The Issue Whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(f), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(h), and, if so, whether such conduct is just cause for dismissal of Respondent pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact During the 2002-2003 school year, Gary was employed by the School Board as a band and orchestra director at James Madison Middle School (Madison). Gary had been employed by the School Board for two years previous to the 2002-2003 school year. Prior to the incidents which are at issue in this case, Gary had been thought of by the Madison school administrators, students, and parents as an excellent teacher, who was able to inspire and motivate students. Gary taught C.J., a ninth-grader, advanced band and intermediate band during the 2002-2003 school year. Sometime during that school year, Gary noticed a dead dragonfly on a window in the band classroom. The dragonfly was removed from the window and placed in a trash receptacle. C.J. said that he would eat the dragonfly for a dollar. Another student said that he would give C.J. a dollar, and Gary said, "Okay." C.J. retrieved the dead dragonfly from the trash can and ate the insect. Gary gave C.J. a dollar. C.J.'s parents learned of the dragonfly incident through a younger cousin of C.J., who also attended Madison. C.J.'s mother went to see Gary to discuss the incident. Gary indicated to the mother that he was sorry for what had happened and that it was poor judgment on his part. C.J.'s mother felt that they had addressed the issue during their conversation and left the meeting satisfied about the issue. Gary did not advise school administration about C.J. and the dragonfly. After the dragonfly incident another situation arose involving Gary and C.J.'s eating an inappropriate item. Gary and some students, including C.J., were eating lunch in the cafeteria. Gary was eating baked ziti and began chewing on a particularly hard piece of ziti. He removed the ziti from his mouth and placed it on the side of his plate. Gary offered C.J. 12 dollars to eat the ziti, saying, "I bet you won't eat this piece of baked ziti." C.J. replied, "Oh, yes, I will." Gary then told C.J. not to eat the chewed food. Other students were egging C.J. on to eat the ziti, and C.J. picked the food off Gary's plate and ate it. One of C.J.'s cousins related the ziti incident to C.J.'s mother, and C.J.'s mother paid Gary another visit. The mother was not happy about the ziti episode and spent more time discussing the issue with Gary than she did when she visited him concerning the dragonfly. Gary told C.J.'s mother that he had bet C.J. 12 dollars to eat the ziti. The mother told Gary not to pay C.J. the money. Before she left the school on the day of the ziti discussion, she went to see Gary a second time to inquire about the status of his health because C.J. had eaten food that had previously been in Gary's mouth. Gary assured her that he was in good health. Gary did not advise school administration about the ziti incident. Gary was provided a copy of the school district's "Code of Ethics" which contained a section entitled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching." On of the admonishments in this section was "[k]eep your hands and other parts of your body to yourself." During the 2002-2003 school year, Gary put his hands inside students' pockets and searched for candy, chewing gum, notes, and money. He admitted searching the pockets of D.B., S.D., M.R., N.M., D.R., and L.B. Such actions were inappropriate and caused some of the students to feel uncomfortable. If a teacher suspects that a child has candy, chewing gum, or notes in his pocket, the correct procedure is to have the child empty his pockets so that the contents can be viewed. The teacher is not to put his hands in the student's pockets. L.D. was a student at Madison during the 2002-2003 school year, and Gary was her band instructor. L.D. considered Gary to be a "really good friend" as well as a teacher. During the 2002-2003 school year, L.D. was sitting on the stairs in the band room playing her band instrument. She played incorrectly, Gary came up to her, aggressively grabbed her neck, and said "urrr." She told him to stop, and he did. She did not think that his actions were sexual in nature, but did feel that they were inappropriate for a teacher. During the 2002-2003 school year, J.W. attended seventh grade at Madison. Gary was her band teacher. J.W. has hugged Gary, and he has hugged her back. J.W. has seen Gary hug other students at Madison. D.B. was a honor roll student at Madison. During the 2002-2003 school year, she was in Gary's first period orchestra class. She played the violin, and, during a two-week period when her violin was broken, she helped Gary in his office. Gary's office was located within the band room. The office had a door with a glass window, which took up at least three-quarters of the upper half of the door. Adjacent to the door, there was a large picture window which was on approximately the same level with the door window, but which was almost twice the size of the door window. A desk with a computer on it was located underneath the picture window. The top of the computer monitor came just below the bottom of the picture window. Occupants of the office could be seen from the band room; however, the evidence does not establish that the occupants could be seen fully from the band room. Gary made inappropriate comments to D.B., including telling her that she had sexy lips and telling her that she smelled good. These comments made D.B. feel uncomfortable. Gary also inappropriately touched D.B. While she and Gary were in his office, Gary "touched her inner thigh" and "rubbed it" and asked her if she knew how beautiful she was. In a second incident, Gary held her hand and rubbed her arm while she in his office to file papers during first period orchestra. During a third incident, Gary put his fingers inside her shorts at her waist, pulled her toward him, and asked her what she wanted. This incident took place when the door to the office was open. In another incident, D.B. asked Gary to tune her violin, and he put his hand up the bottom of her shirt. All the incidents happened during first period orchestra class when students were in the band room. Gary argues that D.B.'s testimony is not credible because of a conversation D.B. had with some fellow classmates. J.D., a classmate of D.B., was talking with D.B. and another classmate K.S. during fifth period of the 2002-2003 school year while Gary was still teaching at Madison. K.S. said, "You know what's being said about Mr. Gary is not true," and D.B. said, "Yeah, it's not true, don't say anything." The evidence did not establish what was being said about Gary and whether it concerned D.B.'s allegations against Gary. Thus, the evidence does not establish that D.B. was fabricating her allegations about Gary. Gary admits that he may have touched D.B. on occasion, but that the touching was not sexual in nature or inappropriate. M.R. was enrolled in Gary's second period and sixth period band classes during the 2002-2003 school year. She alleged that beginning in January 2003, Gary inappropriately touched her person. M.R. alleged that on two occasions when she was in Gary's office with the office door open and other students were present in the band room, Gary touched the outside of her clothing in her vaginal area. She also alleged that in a third incident that Gary placed his hand inside her pants underneath her underwear and rubbed her vagina. The third incident allegedly took place in the office with the door open and while other students were present in the band room. On a fourth occasion, M.R. alleged that Gary came up behind her in the filing room, placed his hands inside her shirt, and touched her breasts. The alleged incidents supposedly happened during third period lunch when other students were in the band room eating lunch or practicing. Of the students who testified at the final hearing and spent most of their lunch periods in the band room, none saw any inappropriate contact between Gary and M.R. M.R. had wanted to be first chair flute in her band class, but Gary made another student first chair. M.R. was angry about Gary's selection for first chair and told her friend J.W. sometime after Christmas 2002 that she was going to get even with Gary for not making her first chair. K.M., who was a student at Madison, overheard M.R. tell another student that the allegations and problems facing Gary were "what he deserves for not promoting me up in chair." M.R. does not have a good reputation in the community for truth and veracity. Her testimony concerning inappropriate touching by Gary is not credible, and it is found that those incidents did not happen. The School Board established other incidents of inappropriate behavior by Gary. Such behavior included telling a student that he could not wait until she was 21 so that he could be all over her and that it was a good thing that she was pretty because her brains would not get her anywhere; tickling her at the end of class; pulling her against her will onto his lap, and placing his arms around her arms and waist. Gary would also sit with students in the same chair in his office. Gary failed to tell school administrators of possible sexual misconduct between two students in the student restroom, when he became aware that some misconduct probably occurred between the two students. Although, the School Board proved these incidents, the School Board failed to allege the incidents in the Petition for Dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order dismissing Benjamin Leon Gary for just cause from his employment as a teacher with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier & Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Post Office Box 8248 Cocoa, Florida 32924-8248 Mark S. Levine, Esquire Levine, Stivers & Myers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Benjamin B. Garagozlo, Esquire 3585 Murrell Road Rockledge, Florida 32955 Dr. Richard A. DiPatri, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Clarence Dixon, Respondent, holds Teacher's Certificate No. 435879, Rank III, covering the area of physical education, which expires on June 20, 1984. At all times material hereto Respondent was employed by The School Board of Broward County at its facility known as Piper High School located at 800 Northwest 44th Street, Sunrise, Broward County, Florida. In that cause of action styled School Board of Broward County v. Clarence Dixon, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 81-1223, the Honorable R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered his Recommended Order directing [sic] that the Respondent, Clarence Dixon, be discharged as a teacher by The School Board of Broward County. Before the Broward County School Board acted on the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, Respondent submitted his resignation, further proceedings against him were terminated and no final order was entered by the Broward County School Board regarding the charges that had been preferred against Respondent. Exhibit 2, the Recommended Order in Broward County School Board v. Clarence Dixon, was admitted into evidence over objection by Respondent, for the limited purpose of showing that the hearing was held. Respondent's stipulation of admitted facts (Finding No. 3 above) admits more than that for which Exhibit 2 was admitted into evidence. The investigation of Respondent's conduct started when Sandra J. Brown, a security officer at Piper High School, overheard some students in the hall discussing Respondent. She then called one of these girls to her office to inquire into any contacts she had with Respondent. When it became evident that Respondent's statements or conduct towards the student may have been inappropriate, the student was taken to the Assistant Principal who, after hearing the story, directed Brown to investigate. As a result of this investigation, the School Board brought charges against Respondent, and, after those charges were disposed of, the proceedings here involved were instituted. Although Respondent disputes the testimony of the three complaining witnesses, McGee, Johnson and Snelling, their testimony was credible and believable, Some testimony was presented to show that Ms. Brown was carrying out a vendetta against Respondent in conducting the investigation; that at least one of the complaining witnesses had a "bad" reputation, meaning that she "came on to men"; that Dixon had told Ms. Brown about a dream he had about her involving sex; that Respondent, like other coaches specifically, was looked up to and frequently approached by students to discuss their problems; and that these incidents had been blown out of proportion to their seriousness. Evidence of misconduct unrelated to the specific charges involving McGee, Johnson and Snelling, has been disregarded as irrelevant to the charges here under consideration. On one occasion during the 1980-1981 school year at Piper High School Respondent approached Lesia McGee, a 16-year-old sophomore, in the hall between classes and commented on the clothes she was wearing and said the next time he saw her in purple slacks he would, as she testified, "tongue me to death." By that, McGee understood that he meant to kiss her. Valynda Johnson was a junior at Piper High School during the 1980-1981 school year and she had no classes under Respondent. She and Respondent talked on campus about how she dressed and various things unrelated to school. On several occasions he sent passes to her to leave class to come talk to him. Some of these times she was excused by her teacher and the conversation did not relate to school work. On one occasion Respondent asked Johnson when she was going to let him do it to her. When she replied "What do you mean?," he responded "You know what I mean." Johnson understood him to be talking about sex. Respondent asked Johnson to meet him at the 7-11 store down the street from the school and called her at her home on one or two occasions. She never went out with Respondent and no physical contact was made between Respondent and Johnson. Respondent had a gold chain delivered to Johnson from him by one of the football players. Respondent's testimony that he found this chain under a garbage can at school and, when he held it up in class to ask whose it was, Johnson claimed it, is not believed. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges Respondent gave a gold bracelet to Renee Snelling and this complaint was amended at the close of the hearing to change the bracelet to a chain to conform to the evidence. No evidence was submitted that Respondent gave Snelling either a chain or a bracelet. Renee Snelling was an 18-year-old student at Piper High School during the 1980-1981 school year. On one of the first occasions she talked to Respondent he told her she should be a model. Her career as a model was the dominant theme of most of their subsequent conversations. Respondent suggested she go to college and become a model. On one occasion he asked if they had sex would she tell anybody. On another occasion he told her he had a necklace for her. He never cave her the necklace but showed it to her one time when he removed it from his wallet. He called Snelling at her home on one or more occasions to ask her to go out. When Respondent returned from a trip to Moorhead College in Kentucky with some of the football players he took there in his own car to increase their interest in college, he brought back a T-shirt which he had delivered to Snelling by one of the football players. On one occasion Respondent sent a pass to Snelling but she does not recall if she left class to see him in response to the pass. The only occasion Respondent mentioned sex to Snelling was when he inquired if she would tell. The policy at Piper High School regarding passes is that they are used only with respect to school business, and rarely. If a student is in a class he cannot leave that classroom without the permission of that classroom teacher even if he receives a pass from another teacher. Respondent graduated from Pahokee High School in 1974 where he was a football star and a campus leader. With the ecouragement of his coaches, Respondent obtained a football scholarship at Bethune-Cookman College, from where he graduated in 1979. He is appreciative of the help and encouragement he received from his coaches and teachers and desires to repay that debt by helping others as he was helped. In doing this, he encourages all of the kids he talks to to go to college and get an education. When Respondent resigned from Broward County School System, he obtained a job at Pahokee High School in the Special Education Department teaching students with learning disabilities. His principal feels Respondent is doing an excellent job at Pahokee and that he is an asset to the school. During his year at Pahokee Respondent volunteered to coach and led the girls' track team to runner-up position in the state championships. He also took over the cross-country track team, which had been cancelled, and led this team to the district championship. He has continually encouraged students to continue their educations throughout high school and has gone out of his way to help them get scholarships, grants and other assistance towards this goal. Both Respondent and his wife have taken students, with parental consent, to out-of-town games, have had students over for dinner, have driven them to athletic contests, have provided transportation home from football practice which extended beyond the bus schedule, and generally have devoted considerable after-school-hours time to helping and encouraging students to attain higher standards in life.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 559726. During the first semester of the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent Hernandez was employed as a band director at Estero High School by the School Board of Lee County. The Respondent did not have continuing contract status within the school district as he had been employed by the local school board for only one full school year prior to the schools year in question. On Friday, November 11, 1988, Respondent and the Estero High School Band traveled by bus to a football game at Okeechobee High School. The bus trip took place after regularly scheduled classroom hours. As part of his transport procedures, the Respondent had some parents of the band members aboard the bus. The parents were seated at various locations throughout the bus to assist in the chaperoning of the students. During the trip, Respondent was seated by himself in the front right seat directly behind the stairwell. There were adult chaperones in the seats directly to his left, behind the bus driver. At least one adult was seated directly behind the Respondent on the right side of the bus. The purpose of the trip to Okeechobee was for the band to acquire another live performance prior to the band competitions which were scheduled during the upcoming week. The Respondent, who was then only twenty-seven years old, was proud of his band's exceptional accomplishments during his term as band director at Estero High. The parents and boosters of the band were also pleased with the students' accomplishments, and generally considered the Respondent to be a gifted and dedicated band director. His ability to relate to the students on a personal as well as professional level was lauded and encouraged by the parents. Respondent's own ideals of what his role ought to be in the lives of his students expanded during his employment at Estero High to include a role as chief confidant and provider of guidance to all students in need of assistance. The students readily accepted the additional attention and support from the Respondent. As part of his expanded role in his relationship with the students, Respondent allowed the seventeen-year-old female flag twirler, S.S., to discuss a very personal matter with him on the trip to Okeechobee. The student approached the Respondent and discussed her personal concerns and feelings about her sister's decision to date a previous boyfriend of hers. The student sought personal advice as to why she should not pursue a relationship with this former boyfriend. The Respondent listened sympathetically, and advised that it would be improper for her to indulge in a relationship with the ex-boyfriend, an adult. The taboos against minor-adult relationships were alluded to in a generalized, impersonal way. At the end of the counseling session, the student returned to her chosen seat in the back of the bus, and the trip to Okeechobee proceeded without incident. The student's discussions with the Respondent and his advice was considered by both of the participants as part of their student-teacher relationship. The Respondent and student were each of the opinion that a strictly professional relationship had been maintained over their prior school year and current school year association with each other. During the first two hours of the return trip home, many of the students were asleep. The band's performance took place after the game, and the students were tired. S.S. discovered that she was wide awake and generally bored during the return trip. She observed that the Respondent, who was seated up front, was also awake. After awhile, the bus stopped at a McDonald's restaurant to allow the passengers to eat. When the students returned to the bus, S.S. asked to borrow the Respondent's jacket. The student was cold because she was wearing shorts and had not contemplated the cooler temperature. Upon receiving the jacket, S.S. returned to her designated seat in the back of the bus. At one point, S.S. decided to visit with the Respondent. She went to the front of the bus and sat beside him. The student continued to use his jacket to cover her knees and lower legs. Between her knees and her shorts, her thighs were exposed. During their conversation, the student covered her arms and legs with the jacket, leaned forward in the seat, and began to playfully poke at Respondent's knee. The Respondent did nothing about these antics, which went on for only a short period of time. The student then slid her hand to the Respondent's mid- thigh. The Respondent perceived that the touching had become improper. He immediately reached over and stopped her hand from sliding further up his thigh. He firmly held her hand to communicate his disapproval of her behavior. He did not verbally admonish the student because he did not want to embarrass her or himself on the bus. He also believed that his non-verbal communication would be effective. Unfortunately, the student misinterpreted the squeezing of her hand and his release of it as an affectionate, "go ahead" signal. Upon the release of her hand by Respondent, she moved her hand to his genital area. The Respondent was not immediately aware that the student had misinterpreted his signal of disinterest. To his embarrassment and in reinforcement of the student's perception of his communication, her hand quickly located an aroused area of his body. Realizing he had completely lost control of the situation due to his involuntary biological response, the Respondent turned his entire body away from the student as another, stronger signal of disinterest. To his dismay, this movement allowed the student a surer grip on the area where her hand was located. The Respondent then shifted his body and crossed his legs in a fashion that required the student to remove her hand. The touching took place over a very short period of time that neither party could reliably estimate with any accuracy. Further conversation did not take place, and the student remained in the seat during the rest of the trip, which lasted about one-half hour. After thinking about the incident over the weekend, the Respondent spoke to the student the following Tuesday about disclosing the occurrence to a school official or her mother. The Respondent told the student that he would have to go to the school officials about the incident. Prior to his meeting with the student, the Respondent had arranged for a female music teacher to be available for the student. He had told the teacher of the incident and his concern that the student was attempting to pursue a non- professional relationship with him. He was also concerned for the student's emotional well-being when he reported the incident. Once the student realized that he was going to report the incident, she agreed to speak with the female music teacher while the Respondent made his report to an assistant principal on Tuesday afternoon. After reporting the incident, the Respondent continued to cooperate with the school administration and the Lee County School District in their investigations of the incident. During the incident which took place on the bus, the Respondent considered himself the victim of a seduction. In spite of this, he remained professionally concerned about the student and considered her welfare from the beginning of the incident until the close of the investigations. The character witnesses presented by the Respondent testified that he is an excellent band instructor and is of good character with excellent morals. His ethics regarding his relationship with students consistently met the high standards required in his teaching position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in Case No. 89-3661 be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3661 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #3. 4. Rejected. See HO #10 and HO #11. 5. Accepted. See HO #12. 6. Rejected. See HO #12. 7. Rejected. See HO #12. 8. Rejected. See HO #13. 9. Rejected. See HO #15 and HO #16. 10. Rejected. See HO #16. Rejected. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Rejected. The bus stairwell was lit in front of the Respondent. Accepted. See HO #18. Rejected. See HO #19. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. See HO #15. Accepted the first sentence. See HO #19. The rest of the sentence is rejected as contrary to fact. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #12 - HO #15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. The basis of the opinion was found to be factually incorrect by the Hearing Officer. Accepted. See HO #12. Rejected. See HO #12 - HO #15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Rejected. Irrelevant. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. See HO #7. 6. Accepted. See HO #7. 7. Accepted. See HO #8. 8. Rejected. Irrelevant. 9. Rejected. Irrelevant. 10. Accepted. See HO #4. 11. Rejected. Irrelevant. 12. Accepted. See HO #10 and HO #11. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. See HO #12. 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. 16. Accepted. See HO #12. 17. Accepted. See HO #12 and HO #13. 18. Accepted. See HO #15. 19. Accepted. See HO #15. 20. Accepted. See HO #17. 21. Rejected. Irrelevant. 22. Accepted. See HO #20. 24. Rejected. Improper conclusion. 25. Accepted. See HO #20. 26. Rejected. Irrelevant. 27. Rejected. Irrelevant and contrary to fact. 28. Rejected. Irrelevant and contrary to fact. 29. Accepted. 30. Accepted. 31. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Rex D. Ware, Esquire HUEY GUILDAY KUERSTEINER & TUCKER, P.A. Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire COLEMAN AND COLEMAN Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Commission Florida Education Center, Suite 352 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Leslie Weaver Procedural Safeguards Florida Education Center, Suite 614 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his teaching position without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County ("District"), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher with Petitioner since 2008. During the timeframe relevant to this proceeding,5/ Respondent was employed as a teacher at Forest Hill High School ("Forest Hill"). He taught the Theatre I, II, III, and Theatre I IB classes (collectively, the "drama classes") and the Speech and Debate classes, and was the faculty sponsor for the school's drama club. Respondent has not previously been subject to discipline by Petitioner, and the evidence shows that he consistently received high performance evaluations and was a popular teacher with the students at Forest Hill. Administrative Charges On or about April 6, 2016, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Respondent timely challenged Petitioner's action by requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1). The factual bases for the administrative charges against Respondent are set forth in paragraph 10 of the Petition, which constitutes the administrative charging document in this proceeding. Paragraph 10 alleges: "[o]n or about May 14, 2015, it was reported that Respondent interacted inappropriately and made inappropriate comments to students in his drama class." The Petition does not identify the time frame in which the conduct referenced in paragraph 10 is alleged to have occurred, nor does it specifically describe the conduct in which Respondent is alleged to have engaged that would violate the rules and policies cited in the Petition. Based on the facts alleged in paragraph 10 of the Petition, Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating the following: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A- 10.080(2), and 6A-10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); School Board Policy 3.27; and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).6/ If proved, the alleged violations of these rules and policies would constitute just cause under section 1012.33 to suspend Petitioner and terminate his employment as a teacher. Events Giving Rise to This Proceeding In March 2015, R.H., a student at Forest Hill, reported to