Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Claudia Walker, was employed as a continuing contract teacher by Petitioner Broward County School Board. The Respondent taught from January 1979 through November 1, 1984 at Bright Horizons School. In November 1984, she transferred to South Florida State Exceptional Student Center and thereafter taught elementary school age children with behavioral problems. Among those assigned to her Self-contained classroom were some homicidal and suicidal students with low impulse control. During the time Respondent has worked for the Broward County School Board, her teaching evaluations have been good, to outstanding, to exceptional. She has never previously been cited or disciplined. Doris Seitner was employed by Petitioner as a teaching assistant from approximately September 3, 1985 to December 3, 1985 and was assigned to Respondent's class. On Thursday, November 7, 1985, Respondent and Seitner took the class of about 25 students on a field trip to the Metro Zoo. Prior to their departure on the bus, Ms. Seitner noticed Respondent entering the staff restroom. When Respondent emerged, a student immediately entered the restroom. Upon the student exiting the restroom, Ms. Seitner also entered the restroom where she found a small pink glasses case. Believing the case belonged to the student, the aide opened the purse and saw a plastic baggie containing a white powder, a small vial, a razor blade, and several cut up straws. Upon leaving the restroom, Ms. Seitner encountered the Respondent, who identified the case as hers and took it. At this point, the state of events was that Doris Seitner had seen a substance she thought was cocaine. Doris Seitner is not an expert on drug identification. She admits never previously having seen cocaine up close. Although she had seen some drug abuse classes at the school, she had no courses in cocaine and had never smelled or tasted it. She did not open the plastic baggie or examine its contents on November 7, 1985. However, believing that the case contained cocaine and drug related paraphernalia, Ms. Seitner confided what she had found, together with her suspicions to a number of people and sought their advice on how to proceed. Shawn Joseph, another teacher's aide, suggested Ms. Seitner inform the school officials of what she had found. Later in the evening, Ms. Seitner contacted Pam Tepsic, a teacher on task assignment, who suggested she advise the principal immediately. The acting principal, Kathryn Mangan, upon learning of the discovery, contacted Howard Stearns, Petitioner's Director of Internal Affairs, who referred her to William Bohan. At all times material, William Bohan was employed by Petitioner as an investigator for Internal Affairs and has been a certified law enforcement officer. On November 12, 1985, Mangan told Bohan about Ms. Seitner's belief that she had seen cocaine in Respondent's glasses case. Bohan instructed Mangan to take no action but to call him in case the glasses case was seen again. Bohan interviewed Ms. Seitner and instructed her to watch out for the case. On the morning of Monday, November 25, 1985, while Respondent was in her classroom, Ms. Seitner came in and asked if she could fetch lunch for Respondent. Respondent retrieved her purse from the back room of the self- contained classroom, a location called "the teacher planning area", wherein she normally isolates her purse from the students, and gave Ms. Seitner money to pay for her lunch. Doris Seitner sat at the desk, and looking down into the Respondent's unzipped purse, spotted the pink glasses case. Seitner notified Tepsic, who notified John Smith, acting principal, who notified Bohan, who came to the school. Bohan and Tepsic walked to Respondent's classroom. When they arrived there, Tepsic approached Respondent in the classroom; Bohan stationed himself at the door. Tepsic told Respondent that a man wanted to see her in the principal's office. Tepsic avoided responding to Respondent's repeated requests to know what was going on or answered Respondent that she did not know what was going on. Respondent walked with Tepsic to the door. Bohan asked Respondent if the purse by her classroom desk was hers. The Respondent answered, "yes" whereupon Bohan walked over, picked up the purse, and, retaining the purse, began walking with Respondent and Pam Tepsic to John Smith's office. On the way to Smith's office, Respondent told Bohan she could carry her own purse but Bohan responded that he could carry it. She repeated her questions to Pam Tepsic, asking what was going on and received the same evasions. In making the immediately preceding finding of fact, the testimony of Pam Tepsic, Investigator Bohan, and Respondent have been considered and weighed. While Investigator Bohan testified that Respondent said and did nothing to claim her purse after he seized it and Pam Tepsic initially related that Respondent said nothing about her purse at any time in the classroom or while walking over