respondent did not actually touch her breast, but it was close enough to make her feel uncomfortable, especially in such a small room with him standing right behind her and no one else there. The door to the piano practice room was open, and Respondent's hand encounter with the area above B.G.'s left breast was witnessed by C.R., who had walked by and looked in the room because she was looking for Respondent. B.G. told her mother about this incident in the piano practice room, but did not tell anyone else. B.G. did not mention this incident in her written statement, because her focus was on what she considered the more significant incident, when Respondent did not just come close to touching a private body part; he actually grabbed her buttocks, not once, but twice. When asked if she had witnessed any conduct of Respondent's with another student that she considered inappropriate, B.G. referred to the way he would always hug P.P. B.G. testified that she never saw Respondent hug other students. B.G. did not ever witness any inappropriate interaction between C.R. and Respondent, but C.R. told her about things. Lehigh has been an uncomfortable place for B.G. since Respondent was suspended in November 2011. A group of students have banded together to support Respondent, even going so far as to discuss making up "Free Sparrow" tee-shirts to wear in protest of his suspension, but they abandoned that idea when Respondent told them that they could get in trouble if they did that. There has been a lot of animosity directed to the three girls--P.P., B.G., and C.R.--who gave the interviews and statements reporting incidents of Respondent's inappropriate conduct with each of them. B.G. testified that she and the others have been accused of lying, and she cannot understand why. Even though apparently everyone knows the details of what Respondent was accused of, B.G. has not discussed the details with others, and if asked by others about the details, she has denied them because she was told she should not discuss the subject with anyone. C.R. C.R. was a 17-year-old female senior at Lehigh for the 2011-2012 school year; by now, she has graduated. She was a vocal major and took many classes over the years in chorus and piano, which were her musical areas of interest. C.R. did not attend Lehigh as a freshman, but has been there for three years and took Respondent's chorus and keyboard classes in each of her three years. C.R. did not know P.P., B.G., or M.M. before her senior year, when they were in Respondent's advanced chorus class together. The three sophomore girls described C.R. as more of an acquaintance than a friend. C.R. got along fine with Respondent and had no problems with him or his conduct in either her sophomore or junior years. By the end of those two years, C.R. had grown comfortable with Respondent, as he had been her music teacher for a while. In C.R.'s senior year, she had four classes with Respondent: two different keyboard classes, AP music theory, and advanced chorus. According to Respondent, because C.R. had two keyboard classes, he often used her as his aide during the second keyboard class, because she had already learned what she needed to in the first class. Respondent would have C.R. do copying, run to the library, and clean his office. Unlike in her first two years at Lehigh, in the first few months of her senior year, C.R. experienced numerous problems with Respondent, including improper physical contacts and inappropriate comments by Respondent. C.R. described multiple encounters with Respondent while she was playing the piano or keyboard, either in the private piano room or another practice room. At first, C.R. would be seated in a chair at the piano or keyboard playing, and Respondent, while standing, would reach one hand to the keys to show her the proper position and would rest his other hand on her chest area, below her shoulder and above her breast. When this first began in the early part of C.R.'s senior year, Respondent's "resting" hand would be towards the upper part of her chest, closer to the shoulder, but with each successive time, his hand went further and further down until it was resting on her breast. C.R. estimated that she was touched inappropriately this way by Respondent more than ten times in the first few months of the 2011-2012 school year until Respondent was suspended in November. C.R. testified that about halfway through the progression of these keyboard incidents, she was walking by the door to the piano practice room and saw through the door that Respondent was engaged in a similar hand-to-chest area encounter with B.G. Afterwards, C.R. approached B.G. and told her that Respondent does the same thing to her. C.R. said she wanted B.G. to know that she needed to tell someone because she was only a sophomore. When asked why C.R. did not tell Respondent to stop, she said, "I wouldn't know how to approach someone like that. I wouldn't, I wouldn't be able to tell you please don't touch my breast. It would make me very uncomfortable. I would rather just suck it up and deal with it." Respondent's description of his keyboard encounters was somewhat different than C.R.'s and B.G.'s descriptions, but he admitted key parts of those descriptions. Respondent explained that he frequently assisted his keyboard students while they are seated in a single chair at a piano or keyboard. Respondent chooses to remain standing, instead of pulling up another chair. Respondent emphatically denied standing behind his students; he claims to have always stood next to the playing student. However, Respondent admits that he would reach over the student (from the side) and lean over to the keyboard to demonstrate with one hand how to position the fingers on the keys. Respondent also admits that providing assistance this way puts him in a precarious position, so that he has to use his other hand to brace himself on the student's shoulder. Respondent said that he puts his hand "on their shoulder that's nearest me or on the shoulder that's on the opposite side of me," which means that Respondent would put an arm around the playing student, a strange way of bracing himself with his hand on their far shoulder. Thus, Respondent admits regularly touching C.R. and B.G., and