Shawn McCall, a teacher at Forest Hill, that Respondent had engaged in what McCall characterized as "inappropriate" behavior with respect to another student, S.G. R.H. also relayed to McCall that S.G. had told her that Respondent was having a sexual relationship with another student, C.W. According to McCall, R.H. was emotionally distraught as she relayed this information to McCall. However, the evidence shows that R.H. did not have any personal knowledge regarding any of the matters she reported to McCall; rather, she relayed to him what she had been told by S.G. R.H. did not testify at the final hearing. McCall did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters that R.H. relayed to him. McCall reported the information he had received from R.H. to Dr. Mary Stratos, the principal of Forest Hill. Thereafter, Stratos spoke with R.H., who relayed to her that Respondent "may have been inappropriately touching" S.G. Pursuant to protocol, Stratos contacted the Palm Beach County School Police Department ("School Police"), which conducted an investigation of the matters relayed by R.H. The School Police interviewed students and teachers who witnessed, or may have witnessed, matters germane to the investigation. Stratos did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters about which R.H. told her.7/ As a result of the School Police investigation, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Evidence Regarding Factual Allegations in Petition As discussed above, the Petition does not provide any detail or specificity regarding the type or nature of the "inappropriate" interactions in which Respondent allegedly engaged, or the "inappropriate comments" Respondent allegedly made, with respect to the students in his drama class. From the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned gleans8/ that Petitioner has charged Respondent with making sexually-suggestive comments and jokes to, and making verbal sexual advances toward, students in his classes and in drama club; making physical sexual advances toward three students9/; and having a sexual relationship with one10/ of those students.11/ Student S.G. S.G., a former student in Respondent's drama classes, testified at the final hearing. S.G. was a student in Respondent's drama classes in the 2013-14 school year, when he was a junior, and the 2014-15 school year, when he was a senior. S.G. also was a member of the drama club for all of his junior year and part of his senior year. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in verbal and physical sexual advances toward him during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's classes and was a member of the drama club. Specifically, S.G. testified that during both years, Respondent would constantly ask him how large his penis was in front of the entire class, loudly enough for others to hear. He also testified that Respondent would comment on his appearance openly in class, telling him that he looked "cute," and that Respondent would frequently look at him in a sexually-suggestive manner while biting his lower lip and sticking out his tongue. S.G. also testified that during both years, during drama class and in drama club rehearsals, Respondent often would get very close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him. On cross-examination, S.G. characterized the frequency of Respondent's attempts to kiss him and sniff his neck as occurring "daily" or "every other day, at least." Also on cross- examination, S.G. asserted that Respondent's behavior was open and obvious "to everyone," including to persons passing in the hallway when Respondent engaged in such conduct while standing in the doorway of his classroom. S.G. also testified that during his junior year, Respondent sniffed his neck and bit his nipple as he and another student were moving a platform from center stage following a drama club rehearsal. According to S.G., the other student moving the platform was the only witness (other than Respondent) to the incident. That student did not testify at the final hearing. Additionally, S.G. testified that during his senior year, Respondent "cupped" his genitals on one occasion12/ as he held the auditorium door for female drama club students, and that after this incident, he quit participating in the drama club. S.G. testified that he heard Respondent frequently make sexual comments to students R.C. and C.W. in drama class and during drama club rehearsals, and he often saw Respondent try to kiss students R.C. and C.W. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in this conduct frequently, in front of everyone in drama class and during drama club rehearsals. S.G. also testified that he heard Respondent and C.W. exchange sexual jokes, engage in sexually explicit discussions, and call each other "pet" names "all the time." Additionally, S.G. testified that one day, he saw Respondent and C.W. come to a pep rally "together" and sit together, and also that they were "just together constantly." On these bases, he surmised that Respondent and C.W. were engaged in a sexual relationship. S.G. testified that he did not report Respondent's conduct to anyone because he was embarrassed and thought that no one would believe him because Respondent was a popular teacher. He also testified that he was concerned that if he reported Respondent's conduct, school authorities would find out that he was attending Forest Hill instead of the school (Wellington) for which his actual place of residence was zoned. When asked why he chose to take a second year of Respondent's drama class after Respondent purportedly had engaged in the conduct that he claimed, S.G. testified that he took the drama course in his senior year because it was an easy class in which you could get an A just for attending, that Respondent was a very lax teacher who let students play on their phones, and that some of his friends were in the class. On or about March 5, 2015, S.G. told R.H. that Respondent had made verbal and physical sexual advances toward him and that Respondent was engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. As discussed above, R.H. relayed this information to McCall, who relayed it to Stratos. Shortly thereafter, the investigation leading to this proceeding was initiated. Student R.C. As previously discussed, student R.C.'s deposition was admitted into evidence when R.C. did not appear to testify at the final hearing despite having been subpoenaed by Petitioner.13/ R.C. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his freshman and sophomore years and was a member of the drama club. R.C. initially testified that he had heard Respondent make "homosexual jokes," but then clarified that Respondent would, on occasion, compliment students, saying things like "you look nice today." R.C. testified that he had heard Respondent and C.W. engaged in "homosexual jabber," but was unable to recall anything specific that he had heard Respondent and C.W. say to each other that constituted "homosexual jabber." R.C. testified that S.G. had told him, in passing, that Respondent engaged in "homosexual jokes" with him and that S.G. was upset about it; however, R.C. testified that S.G. was mostly upset because Respondent gave preference to C.W. in assigning roles in the drama club plays. R.C. testified that S.G. felt that Respondent treated him unfairly by not giving him a more prominent role in a play being produced by the drama club, and that S.G. would become upset if Respondent corrected him on stage during rehearsals. R.C. also testified that S.G. told him that Respondent had tried to kiss him (S.G.), but that again, it was in passing, and that S.G. mainly vented about how he was upset about learning lines in drama class. R.C. testified that once during class, he had gone to Respondent with a personal issue, and that after Respondent listened and talked with him, Respondent tried to kiss him. However, R.C. subsequently clarified that Respondent had actually blown a kiss in a theatrical manner in R.C.'s direction as he went back to his seat. R.C. stated that he had never had a problem with Respondent and that he liked him as a teacher. Student C. W. C.W. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his junior and senior years of high school, and also served as Respondent's teacher's aide in his senior year. He also was a member of the drama club in his junior and senior years. In high school, C.W. aspired to be an actor. He is majoring in theater in college. While in high school, Respondent functioned as C.W.'s mentor and would coach him on acting techniques after school, either in his classroom or in the auditorium. C.W. credibly testified that Respondent did not charge him for the tutoring, and that he never paid Respondent for tutoring. C.W. credibly testified that his relationship with Respondent was strictly professional and related to acting. C.W. credibly testified that he and Respondent did not have a personal relationship; that neither had visited each other's house; that they did not date; that Respondent had not made any sexual advances toward him or tried to kiss him; and that Respondent had never done anything to make him feel uncomfortable. C.W. also credibly testified that he and Respondent did not engage in sexual discussions and did not call each other pet names. C.W. confirmed that he had talked to Respondent at a school pep rally. Specifically, C.W. arrived at the pep rally separately and sought Respondent out, because, as C.W. put it, "I'd rather spend my time talking to him, if I could, about acting or something whenever I could instead of just watching a pep rally." C.W. testified that he stood, not sat, next to Respondent during the pep rally. C.W. credibly testified that during his time as a student and teacher's aide in Respondent's classes and during drama club rehearsals, he never heard Respondent make inappropriate comments toward, engage in sexual discussions with, make verbal sexual advances toward, or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct directed toward S.G., R.C., or any other students. He also never saw Respondent sniff any student's neck or embrace any student. C.W. also credibly testified that during Respondent's classes, students were required to be engaged in school work related to theater and were not allowed to use their phones. To that point, C.W. noted that Respondent often would confiscate phones if the use of them was "getting out of hand." C.W. also credibly testified that Respondent did not curse or participate in sexual joke-telling or banter, that he would not tolerate students making sexual jokes or cursing in his class, and that he would threaten discipline if they engaged in such conduct. Student I.D. I.D. was a student in Respondent's classes in her sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school, and she also served as Respondent's teacher's aide. She also was a member of the drama club. In her junior year, she was in drama class with S.G., who also was a junior that year. I.D. credibly testified that she had never seen Respondent act inappropriately toward S.G. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G. or get close to his face, nor did she ever see Respondent make overtures to any students in his class or in the drama club. She also testified, credibly, that she never saw any conduct by Respondent directed toward C.W. that suggested a personal relationship between Respondent and C.W. Student V.A. V.A. was a student in Respondent's classes. She took four classes from him while attending Forest Hill. During her junior and senior years, she took drama classes from Respondent. During both years, S.G. also was a student in those classes. V.A. credibly testified that she sat close enough to S.G. and Respondent to hear conversations between them, and that she never heard Respondent ask about S.G.'s penis size. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G., embrace him or smell his neck, or otherwise engage in any inappropriate conduct toward him, and she never saw Respondent make any sexual advances toward any other students, including R.C. and C.W., in the classroom. Likewise, she never saw Respondent make sexual advances or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct, or make inappropriate comments, directed toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in the drama club. V.A. was friends with C.W. She credibly testified that she often was present when C.W. and Respondent were together and that she never heard them call each other pet names. Through her friendship with C.W. and her frequent interactions with Respondent and C.W., she did not believe that Respondent was any closer to C.W. than he was to other students in the class. V.A. also credibly testified that while in Respondent's classes, students always were engaged in classwork, were not allowed to sit around and play on their phones, and, in fact, were not permitted to have their phones out during Respondent's classes. Respondent Respondent credibly testified that he did not have a sexual interest in S.G. or C.W. He also credibly testified that he never tried to kiss S.G., R.C., or C.W. He credibly denied having ever groped S.G., and he also credibly denied having bitten S.G. He denied having ever embraced any students or having smelled their necks. Respondent credibly testified that he did not make sexual comments toward S.G., and he credibly denied having asked or joked about the size of S.G.'s penis or that of any other student. Respondent tutored C.W. in theater after school, and he credibly testified that he was not paid for it. He also credibly testified that he did not call C.W. by pet names, and he credibly denied having anything other than a teacher-student academic mentoring relationship with C.W. Clear and Convincing Evidentiary Standard As discussed in greater detail below, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to this proceeding. This burden requires that: [T]he evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994). Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Comments, Jokes, and Verbal Sexual Advances Toward Students Petitioner has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or made verbal sexual advances toward students in his drama classes or in the drama club. S.G.'s testimony that Respondent constantly asked him how large his penis was and also made similar comments to R.C. and S.G.