presumably all of his other keyboard students, with his hand braced on their shoulders for the duration of the piece the student is playing. The only part Respondent disputes is the hand slippage from its shoulder perch down to the chest area in B.G.'s case, and still further down to the breast in C.R.'s case. However, C.R.'s and B.G.'s testimony was otherwise undisputed, and each of their stories was corroborative of the other's. Respondent's denial was not credible. In addition to the keyboard encounters, on multiple occasions in the few months before Respondent was suspended, C.R. would go to see Respondent in his office and he would ask her to come stand by him when he was sitting at his desk. When C.R. complied, Respondent would wrap his arm around her waist and rub or stroke her buttocks and thigh, while showing her something on the computer or telling her something he wanted her to do. C.R. estimated that these office encounters occurred ten or 15 times, until C.R. started trying to avoid going to his office or ignore his requests to come stand next to him. C.R. also began leaving Respondent's classroom between classes, instead of just staying in the room where she also had her next class with Respondent. To avoid encounters with Respondent between classes, C.R. would wait in the bathroom until students for the next class would arrive, and then she would join them for her next class. When asked whether she knew if Respondent intentionally touched her inappropriately, C.R. responded: "I think if a man touches you on your breast and on your hips and boob and your butt that he is being inappropriate." Once again, Respondent admitted frequent encounters with C.R. in his office, because, after all, he put her to work cleaning it and running errands for him. In addition, Respondent admitted that he would make physical contact with C.R., putting his arm around her while she stood next to him when he was seated at his computer. Once again, Respondent's description of these encounters stopped a bit short of C.R.'s version. According to Respondent, he would reach his arm (awkwardly) around and upward so that he could pat C.R. on her back for emphasis as he showed her something on the computer or showed her paperwork that he wanted her to copy. Once again, Respondent testified that although it was possible that his hand had an accidental encounter with C.R.'s buttocks, any such accident was just that-- accidental. C.R. also described Respondent's inappropriate conduct one day in her AP music theory class, in the presence of four or five other students. On that day, any time C.R. had a question or needed help, Respondent made her hug him before she could ask her question. Respondent also kissed her forehead when she answered a question correctly. She found this behavior objectionable. Respondent did not address this aspect of C.R.'s testimony, which stands unrebutted. C.R. also recounted her discomfort with Respondent's running brassiere commentaries. This string of incidents started during homecoming week, when there was a celebrity dress-up day on which C.R. went to class wearing an outfit that featured a neon-colored bra. Respondent made a joking comment, saying something like, "C., why is your bra so bright?" C.R. did not take this comment in the wrong way, because Respondent said it jokingly. What bothered C.R., however, was the progression of Respondent's brassiere comments and touchings that followed after that day. For example, when C.R. wore a low-cut or v-neck shirt, Respondent stood above her and looked down her shirt, and made comments such as, "I'm glad you're not wearing your neon bra today"; or "this bra is much nicer." Once when C.R.'s bra strap was showing, Respondent pushed the bra strap over and repeated one of the comments about the color of her bra. Respondent gave a slightly different story. He testified that after the neon bra joke, on another day when C.R.'s shirt had slipped and exposed her bra strap, he moved her shirt to cover up the bra strap, while commenting that he was glad she was not wearing the neon bra today. Respondent's version is almost as bad as C.R.'s description. Respondent has no business rearranging clothing of his female students in such a personal manner, nor commenting on their intimate apparel. Respondent often gave nicknames to his students, naming them some kind of "smurf" that suited them, such as "good singer smurf." C.R. described an encounter with Respondent that bothered her, when he pushed up the bottom part of her shirt in the back and said, "We should call you "love handle smurf." Finally, C.R. described what she thought was the final incident with Respondent before his suspension. This incident occurred in the piano room. C.R. had gone in the room between classes when no one else was there. She was tired from soccer practice, so she moved several chairs together so they were touching. She laid down across the seats, which formed a kind of bench. Her shirt had ridden up so some of her waist was exposed, though she had a jacket on over it. Respondent came into the room, pushed up her jacket, and started rubbing her waist and sides. C.R. was uncomfortable so she jumped up, said she had to go do something, and walked out. Respondent admitted that he found C.R. lying down as she had described. Respondent testified that he used his hands to rhythmically beat on her back as he told her to get up, that it was time to get to work. Respondent denied pushing up C.R.'s jacket and he denied that his hands made contact with her skin. Respondent offered a new fact at the final hearing regarding this incident that he did not mention at the pre- determination conference. According to Respondent, after he had been beating on C.R.'s back, she commented, "oh, this feels better than my boyfriend. And at that point I stopped, because that was an inappropriate statement, and that was not the nature of any of that. I left, and that was it." He later elaborated on why he stopped: "Because that was very inappropriate, and that was not--that was not my intention to make it--for her to compare me to her boyfriend or anything like that was way above-- I mean way crossed the line." Respondent also offered his opinion that the reason why C.R. had said