——frequently, loudly, and openly in class, where others could hear——during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's drama class, was not credible. Not only did no other witness corroborate S.G.'s testimony, but the testimony of C.W., I.D., and V.A. flatly contradicted it. Those witnesses——who were students in Respondent's class, and, thus, in a position to hear and see any "constant," loud comments of a sexual nature——credibly and persuasively testified that they never heard Respondent make sexual comments, tell sexual jokes, or make verbal sexual advances to any members of the class, including S.G. Had Respondent made these comments——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have heard them; yet all consistently and credibly denied having ever heard them. Although R.C. initially testified that he heard Respondent make "homosexual" comments, he subsequently clarified that Respondent simply occasionally complimented students on their appearance. Additionally, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was unable to specifically articulate anything that either Respondent or C.W. said that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. Additionally, Respondent credibly and persuasively denied having made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or engaged in verbal sexual advances toward S.G. or any other student in his class or in the drama club. The undersigned finds the testimony of C.W., I.D., V.A., and Respondent on these allegations credible and persuasive, while finding S.G.'s testimony incredible and unpersuasive. Further, R.C.'s testimony regarding hearing Respondent make "homosexual jokes" and engage in "homosexual jabber" was not precise, explicit, or distinctly remembered; rather, it was equivocal and non-specific. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made sexual comments or jokes to, or made verbal sexual advances toward, the students in his drama classes and in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Physical Sexual Advances toward Students The undersigned also finds incredible and unpersuasive S.G.'s testimony that Respondent would get close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him, and that Respondent engaged in similar conduct toward C.W. and R.C. S.G. testified that Respondent directed this conduct toward him openly and obviously to everyone, on an almost daily basis. However, C.W., I.D., and V.A.——all of whom were in the drama class, drama club, or both, so were in a position to observe any such behavior——all unequivocally testified that they had never observed Respondent engage in any of those actions toward S.G. or any other students. Again, had Respondent engaged in this conduct——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have seen that conduct; yet, all persuasively and credibly testified that they never saw Respondent engage in such conduct. S.G. also testified that on one occasion, Respondent bit him on the nipple, and that one other student (who did not testify at the final hearing) witnessed it. Respondent credibly denied having engaged in this behavior. The undersigned does not find S.G.'s testimony on this point credible or persuasive. To the contrary, the undersigned finds it far more likely that, had Respondent engaged in such behavior, S.G. would have told his mother, school authorities, or other students——and, most important——would not have voluntarily taken another drama class from Respondent the following year.14/ Furthermore, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony that he did not bite S.G.'s nipple credible and persuasive. S.G. also testified at the hearing that on one occasion during his senior year, Respondent had purposely groped his genitals. However, in his sworn statement made during the School Police investigation, S.G. stated that Respondent had "constantly" tried to kiss him and grab him in his "private area," and that Respondent had grabbed his genitals on more than one occasion——the latest occasion as recently as a week before S.G. was interviewed as part of the investigation. S.G.'s hearing testimony is patently inconsistent with his sworn statement on a material detail——i.e., the frequency with which he claims Respondent grabbed or attempted to grab his genitals. This inconsistency bears directly on S.G.'s credibility as a witness. Due to this obvious inconsistency on a key detail——one which cannot credibly be explained to mistake or lapse of memory——S.G.'s testimony that Respondent grabbed his genitals is deemed incredible and unpersuasive. Further, the undersigned finds credible and persuasive Respondent's testimony that he did not ever grab S.G.'s genitals. Although R.C. initially testified that Respondent tried to kiss him, he subsequently clarified that Respondent had, in fact, blown a "theatrical kiss" toward him as he returned to his seat after they had engaged in a discussion. This testimony does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made a sexual advance toward R.C. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made physical sexual advances toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in his drama class or in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Relationship with Student The credible, persuasive evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. S.G.'s testimony that he heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, and call each other pet names "all the time" was directly contradicted by the credible, persuasive testimony of C.W. and Respondent, both of whom denied engaging in such conduct. Furthermore, I.D. and V.A.——both of whom were in Respondent's classes and in the drama club, so were often around both Respondent and C.W.——persuasively and credibly testified that they never heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, call each other pet names, or otherwise engage in inappropriate verbal or physical conduct toward each other. Additionally, as previously discussed, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was not able to specifically articulate anything that Respondent or C.W. said to each other that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. The fact that Respondent and C.W. stood (or even sat) next to each other and talked to each other during a school pep rally——and that, consequently, S.G. and R.C. perceived them as a "couple"——is of no probative value in proving the existence of a sexual relationship between Respondent and C.W.15/ Indeed, the undersigned finds completely credible and persuasive C.W.'s testimony that he had gone to the pep rally separately, and found Respondent and stood by him specifically to talk to him about acting instead of watching the pep rally. Respondent and C.W. both credibly and persuasively denied being involved in a sexual relationship, engaging in sexual jokes with each other, or calling each other pet names. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. Findings of Ultimate Fact It is well-established in Florida law that whether charged conduct constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by rule or statute is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cnty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, whether alleged conduct violates the laws, rules, and policies set forth in the charging document is a factual, not legal, determination. For the reasons addressed in detail above, the competent substantial evidence in the record does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in any of the conduct with which he was charged in the Petition. Therefore, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not violate the following rules and policies, as charged in the Petition: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.080(2), and 6A- 10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), (4) and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).16/ Accordingly, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is just cause, as defined in section 1012.33(1)(a), to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent, reinstating his employment as a teacher, and awarding him back pay to the date on which he was first suspended without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 24th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Sarasota County should suspend the Respondent, William Keith Stark, without pay for ten days on charges that he violated F.A.C. Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make "reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety."
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, William Keith Stark, is the band director at Sarasota High School. The Respondent's office is in an area of the school that houses both the band room and the chorus room, as well as the music library. The entrance to the Respondent's office is off a vestibule to the west of the office. There is a storage/copy room directly behind (to the east of) the Respondent's office. It is the same width as the Respondent's office. The only access to the storage/copy room is through a door in the rear of the Respondent's office. The music library is behind (to the east of) the storage/copy room, but it is only half the width of the Respondent's office and the storage/copy room. It is behind the southern half of the storage/copy room. Access to the music library is only through the band room; there is no access through the storage/copy room. The band room is a large room that runs along, and shares a wall with, the south side of the Respondent's office, the storage/copy room, and the music library. The chorus room is an equally large room that runs along, and shares a wall with, the north side of the Respondent's office, the storage/copy room and another, unidentified room behind (to the east of) the northern half of the storage/copy room. The entrances to the band room and to the chorus room are off the same vestibule containing the entrance to the Respondent's office. Since before the time the Respondent first came to Sarasota High School as an assistant band director in 1984, it has been the practice for band members to use the band and chorus rooms (and sometimes the music library) for changing clothes before practices and performances. If, for example, the boys used the chorus room, the girls in the band would use the band room, or vice versa. It was obvious and well known to anyone familiar with the band program that there was a window between the band room and what is now the storage/copy room. No privacy issue arose; apparently, appropriate steps were taken to insure the privacy of band members using the band room to change clothes. In approximately 1985, band booster parents suggested putting a dark, reflective film on the band room side of the window between the band room and the storage/copy room so that, from the band room side, the window could be used as a mirror for grooming purposes. The band director concurred, and it was done. The addition of the reflective film was viewed as an improvement to the facility and was obvious and well known to anyone familiar with the band program. Initially, there was no need to make a formal announcement as to the presence and nature of the reflective film. Although the dark film placed on the window was reflective, it was obvious and well known to anyone familiar with the band program that it was not a mirror. Band booster parents who chaperoned when the band room was being used as a dressing room before performances sometimes were in the storage/copy room and could see out the window into the band room. They also had access to and sometimes used the storage/copy room during monthly band booster parent meetings that were held in the Respondent's office. In addition, looking closely, it was possible under most conditions to see through the reflective film into the storage/copy room from the band room side. Even if vision was not clear, it would be possible to see shadows and movement. When a light was turned on in the storage/copy room (or, when the door between the two rooms was open, in the Respondent's office), it was easy to see into the storage/copy room from the band room side. The Respondent became the band director in approximately 1986. Over the years, the presence and nature of the reflective film continued to be common knowledge that was acquired by new band members and their parents by personal observation or passed along to them from others by word of mouth. No formal announcements were made. No privacy issue arose after the addition of the reflective film. First, as explained above, the presence and nature of the reflective film was obvious and well known. Second, as band director, the Respondent took appropriate steps to insure the privacy of band members using the band room to change clothes. He rarely was in his office, much less in the storage/copy room, while band members were using the band room to change clothes. When he was not in his office, it remained locked. In addition, the Respondent's wife is a full-time band volunteer, and she usually is stationed in the vestibule to control access to the band room and to the Respondent's office. In October, 1994, a privacy issue concerning the reflective film was raised for the first time. A dancer in "Palms," a dance group that is part of the school band, mentioned to her mother in the course of conversation that it was possible to see through the reflective film into the storage/copy room from the band room. In testimony at final hearing, the daughter admitted that she had known about the nature of the reflective film since she became a "Palms" dancer in the spring of 1994 and that she "didn't think anything of it" until her mother "explained it to her." Her mother "explained" that the presence of the reflective film was an invasion of her daughter's privacy and that the Respondent at least should have made an announcement as to the presence and nature of the reflective film. The complaining mother and daughter have been involved in ongoing disputes with the Respondent. One of their complaints was that the Respondent did away with the practice of having "Palms" team captains just before the daughter was to become a captain. Another complaint had to do with concerns about discipline within the "Palms" dance group. Perhaps, related to the discipline concern, the girl's mother also objected to the extent to which the Respondent's wife's was involved in the program. Eventually, she attempted to secure the school principal's promise to prohibit the Respondent's wife from further involvement in the program. When the principal refused to do so, the mother became angry and has been heard to vow that, before she was finished, she would have the Respondent fired. After sending her daughter and another student on a "spy" mission to ascertain the presence and nature of the reflective film, the mother complained to the principal. From what the mother told him, the principal thought the window should be covered. He contacted the school's custodian and instructed him to cover the window so that it was impossible to see through it. The next day, the Respondent saw the custodian as the custodian was getting ready to carry out the principal's instructions. When the Respondent asked the custodian what he was doing, and the custodian told him, the Respondent offered to do it himself. The Respondent generally tries to do the routine custodial work required in the area of his office so as to relieve the custodian from having to do it. In this case, the Respondent had additional innocent motivation for offering to cover the window for the custodian. The custodian had health problems (cancer, from which he has since died), and the principal had discussed with the Respondent the need to find ways to reduce the custodian's workload. The Respondent thought that the principal would have wanted him to offer to cover the window himself. The Respondent did not immediately get around to covering the window. But, in the meantime, and since approximately April, 1994, there had been a very large, stuffed, seated teddy bear on a shelf in front of the window. (Its shape was generally triangular, four feet wide at the base and four feet high. In the middle, it was about three feet wide.) There also were audio speakers on the shelf on either side of the teddy bear. These objects partially "covered" the window although it would still be possible to see around them. Before the Respondent got around to doing anything else about covering the window, another parent complained to an assistant school superintendent about a week later that the window still had not been covered. The assistant superintendent reported the complaint to the school principal. The school principal inquired of the custodian, who reported his conversation with the Respondent. The school principal then telephoned the Respondent at his home over the weekend and ordered him to immediately cover the window. First thing Monday morning, the Respondent hung and taped a piece of vinyl and poster board over the window to cover it. Later, the window was boarded over permanently. There was no evidence that anyone other than the vengeful mother and daughter, and the other parent who telephoned the school principal, ever has raised any privacy issue as to the window or the reflective film. All other band members and parents seem to fully support the Respondent and his wife. There is no evidence that any band or "Palms" member was unaware of the presence or nature of the reflective film on the window. Notwithstanding that there was no formal announcement as to the presence or nature of the reflective film on the window, it was not proven that the practice of using the band room for changing clothes invaded anyone's privacy, or that the Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental and/or physical health and/or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Sarasota County enter a final order dismissing the charges against the Respondent and to require that he be fully compensated for any period of suspension which he might have served. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 24th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2367 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-3. Rejected as not proven that it was a "mirror." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that it was a "mirror" or that only "some" knew "or strongly suspected" the presence and nature of the reflective film on the window. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven that Baus did not know of the presence and nature of the reflective film on the window; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, accepted and subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. Penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found, and to the greater weight of the evidence, to the extent that it implies that the Respondent covered the window immediately after his first conversation with the custodian. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Williams, Esquire 1900 Main Street, Suite 205 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides 34650 US 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Dr. Charles W. Fowler, Superintendent School Board of Sarasota County 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-6049 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a Florida educator's certificate should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons dated November 15, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Clayton R. Allen, began his teaching career when he was employed as a teacher by the Hillsborough County School Board for the 2003-2004 school year. Petitioner was assigned to Wharton High School, where he worked during the 2003-2004 school year and for most of the 2004-2005 school year. Petitioner's job performance for those two years was rated as satisfactory. During the 2004-2005 school year, Petitioner worked as the director of the Wharton High School chorus and orchestra. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Wharton High School orchestra and the school's chorus each had a booster club. The Orchestra Booster Club and the Chorus Booster Club are composed of parents and volunteers who assist with the respective orchestra and chorus programs and help support fundraising activities. The Orchestra Booster Club and the Chorus Booster Club are separate entities with separate checking accounts. Laura Jean Raley, the parent of a student in the Wharton High School chorus, was the president and treasurer of the Chorus Booster Club during the 2004-2005 school year. During that time period, Ms. Raley, then known as Laura Bergen, was the only person authorized to write checks on the Chorus Booster Club checking account.5 The checks for the Chorus Booster Club were kept in the chorus/orchestra office at the school, which was used by Petitioner. Consequently, Petitioner had access to those checks. At this proceeding, Ms. Raley, formerly Ms. Bergen,6 identified several checks from the 2004-2005 school year that were written on the Chorus Booster Club checking account. Even though her name was on the signature line of most of those checks, Ms. Raley testified credibly that she had not signed three of the above-referenced checks. The checks written on the Chorus Booster Club checking account which Ms. Raley, formerly Ms. Bergen, did not sign were Check Nos. 1123, 1127 and 1130. The first check (No. 1123), dated February 4, 2005, for $184.00, was payable to Quality and Plus Cleaners; the memo section of the check indicates that the payment was for "chorus dresses." The second check (No. 1127), dated March 10, 2005, for $40.00, was payable to the Florida Vocal Association. The third check (No. 1130), dated April 21, 2005, for $300.00, was payable to Clayton Allen; the memo section of the check indicated that the payment was for a "refund." Although not authorized to do so, Petitioner wrote and signed "L. Bergen" on each of the three checks on the Chorus Booster Club checking account described in paragraph 7. Check No. 1123 and Check No. 1127, payable to Quality and Plus Cleaners and to the Florida Vocal Association, respectively, were for chorus-related expenses and appear to have been deposited into the accounts of those payees.7 Check No. 1130, for $300.00, was written to and signed and endorsed by Petitioner. Although the check indicated the payment was for a "refund," no documentation or explanation was offered regarding the reason for the refund or if the $300.00 was, in fact, for a refund. Nancy Johnson was the president and/or treasurer of the Wharton Orchestra Booster Club in the 2003-2004 school year. During the 2003-2004 school year through about May 9, 2005, Ms. Johnson was the only person authorized to sign checks on the Orchestra Booster Club checking account. At the end of the 2003-2004 school year, when Ms. Johnson's tenure as an officer in the Orchestra Booster Club ended, Ms. Johnson gave Petitioner all the checkbooks for the Orchestra Booster Club checking account.8 On or about May 9, 2005, both Petitioner and Ms. Johnson went to the bank to change the authorized signer on the Orchestra Booster Club checking account. At that time, Ms. Johnson was removed as the authorized signer on the Orchestra Booster Club checking account, and Petitioner was put on the account as the authorized signer.9 During the 2004-2005 school year, Petitioner had planned to take members of the orchestra on a field trip to Orlando, Florida, in the spring of 2005. Not long before the scheduled field trip, Petitioner determined that additional funds were needed for transportation to Orlando.10 During the 2004-2005 school year, B.F. was about 16 years old and a student at Wharton High School. B.F. was in the school's orchestra, in Petitioner's orchestra class, and was also Petitioner's student assistant for one class period a day. Prior to the date the students were to go on the field trip, B.F. became aware that additional funds were needed in order for the orchestra members to go on the field trip. B.F. wanted to help out and, to that end, willingly gave Petitioner $2,250.00 in cash, from his (B.F.'s) personal savings account, as a loan to help with the cost of the orchestra's field trip to Orlando.11 Prior to giving Petitioner the $2,250.00, B.F. never discussed or disclosed to his parents that he was providing the $2,250.00 loan. B.F. wanted "to keep it [the loan] real discreet," because he knew his parents would not have approved. On or about April 23, 2005, the night that the students returned from the field trip, Petitioner gave B.F. a check for $2,250.00 as repayment for the loan. The check was written on the Wharton High School Orchestra Booster Club account at AmSouth Bank and was made payable to B.F. On the signature line of the check, Petitioner signed the name "Nancy Johnson," because at that time, Ms. Johnson was the authorized signer of the account. A few days after receiving the $2,250.00 check from Petitioner, B.F. went to AmSouth Bank and presented the check for payment. However, when he presented the check, there were insufficient funds in the Orchestra Booster Club checking account to pay the check, so payment was declined. In or about early May 2005, after B.F. was unable to cash the $2,250.00 check, his parents became aware that he had made the loan to Petitioner. Soon thereafter, B.F.'s mother contacted George Gaffney, then principal of Wharton High School. B.F.'s mother complained that: (1) Petitioner had given B.F. a check as repayment for the $2,250.00 loan to help cover the transportation cost of the field trip to Orlando; and (2) the check could not be cashed, because there were insufficient funds in the account on which the check had been written. On or about May 2, 2005, Mr. Gaffney reported the complaint made by B.F.'s mother to Linda Kipley, the general manager of Professional Standards for the Hillsborough County School District ("School District"). Ms. Kipley then initiated an investigation of the complaint and assigned two School District investigators, Kamir Ode and Andrew Rouleau, to assist with the investigation. That same day Ms. Kipley also began to work with Mr. Gaffney to remove Petitioner from his assigned classroom duties. Ms. Kipley met with Petitioner on or about May 7, 2005, and informed him that she had initiated an investigation of the complaint made by B.F.'s mother. On or about this same day, Petitioner was no longer allowed to continue his teaching responsibilities at Wharton High School. On May 11, 2005, Investigator Ode, the lead investigator in the case, interviewed Petitioner about the allegations related to the $2,250.00 check. Investigator Rouleau was present during the entire interview and heard the questions asked by Investigator Ode, Petitioner's responses to those questions, and the admissions made by Petitioner. During the May 11, 2005, interview, Petitioner made several admissions which substantiate the findings in paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 above. Petitioner also admitted that while employed at Wharton High School, he "borrowed" money from the booster club checking accounts for his personal expenses (i.e., to pay bills), but always repaid the money.12 According to Petitioner, he was able to obtain the money by writing checks to himself on the booster club accounts. Upon completion of the School District's investigation, a written investigative report was prepared and submitted to Ms. Kipley. According to the investigative report, based on his findings, Investigator Ode referred the matter to local law enforcement officials. On May 23, 2005, the Hillsborough County Sheriff arrested Petitioner and charged him with the following: four counts of forgery; (2) four counts of uttering a forged instrument; (3) one count of petty theft; and (4) one count of grand theft. On May 23, 2005, after Petitioner was released from custody, he met with Ms. Kipley, who advised him that the School District was aware of his arrest and of the criminal charges against him. During that meeting, Petitioner resigned his position with the School District in lieu of being terminated. During the School District's investigation of the complaint against Petitioner, Mr. Gaffney paid B.F. the $2,250.00 he (B.F.) had loaned Petitioner for the field trip from the Wharton High School Internal Fund. In State of Florida vs. Clayton Allen, Hillsborough County Criminal Division Case No.: 05-10057, Petitioner was charged with Forgery (four counts), Uttering a Forged Instrument (four counts), Petit Theft and Grand Theft.13 On or about April 17, 2006, Petitioner entered into a Pre-Trial Intervention Agreement ("Agreement") with the State Attorney in Hillsborough County, Florida ("State Attorney"). The Agreement related to the charges described in paragraph 25 above. Pursuant to the Agreement, by virtue of Petitioner's acceptance into the State Attorney's Pre-Trial Intervention Program, prosecution of the criminal case was deferred for 18 months. On April 18, 2006, the day after Petitioner was accepted into the Pre-Trial Intervention Program, the State Attorney closed the file on all counts in Petitioner's criminal case. Under the terms and conditions of the Agreement, Petitioner was required to do (among other things) the following: (1) pay restitution in the amount of $2,250.00; perform 50 hours of community service; and (3) be either gainfully employed or enrolled in school while in the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. Finally, according to the Agreement, "should the Defendant [Petitioner] fully meet the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the charges referred to herein shall be dismissed." Petitioner was never prosecuted for or convicted of any of the offenses for which he was charged. Accordingly, it is reasonably found that Petitioner "fully [met] the terms and conditions of [the] Agreement," including: (1) paying restitution in the amount of $2,250.00; and (2) enrolling in school. With regard to the restitution, it is reasonably found that the restitution was paid to Wharton High School since B.F. had been previously paid the $2,250.00 from the school's internal fund. In accordance with the education or employment requirement in the Agreement, while in the Pre-Trial Intervention Program, Petitioner earned his master's degree in music from the University