all these things about him was because he thinks she had a crush on him and was jealous, or felt threatened, when she saw Respondent touching B.G.'s chest while she was playing piano. This too was a new twist to Respondent's final hearing testimony that Respondent did not see fit to share at his pre- determination conference. No other testimony was offered to support Respondent's new theory; none of the witnesses testifying on Respondent's behalf were even asked if they knew about C.R.'s supposed crush on Respondent. Respondent's unsupported speculation lacks credibility, in part because C.R. was not the one to report Respondent to the school administrators; in fact, she was the last of his victims to give a statement. General Defenses An overall theme of Respondent's attempt to refute the allegations against him was that the three young ladies misunderstood his intentions, which were not sexual in nature. Respondent attempted to prove that B.G., P.P., and C.R. were impressionable and that each of them was influenced to embellish what happened because of the stories that each of them told about Respondent. This effort was ineffective. Respondent, having admitted the core facts of each of the young ladies' allegations, was not credible in his denials of some of the details, as found above. Respondent's admission of serial "accidents" suggests that the incidents were no accident at all. Respondent also attempted to cast doubt on the allegations of the three young ladies by emphasizing the visibility of his office from the classroom and the partial visibility of the classroom and the piano and keyboard practice rooms from the hall, through window panels on the tops of the doorways. Respondent also attempted to suggest that there were always students in these areas. While the testimony established that most of Respondent's inner office would be visible to persons in the classroom, the testimony also established that there were times when Respondent would be in his office with a student and no one else around. The same is true with respect to the piano and keyboard rooms--the testimony established that these rooms may have been at least somewhat visible, but others were not always around. All of the student witnesses, including the four witnesses who attempted to support Respondent with their testimony, confirmed this fact; each of them had, on occasion, been alone with Respondent. The witnesses testifying in support of Respondent think highly of him as a teacher and do not believe the allegations against him. However, their testimony lacked substance to refute the allegations in any respect. For example, all of Respondent's student witnesses admitted that they were not always with B.G., P.P., M.M., and C.R. when those four girls were in Respondent's presence. All but one of Respondent's student witnesses said that they would be surprised to hear Respondent describe himself as a hugger. One student witness never saw Respondent hug any student; another student witness said that Respondent hugged everyone. The shame of it is that Respondent has been a very good and talented teacher. Indeed, after he was suspended, each of the young ladies who made statements against Respondent stated publicly that they wished he was still teaching because he was such a good teacher (and also because they did not think much of his replacement). But each of these young ladies made clear that they were speaking only of teaching ability, and if he had actually come back to teach them, they would have felt very uncomfortable because of his misconduct and because they spoke up against him. Prior Notice Respondent makes much of the fact that the three students whose allegations are the predicate for the charge of misconduct never complained to him about his conduct, so that he could change his conduct to address their concerns. Under the circumstances found above, notice should not have been required for Respondent to realize that serial "accidents" in which his hands found themselves on the buttocks of female students and other "accidents" in which his bracing hand slipped from shoulder perches downward in the direction of the breasts of female students, was improper conduct on his part. Moreover, Respondent admitted that he was indeed on notice about Lehigh's concern with him breaching body boundaries with female students. Respondent testified that he met with Lehigh Assistant Principal Niki Carthan sometime during the 2010-2011 school year, about a student complaint. Ms. Carthan informed Respondent that a student had complained to another teacher that Respondent made her feel uncomfortable. That teacher reported the complaint to Ms. Carthan, who spoke with Respondent about it. The student who had complained was a senior who was going to apply to FAMU, where Respondent attended. Respondent invited the student to his office to pull up her application essays on his computer. According to Respondent, the student was sitting down at his computer, and he reached around her for the mouse which was on the other side of her. He claims he did not touch her, but he acknowledged that by the nature of him reaching around her to click on the mouse that was on her other side and "being in close proximity to her looking at the computer screen, it might have made her uneasy " Respondent testified that Ms. Carthan warned him to be more careful and that he needed to be "very cognizant of your spacing" when it came to students. Rather than heeding Ms. Carthan's warning, Respondent was plainly less careful, not more careful. He did not learn his lesson from his close encounter that violated body space boundaries and made the FAMU-bound student uneasy enough to complain during the 2010-2011 school year. Instead, that too-close encounter in 2010-2011 progressed to numerous incidents of improper physical contacts by Respondent, with actual touching of private body parts, making three different young ladies very uncomfortable, fearful, and anxious about encounters with the one teacher who could teach them the music they loved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Lee County School Board, enter a final order terminating Respondent, Willie Sparrow's, employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 2012.