of South Florida. In or about the summer of 2008, Petitioner enlisted in the U.S. Army and, at the time of this proceeding, was on active duty. Except for the above-referenced charges and arrest, Petitioner has had no criminal record and has not been charged or convicted of any criminal offense. At no time during this proceeding did Petitioner address or explain his conduct as it relates to: (1) his forging the names of authorized signers on the booster checking accounts; (2) his writing a check to B.F. for $2,250.00 on the Orchestra Booster Club account when there were insufficient funds in the account; and (3) his admission during an interview with School District investigators (i.e., that he "borrowed" money from the booster club accounts to pay personal bills). In fact, during cross-examination of Petitioner by Respondent's counsel, Petitioner's responses to questions regarding the above issues were either evasive or not credible. Despite the conduct in which Petitioner engaged and to which he admitted during the School District investigation, Petitioner never accepted responsibility or expressed remorse for his conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order: denying Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate; and allowing Petitioner to reapply for certification in three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 31st day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked, or whether other appropriate action should be taken for alleged violations of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 6B, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jimmy L. Parker, holds Florida Teaching Certificate #165142, Graduate, Rank 3, valid through June 30, 1901, covering the area of music education. Respondent has been employed in the public schools of Polk County at Winter Haven High School as the band director. A petition for the revocation of teaching certificate was filed by the Chairman of the Petitioner Council on April 6, 1979. Homer K. Addair, the Superintendent of Schools, by letter dated May 21, 1979, advised Respondent Parker that he was "charged with falsifying an accident report and subsequently wrongfully collecting workmen's compensation funds, i.e. immorality," and that he was suspended from his employment effective May 23, 1979. Respondent has not been employed since that date by the School Board of Polk County, Florida. Respondent Parker filed a response through his attorney on May 1, 1979, and the pleadings were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings with a request that a hearing officer be assigned. After the hearing was called to order, a stipulation as to some facts was filed by the parties: On or about May 8, 1975, while returning home during the evening hours from a band meeting at the school and driving a 1975 Ford van leased to the Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, Florida, Respondent Parker pulled to the side of the road at a location approximately one house from his home at the signal of James A. Partain, an employee of the Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, Florida as a coach of Winter Haven High School. Partain got into the van with Respondent, wherein a discussion ensued concerning an illicit relationship occurring between Respondent and Partain's wife, also an employee of the Board of Public Instruction of Polk County. A fight ensued in the van wherein Respondent suffered physical injuries. Respondent Parker drove himself home and told his sick wife that two black people had beaten him at the school. Respondent's wife called a neighbor, who came to Respondent's home and called the police. Respondent told the police that two black boys had beaten him. On the morning of May 9, 1975, Respondent Parker reported to his supervisor, Principal Herman Lofton, that be was attacked by two youths while on the school grounds on official school business and beaten badly. The beating incident was investigated by the local police and later by William J. Duncan, Deputy Superintendent of Schools. On June 3, 1975, Respondent Parker submitted a "claim of instructional personnel for illness in line of duty compensation" form to the principal, Herman Lofton. This claim stated that Respondent was beaten while on official school business with the band on the school grounds by two youths. Ultimately, the claim was approved, and Respondent received workmen's compensation payments of approximately $3,400.00 as a result of said claim. The morning after the incident of the beating and the call to the police station, the headlines of an article in the Winter Haven newspaper noted that two black youths had beaten the band director, the Respondent, the night before. From that time to date of hearing there have been news items about the episode in the paper and on the radio. William J. Duncan, Deputy Superintendent of Schools, talked to the police chief about the fighting incident. He received telephone calls from the black community informing him that some black people did not believe black youths were involved and wanted the investigation to continue. There was controversy within the black group, some believing Respondent Parker had not told the truth and some believing he had. Later, a dispute arose between two school employees as a result of the incident which created a disturbance in the lunchroom. The incident was reported to Duncan. Subsequently, the investigation was dropped by the police and the school authorities for the good of the school and the community. Sometime later, however, Homer Addair, Superintendent of Schools, requested Duncan to make an investigation to determine whether students had been involved in the incident, whether the altercation had actually taken place on the school grounds, and whether records had been falsified. Duncan said that the investigation had been dropped to keep the peace between the black and the white communities and to further the interests of the school band. He had heard the incident mentioned occasionally from the time it occurred by people in the community, band members and Band Boosters, and read short reports about it in the newspapers. Herman Lofton, Principal of Winter Haven High School, had been called by the police and questioned about the incident. Shortly thereafter, he received a written report from Respondent. He signed a county form for instructional personnel for illness and received an employee's accident and report claim. Lofton processed the claim in due course by sending the form to the county office. Subsequently, Lofton talked to the two employees, one black and one white, who had been creating a disturbance in the lunchroom, about the incident. Lofton has heard others mention the incident from time to time and occasionally read a short account regarding it in the newspaper. Homer Addair, Superintendent of Schools, learned of the incident from the news media, from members of his staff, and from the community. He instructed Duncan, his deputy superintendent, to investigate. It was Addair's opinion that the Respondent is a good band director and is supported by the band students and Band Boosters, but that because of the altercation and falsification of records his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system as a whole has diminished. It is Addair's opinion that the conduct of Respondent Parker sets a bad example for the students. His opinion is based upon the conduct that led to the altercation and to Respondent's falsification of the workmen's compensation claim. James R. Partain, Coach at Winter Haven High School, substantiated the facts relating to the fighting incident but stated he did not want Respondent Parker to lose his job and was sorry for his involvement in the fight. He said the fight began after he threatened to tell Respondent's wife about the affair, and that Respondent threatened him if he did tell her. Partain did not realize he had beaten Respondent to such an extent and later apologized to him. James Ernest Reese, Assistant Band Director, stated that Respondent Parker is a hard-working and effective band director, and that it is his opinion that the altercation between the Respondent and Partain did not cause Respondent to lose his effectiveness as a teacher. When asked the question whether he felt "the receipt of money from the false claim as an act of morality for an educator, is that act a moral act or an immoral act?", he reluctantly stated, "I suppose it could be classified as an immoral act." Roy V. Wood, a retired supervisor of music in Polk County schools and an investigator for the Petitioner Council, testified that the people of Polk County knew of the altercation and of the allegations of falsified reports, and that they still wanted Respondent as a band director. Reverend D. Dewey Wise, Pastor of the First Church of the Nazarene, knew of the altercation and testified he could see no difference in the effectiveness of the Respondent as a teacher now as compared to before the subject problems. He testified that the majority of the people in the community support the Respondent. He also stated that falsification is not a good example and "anytime we commit wrong, it would be an immoral act." Respondent Parker stated that he lied to his wife and to the police about the beating incident, stating that two black youths had beaten him, because he did not want his wife to know that he had had an illicit affair with the wife of another teacher in the school system. Respondent stated that he also did not want to embarrass the school, and that he was afraid of his paramour's husband, Partain. There was no explanation from Respondent as to why he falsely stated the incident took place on the school grounds while he was on official school business, whereas in fact the incident took place only a short distance from his home and inside the school van. Respondent Parker filled out several forms after the first form for the workmen's compensation claim, and each time he made false statements as to whom he had been beaten by and where the incident had taken place. Respondent Parker has the reputation of being an excellent band director and has brought honor to the school through his talent in directing the school band. His employment evaluations have been good. The band students and the parents and friends who comprise the Band Boosters admire his ability. The band students and many people in the community would not like to lose his services in the music department. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law, and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this Order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the teaching certificate of the Respondent, Jimmy L. Parker, be revoked for a period of three (3) years. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Vossler, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee S. Damsker, Esquire 2919 First Florida Tower Tampa, Florida 33602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: JIMMY L. PARKER DOAH CASE NO. 79-1026 /
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Pinellas County should dismiss the Respondent on charges of alleged misconduct in office and sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frederick Lemiesz, was employed by the Pinellas County School District as a chef instructor at Pinellas Technical Education Center in St. Petersburg (PTEC-St. Pete) from 1978 until his suspension without pay on June 12, 1996. In that time, he has been disciplined only once—on April 28, 1995, he received a letter of reprimand for threatening, pushing and using profane and abusive language toward another staff member. During the 1995-1996 school year, the Respondent taught a Gibbs High School student named Amanda Beasely, who was in the culinary arts program at PTEC-St. Pete. Amanda had been identified as having a special learning disability (SLD) was receiving SLD services both at Gibbs High, where she was taking her academic classes, and at PTEC-St. Pete, where she was taking vocational classes. Most of the 1995-1996 school year passed without incident of any kind. During a culinary arts class in May, 1996, the Respondent engaged Amanda in conversation regarding her intentions after her graduation from high school in June, 1996. When she told him that she had no plans, the Respondent asked her if she ever had thought of a career in modeling. She replied that she had not. He encouraged her to consider it. She agreed, and the Respondent explained to her that it would be necessary to have a portfolio of photographs to get started. He offered to make arrangements for a portfolio. Again, she agreed. The Respondent told Amanda to follow him, and he led her to the photography room of Terry Allison, a Commercial Photography Instructor at PTEC-St. Pete. The Respondent introduced Amanda to Allison and told Allison that Amanda needed a portfolio to get start her career as a model. Allison explained to them that initially she would need a “composite sheet,” not a “portfolio.” (A “composite sheet” consisted of a number of black and white photographs from the neck up.) He told them that the cost of a composite sheet would be $25. The Respondent agreed to the price, and Allison made an appointment for 7:15 the next morning. The Respondent told Amanda not to be concerned about her culinary arts class scheduled for the same time because the Respondent would mark her as being present. At some point, the Respondent offered to act as Amanda’s manager and explained to her that a manager usually received ten percent of the money a model made. Amanda told her that ten percent seemed reasonable to her. The Respondent believed that he had a verbal contract with Amanda to be her manager and that the contract would serve to compensate him for his expenses. That evening, Amanda reported to her parents what the Respondent had told her and what he had arranged for her the next morning. Her parents did not object to the idea but had some concerns. Apparently, Amanda’s parents inquired about it at Gibbs High, and somehow Dorothy Zeason, a Varying Exceptionalities Specialist at Gibbs High learned about it. Zeason and notified Sharon Lane, Amanda’s Varying Exceptionalities Specialist at PTEC-St. Pete. Zeason requested that Lane look into the situation. When Lane saw Amanda at PTEC-St. Pete the next morning all dressed up and carrying a change of clothes, it reminded her of her conversation with Zeason, and she asked Amanda about it. When Amanda told her that she was on the way to the photo shoot, Lane asked to accompany Amanda to her culinary arts class, where they met the Respondent. The question of payment was raised, and the Respondent assured them that he was going to pay for the composite sheet. Still not sure of the situation, Lane accompanied Amanda to meet Allison at the photography room. There, Allison told Lane what was planned. When Lane told Allison that Amanda’s mother had some concerns, Allison asked if Amanda was a high school student. When told that she was, Allison expressed surprise and said that, in that case, written parental permission was required. At that point, Amanda returned to her culinary arts class, and no photographs ever were taken. The Respondent telephoned Amanda at her home on two occasions in May, 1996. The first of these may have been the evening before the aborted photo shoot. During this first conversation, the Respondent spoke to Amanda about Amanda’s modeling career and about their agreement that the Respondent would act as her manager. The Respondent could give no good school-related reason for placing this call. (He said he called to verify personal information provided by Amanda for school purposes, but evidently saw no reason to do so earlier in the school year.) The Respondent also spoke to Amanda privately in his office at the culinary arts school at PTEC-St. Pete. On one occasion, the Respondent showed Amanda several pictures of a former girl friend who had died twenty years ago. The Respondent told Amanda that she reminded him of the deceased girl friend and that, if he was showing her any “extra liking,” it was because of this. In either the same or another conversation in his office in May, 1996, the Respondent asked Amanda if she believed in reincarnation and then told her that he believed the spirit of his former girl friend was inside Amanda. This kind of talk made Amanda uncomfortable. During either the same or another conversation in his office in May, 1996, the Respondent offered Amanda a spoon ring he had purchased in the PTEC-St. Pete jewelry workshop for about $5 and said he wanted Amanda to take it as a gift from him. Amanda tried several times to decline, saying that she did not feel right about accepting it, but the Respondent was insistent. He suggested that Amanda have it sized, if necessary, or exchange it for something she liked better. To placate the Respondent, Amanda accepted the spoon ring. She brought it to the jewelry workshop for sizing but never returned to pick it up. On another occasion during culinary arts class in May, 1996, the Respondent called Amanda into his office and told her that he wanted to give her money as a gift for her upcoming graduation and birthday. Once again, Amanda tried several times to decline, saying that she did not feel right about accepting it, and the Respondent again was insistent. However, this time the Respondent finally resigned himself to Amanda’s repeated refusals, telling her that he guessed he would just have to give the money to someone else. On another occasion during culinary arts class in May, 1996, Amanda and a friend thought they saw the Respondent winking at Amanda in a manner of flirting. During one of the Respondent’s conversations with Amanda in May, 1996, he asked for directions to her home and asked her to describe the house. The Respondent could give no good school-related reason for why he needed this information. The Respondent was intoxicated when he telephoned Amanda at her home the second time in May, 1996. (He claims not to remember anything about this telephone call due to his intoxication from a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.) The Respondent first addressed Amanda by the wrong name. Then he introduced himself first as “Bo.” When she did not recognize the name (or voice), he told her he was her “teacher, Mr. Lemiesz.” During this conversation, the Respondent told Amanda that he thought she was beautiful, that he loved looking into her beautiful brown eyes, and that he loved her dimples and smile. He also told her that he believed the two of them were spiritually connected and were going to be friends for life. It was a Saturday, and the Respondent asked Amanda what she was doing the next day, Sunday. He told her that he was going out on his sailboat. She took it as an invitation to go with him, and she told him she was going to church in the morning and would be busy all the rest of the day. This second telephone conversation made Amanda uncomfortable. When her parents returned home, Amanda told them about it. Amanda’s parents became concerned for her safety and reported the series of incidents to her school. Amanda declined to return to school at PTEC-St. Pete for the few days remaining before the end of the school year. Action taken by the School Board culminated in the June 12, 1996, letter suspending the Respondent without pay and recommending his dismissal. The letter and its grounds were reported in the St. Petersburg Times. As a result of the Respondent’s conduct in May, 1996, his effectiveness in the school system has been impaired to some degree. Amanda’s parents would not want the Respondent teaching their daughter or any other female student, and school administrators are apprehensive about putting the Respondent back in the classroom. But their reactions are based in part on assumptions that the Respondent would have continued, or worsened, his behavior towards Amanda had he not been stopped and that the Respondent has not learned his lesson. It was not proven either that the Respondent would have continued, or worsened, his behavior towards Amanda had he not been stopped or that the Respondent has not learned his lesson. Meanwhile, although the Respondent’s effectiveness has been impaired to some degree, it was not proven that he could not still be an effective chef instructor for the school system at PTEC-St. Pete, especially in view of his long service without incident prior to May, 1996.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order upholding the Respondent’s suspension without pay but reinstating him at this time, without back pay. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of February, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1997.
The Issue Whether there is "just cause" to terminate Respondent, Edward Starcher, from employment as a teacher in the Collier County School District.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of physical education, recreational dance, and driver's education. On August 18, 1986, the School Board hired Respondent as a teacher. Since being hired in 1986, Respondent taught continually in the Collier County public school system, except for a one-year leave of absence. Respondent began his career at Highland Elementary School and taught there for approximately two to three years. He then taught for nine years at Village Oaks Elementary School. Respondent, subsequently, taught at Gulf Coast High School, where he also served as a basketball coach. In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent was employed at NHS as a physical education teacher, driver's education teacher, and head basketball coach for the boys' varsity basketball team. At all times relevant herein, Respondent was a driver's education teacher and head coach of the boys' basketball team at NHS. Throughout his teaching career with the School Board, Respondent received positive evaluations and was recognized for having a passion for coaching. Prior to the disciplinary action at issue in this proceeding, there is no evidence that Respondent has been previously disciplined by the School Board. At all times relevant herein, A.K., a female, was a high school student in her senior year at NHS. In January 2003, A.K. was enrolled as a peer tutor under the direction of Respondent, along with two other students--A.D., a female, and A.F., a male. A.K., A.D., and A.F. were enrolled as peer tutors during the fourth block, which commenced at 12:45 p.m. As peer tutors, they assisted Respondent with doing the laundry, folding towels and T-shirts, and delivering them to the storage closet. At the beginning of fourth block, the peer tutors would typically meet Respondent in his coaching office or outside of it, and he would give them their assignment for the day. On Monday, February 10, 2003 (February 10), A.K. reported to Respondent's office during fourth block for her peer tutor responsibilities. A.D., another peer tutor, was absent that day, but A.F. and K.C. were present. K.C., an NHS student, was not assigned as Respondent's peer tutor, but he sometimes assisted Respondent and his peer tutors during the fourth block. On February 10, as Respondent and the peer tutors were exiting Respondent's office to walk to the laundry room, Respondent "put [A.K.] in a little bit of a headlock," in a playful manner. After arriving at the laundry room, Respondent and the peer tutor folded laundry. At some point, Respondent handed A.K. a pile of towels and told her to take it to the storage closet. Respondent also took a pile of towels or jerseys and both A.K. and Respondent proceeded from the laundry area across the gym to the boys' locker room. On this trip to the storage closet, only A.K. went with Respondent across the gym to the storage closet area. A.F. remained in the laundry room because Respondent told only A.K. to come with him. The storage closet was located in the boys' football locker room on the opposite side of the auxiliary gym from the laundry room. On February 10, there was a physical education class with at least 20 students and an instructor on the gym floor playing volleyball. The physical education class was divided into two groups at the opposite ends of the gym so that when the peer tutors and Respondent took the laundry across the gym floor to the storage closet, they would pass between the two groups. Respondent and A.K. entered the boys' locker room area and proceeded to the storage closet to drop off the towels and/or jerseys. A.K. entered the storage closet area first followed by Respondent. After A.K. put the towels down, she noticed Respondent shutting the door quickly, turning the lights off and on, and then opening the door. A.K. asked Respondent what he was doing, and he replied that he was just joking around. During the first trip to the storage closet, as A.K. was walking through the locker room, she saw J.C., a NHS student, near his locker. Some time after Respondent and A.K. walked through the locker room, J.C. walked around to the bench near the storage closet doorway to put on a knee brace. Thereafter, J.C. saw Respondent in the doorway of the storage closet, and Respondent introduced him to A.K. J.C.'s locker was adjacent to the storage closet wall, and he had to walk to the end of the wall and around the corner to get to the doorway of the storage closet. Due to the location of his locker, there was a period of time when J.C. was not near the doorway of the storage closet and could not see that doorway. At some point while A.K. and Respondent were in the storage closet, Corporal Ronald Byington (Coach Byington), the NHS youth relations deputy and an assistant football coach at the school, walked through the locker room from the adjacent coaches' room. Coach Byington stopped and talked to Respondent about a minute and a half. During his very brief conversation with Respondent, Coach Byington did not observe anything out of the ordinary. After briefly talking with J.C., Respondent and A.K. returned to the laundry room. After a short period of time, Respondent handed A.K. a bag of jerseys to take with her to the storage closet and proceeded alone with her back across the gym to the boys' locker room. J.C. was not in the locker room when Respondent and A.K. returned to the storage closet. When A.K. and Respondent returned to the storage closet with laundry a second time, Respondent again followed her into the storage closet, closed the door, and turned off the lights. Respondent then kissed A.K. on her neck and lips, grabbed her leg, and pushed it up against his side. A.K. pushed Respondent away from her, after which he turned on the lights, grabbed himself and remarked, "This is what you do to me." As A.K. approached the door to walk out, he placed A.K.'s hand on his groin. A.K. described the manner in which Respondent kissed her on the neck as "more of a sucking" than a kiss. After the incident described in paragraph 16, A.K. returned to the laundry room followed by Respondent. Upon returning, A.F. and K.C. noticed that A.K.'s neck was red and told her so. When A.F. and K.C. commented about the red mark on her neck, Respondent stated that it was because he had put her in a headlock. After the brief discussion about the red mark on A.K.'s neck, A.K. returned to the boys' locker room a third time, this time with A.F. and Respondent. A.K. had to wait outside the locker room since there were football players in there changing for weight training. Because A.K. could not enter the locker room, she handed the laundry she was carrying to A.F. and/or Respondent. Upon returning to the laundry room from the third trip to the storage closet, Respondent "kind of stopped [A.K.]" as they were walking across the gym floor. He then had A.K. hold her hand up while he did the same and intertwined his little finger with hers while he asked her to "pinkie swear" (promise) she would not tell anybody, and she agreed to do so. However, Respondent then told A.K. that he could not promise that it would not happen again. This brief exchange took place out of A.F.'s earshot. Moreover, given the considerable activity in the gym, it is reasonable that A.F. did not hear this conversation. A.K. returned a fourth time to the locker room to get her book bag and left school. She was in a state of shock, drove home, changed, and left for work. That evening A.K. did not tell her parents about the incident with Respondent because she was embarrassed and uncertain as to how they would react. The next morning, Tuesday, February 11, 2003 (February 11), A.K. was sitting in her car in the NHS parking lot waiting for the first-block bell to ring when her friend, E.W., a senior at NHS, approached her. E.W. noticed that there was something wrong and asked A.K. what was the matter. A.K. started to cry and told E.W. that Respondent had kissed her. As they walked to class, A.K. told E.W. more of what happened. A.K. told E.W. that on the first visit to the storage closet Respondent shut the lights off. A.K. asked him what he was doing and he turned them on. A.K. also told E.W. that on the second visit, Respondent shut the lights off and imposed himself on her, including kissing her on the neck and lips and grabbing her leg. Sometime during the course of the day, A.K. told E.W. about Respondent's having her touch his penis area. On the morning of February 11, soon after A.K. told E.W. about the incident, E.W. asked A.K. whether she had told anyone. A.K. replied that she had not. E.W. then told A.K. that she needed to report the incident to Mary Ellen Bergsma, the school guidance counselor. Although A.K. agreed to do so, she was hesitant and embarrassed to discuss the incident with Ms. Bergsma or anyone. At the beginning of the first block, E.W. accompanied A.K. to Ms. Bergsma's office. Ms. Bergsma invited both girls into her office and shut the door. Initially, when she went into Ms. Bergsma's office, A.K. was visibly upset, choked up, and unable to speak. After being encouraged by E.W., A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident with Respondent. A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that Respondent had "hit on her," meaning that he had kissed her. In response to her question, A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that the event occurred in the storage closet area and then explained what happened in more detail. During this time, A.K. continued crying and had a hard time talking. After A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident, Ms. Bergsma informed A.K. that she would have to talk with Gary Brown, the principal of NHS, about the incident. Later that morning, Ms. Bergsma accompanied A.K. to Mr. Brown's office. Although A.K. appeared uncomfortable and nervous and was crying, she told Mr. Brown basically what she had told Ms. Bergsma. At the end of the day, E.W. went to Ms. Bergsma to report some of the additional details that A.K. was too embarrassed to tell Ms. Bergsma, including Respondent's putting her hand on his genital and saying, "This is what you do to me." Over the next few weeks, Ms. Bergsma had follow-up conversations with A.K. to see how she was doing. She found that A.K. was having difficulty concentrating at school, not sleeping well, and, overall, was "having a tough time." On February 11, after A.K. reported the incident to Ms. Bergsma, she decided to remove A.K. from Respondent's peer tutor class. At 9:02 a.m. that morning, Ms. Bergsma e-mailed Respondent advising the following: "FYI – A.K. is out of your class 4th block." The e-mail was opened by Respondent at 9:05 a.m. and deleted by him at 9:05 a.m. Five minutes later, at 9:10 a.m., Respondent prepared a separate E-mail stating, "Thanks for the info. Have a great day." Respondent never contacted Ms. Bergsma to find out why A.K. was no longer in his fourth-block class. Respondent testified that the e-mail was no big deal to him and that it might have meant A.K. was out just that day since the e-mail from Ms. Bergsma did not have the word "permanently" contained in it. Between approximately 12:00 to 12:30 p.m., on February 11, Mr. Brown told Respondent in person that he wanted to meet with him in Mr. Brown's office at about 2:00 p.m. When Respondent met with Mr. Brown in his office that afternoon, Mr. Brown asked Respondent if he knew why he had been called to his office. Respondent seemed to think about the question and replied that it must be a parent complaining about his basketball program. He thought up several possibilities until Mr. Brown told him it had nothing to do with basketball. Mr. Brown then told Respondent that the meeting pertained to a complaint from a female student who had peer counseling with him and related to inappropriate physical contact that Respondent had with the student. After progressing through each of his classes and being informed by Mr. Brown that it regarded a complaint from the fourth block the preceding day, Respondent stated that the complainant had to be A.K. because she was the only female present that period on February 10. After Mr. Brown informed Respondent of the allegations, Respondent's head dropped down. He had tears in his eyes and stated that he could not believe this was happening to him. Mr. Brown then asked Respondent if he could think of any reason why A.K. would make such an accusation against him. Respondent told Mr. Brown about an incident at the NHS basketball game on January 31, 2003, which involved A.K. Respondent stated that he had spoken with A.K. on February 3, 2003, about her conduct at the game. Respondent then retrieved a letter from his brief case and presented it to Mr. Brown. The letter was dated February 3, 2003, and was addressed to Coach Byington. Respondent had authored the letter and typed it on a computer. The letter stated that during half-time of the January 31, 2003, basketball game, while Respondent was outside for "a breath of fresh air," he saw A.K. and two other NHS students, K.S. and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., outside. In the letter, Respondent indicated that the students appeared to be intoxicated and under the influence of drugs or alcohol; that two of the students approached him; and that A.K. then began making derogatory comments about two NHS assistant football coaches, one of whom was Coach Byington. Also, the letter indicated that on February 3, 2003, Respondent spoke to A.K., during fourth block about her being intoxicated. According to the letter, Respondent told A.K. that she and those with her on January 31, 2003, were "lucky that [Respondent] was in the middle of a game and [they] had not been caught." In addition to information about A.K.'s being intoxicated at the game, Respondent included statements in the letter which were unrelated to the January 31, 2003, incident. Apparently, referring to his February 3, 2003, conversation with A.K., Respondent wrote in the letter: It was during this conversation that I figured out [A.K.] was extremely bitter about coaches at NHS. After further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted. [A.K.] on several occasions accused Byington and the football staff of starting rumors about her . . . and she claimed people had given her a hard time about being a senior dating a freshman. I had never heard of such rumors and felt that she was overplaying this to an extreme. After refusing to discuss any more of these matters with her, she became very irate and said that I [Respondent] was just like the others. In quotes "jerks". [sic] Just wanted you to have this information on file. Respondent told Mr. Brown that he had never given the letter to Coach Byington because he did not want to get A.K. in trouble. Coach Byington never received Respondent's letter dated February 3, 2003, nor did Respondent speak to Coach Byington about its contents. If a letter with allegations like the ones made in the letter dated February 3, 2003, were brought to his attention, Coach Byington would look into the matter or take some action. The letter dated February 3, 2003, accurately states and it is undisputed that (1) Respondent saw NHS students, A.K., K.S., and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., on January 31, 2003, during half-time at the basketball game that evening; (2) the students, including A.K., were intoxicated; and (3) on February 3, 2003, Respondent talked to A.K. about being intoxicated at the basketball game. The letter dated February 3, 2003, falsely and inaccurately states when Respondent saw A.K. on January 31, 2003, she talked to him about her dislike for two of NHS football coaches and said derogatory things about them. Rather, after exiting the gym at half-time, A.K. and K.S. spoke to Respondent only briefly, about a minute. During that conversation, A.K. asked Respondent about his daughter, Callie, and how the basketball game was going; she also wished him luck in the second half. A.K. and K.S., along with S.W. and J.W., continued to walk to A.K.'s friend's car to have a few shots of alcohol during half-time. On the evening of January 31, 2003, A.K. never said anything to Respondent about Coach Byington or any other coach at NHS. In light of the purpose for which Respondent claimed he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent's inclusion in the letter of the statement that "[a]fter further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted and that A.K. said that Respondent was jerk [sic], just like the other coaches. Since becoming a peer tutor for Respondent and prior to January 31, 2003, A.K. had talked to Respondent on several occasions and told him that she did not like Coach Byington. The reason A.K. did not like Coach Byington was that she believed that he gave preferential treatment to football players and had made A.K. the butt of jokes because she was dating a freshman football player. A.K. made no secret that she "did not care" for Coach Byington and candidly admitted her feelings about Coach Byington at hearing. There were no other coaches at NHS who A.K. disliked or told Respondent that she disliked. The letter dated February 3, 2003, also inaccurately and falsely stated that when Respondent talked to A.K. at school on February 3, 2003, about being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game, she became irate. Respondent's testimony at hearing regarding this conversation is not credible. Contrary to Respondent's account, the conversation took place in the gym and not in Respondent's office. Moreover, during the conversation, Respondent seemed to be joking with A.K. about her being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game. At no time during that conversation did Respondent talk to A.K. about the kind of people she should hang out with. Respondent also never indicated to A.K., during that conversation or at any other time, that he would report her to school officials or tell her parents that she was intoxicated. Respondent provided confusing and contradictory testimony in connection with the letter dated February 3, 2003. First, despite the date on the letter, it is not clear when Respondent wrote the letter. Respondent testified that he prepared the letter on Monday, February 3, 2003, but also testified that he could have finished it later that week. This testimony is consistent with a letter Respondent wrote in March 2003, in response to the report of the School Board's investigator. Respondent also testified that even if he did not finish the letter on February 3, 2003, he would not have changed the date because he did not consider the letter an official document. During the investigation of A.K.'s complaint against Respondent, the School Board's computer system technicians checked the school's computers and found no record of the letter in the system. If, as Respondent testified, he made changes to the letter over a period of time, the letter would have been saved on the system and the computer technicians would have been able to retrieve it. Respondent's testimony and representations regarding the preparation of the letter dated February 3, 2003, are confusing and not reasonable. In his March 2003 letter to the School Board in response to the investigator's report, Respondent stated that after initially writing the February 3, 2003, letter, he waited to review it before delivering it to Coach Byington. Despite all the time Respondent indicated he took to write, review, and edit the letter, Respondent never gave the letter to Coach Byington, even though Coach Byington's office was only a 20- to 30-second walk from Respondent's office. According to Respondent, the reason was that he had a busy basketball schedule. Respondent testified that the reason he prepared the letter dated February 3, 2003, was to give Coach Byington a "heads up." Yet, Respondent provided no explanation as to why Coach Byington needed a "heads up." Respondent's testimony regarding the reason he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, is not credible. Respondent did not prepare the letter dated February 3, 2003, to give to Coach Byington and did not deliver it to him or discuss it with him. The letter was instead prepared to give to Mr. Brown to undermine the credibility of A.K. At all times relevant to this proceeding, E.M., a male, was a student at NHS. E.M. and Respondent had a close relationship and have known each other for about five years, having first met when E.M. was in the sixth grade and was coached by Respondent. While a coach at NHS, Respondent sometimes gave E.M. lunch money and also hired E.M. to work in summer basketball camps. During the investigation of Respondent, E.M. voluntarily came forward to provide information supportive of Respondent. E.M. told Mr. Brown and testified at hearing that when he was in the boys' locker room on February 3, 2003, he overheard Respondent tell A.K. that she should hang out with better people; that he then saw Respondent leave his office; that he saw A.K. leave the office soon after Respondent left the office; and that he noticed that as she was leaving, A.K. was on a cell phone saying to someone that she hated the coaches at NHS and was going to get back at them. A.K. did not make a cell phone call from school on February 3, 2003. In fact, she does not bring her cell phone to school. Moreover, A.K.'s cell phone records show that no call was made at the time E.M. claimed the call was made. Finally, as noted in paragraph 45, the February 3, 2003, conversation between Respondent and A.K. took place in the gym, not in Respondent's office. The testimony of E.M. was not credible and was refuted by competent and substantial evidence. There is no reasonable explanation for A.K. to file false charges against Respondent. As even Respondent admitted, A.K.'s animus was directed to Coach Byington, not toward Respondent. Prior to the February 10 incident in the storage closet, A.K. liked Respondent and considered him a good friend. She had been a student in Respondent's aerobics class during her sophomore year at NHS. During the first semester of her senior year, A.K. had been an office assistant at NHS and in that capacity, she was required to hand out passes to designated or assigned teachers. Respondent was one of the teachers A.K. had to deliver passes to on an almost daily basis. When A.K. delivered the passes to Respondent, they often had conversations. The second semester of her senior year, A.K. specifically requested to be a peer tutor for Respondent because she thought he was a "cool teacher." As a consequence of the February 10, 2003, incident, A.K., in a consultation with her parents, began seeing Dr. Marta Gallego, a clinical psychologist in Naples, to help her address her fears and concerns. The counseling sessions began on or about February 19, 2003, with the initial intake session involving A.K. and her family, and continued until early May 2003. The therapy sessions with Dr. Gallego focused on A.K.'s reactions to the incident, helping her deal with her reactions, and processing the incident. During the counseling sessions, A.K. exhibited symptoms related to the trauma, was anxious at times, and was depressed. Also, after the February 10 incident, A.K. withdrew from friends and family, had difficulty concentrating at school, and felt pain over the impact that the incident had on her family. Finally, A.K. expressed to Dr. Gallego that she could not understand how a teacher that she trusted could violate her trust.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Collier County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Jon D. Fishbane, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive, Third Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Dr. H. Benjamin Marlin Superintendent of Collier County School Board 5775 Osceola Trail Naples, Florida 34109-0919 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