to the principal's office, Pam Tepsic's testimony as a whole reveals that she was particularly nervous during all these incidents and that at a point in time closer to the actual events, she had believed some such conversation took place between Bohan and Respondent, but that on the date of formal hearing she simply could not recall any conversation between Bohan and the Respondent, including Bohan's asking Respondent if the purse were hers and Respondent's reply, "yes", statements Bohan and Respondent each testified had been made. The Respondent's account of her request to carry her own purse is highly credible. It is simply not credible that any adult woman would not request return of such an intimate item as her purse, containing all her personal effects, including valuables and money, from a man whom she had never seen before in the absence of any explanation of what was going on. Bohan, Tepsic, and Respondent entered John Smith's office. Bohan placed Respondent's purse on Smith's desk in front of himself. Bohan told Respondent he had been informed she was in possession of an illegal drug and asked if she would consent to Bohan's searching her purse. Pam Tepsic's recollection of what happened next was that either Respondent said she would consent to the search or that someone else said Respondent had consented or said something like, "Well, then you consent," to Respondent. Respondent denies ever being asked to consent to a search of her purse. John Smith understood Bohan to ask permission to search the purse and understood that Respondent said "yes" to Bohan's request. Bohan relates an affirmative answer from Respondent. Before he started searching her purse, but after the question concerning consent/permission, Bohan asked Respondent did she have anything in her purse that might be a problem that she might want to tell him about before he searched her purse. Tepsic, Bohan, Smith, and Respondent are in agreement that Respondent replied, "yes" that she did want to tell Bohan what was in the purse. The explanation given at that time was that early that morning she had taken cocaine and other items from her estranged husband who had a drug problem. Bohan removed from Respondent's purse the pink glasses case; some other unrelated items; four small plastic bags containing a white powdery residue; four straws cut 2-1/4 inches to 2-3/4 inches long; one GEM single edge razor blade; one small, 3/4 inch empty vial; one piece of aluminum foil 2-1/2 inches by 3-1/4 inches; eight straws in Wendy's wrappers; one wooden toothpick; and one nickel. When Respondent persisted in her explanation that the drugs and paraphernalia were her husband's property and that she had taken them to protect him but in response to further questioning by Bohan, Respondent was unable to flesh out an explanation she had begun concerning the husband's drug counselling and treatment and her participation therein, Bohan told Respondent that her options were either jail in Fort Lauderdale via the Broward County Sheriff's Department or discussing the matter at Petitioner's Internal Affairs Office. Although Bohan asserted that he made no "threats," Bohan, Tepsic, Smith, and Respondent concur that these were the only alternatives Bohan provided Respondent during their confrontation in Smith's office. A subsequent laboratory analysis conducted on the items seized November 25, 1985 revealed the presence of cocaine only in the small plastic bag containing the white powder. The property in the purse was taken into the Internal Affairs Office for inventory. These items, including the cocaine, were described by Ms. Seitner as "similar" to the items she saw in the pink case on November 7, 1985. Respondent customarily keeps a razor blade in her purse to use for arts and crafts projects in her class. Other teachers at the center also use razor blades to perform art projects. The Respondent customarily keeps drinking straws in her purse to give to her three small children to drink with while they are riding in her car. Article XVIII, Section K, of the current collective bargaining agreement between the Broward Teachers Union and Petitioner provides: "No investigation of an em- ployee, beyond preliminary inquiry, by the Internal Affairs Department may be undertaken without written notice to the employee, such notice to include a statement of the cause giving rise to the investigation." No written notice was given to Respondent by Petitioner. A sign posted on the grounds of the school at the front gate notifies anyone entering that they are subject to being searched while on the grounds. (TR 149-150) Respondent accompanied Bohan to Internal Affairs where Bohan and Stearns interrogated her. Respondent again told them the drugs inventoried belonged to her husband. She further revealed to Stearns, apparently in hopes of receiving counselling instead of dismissal, that she had been clean of cocaine during the nine months of her recent pregnancy and clean recently until the immediately preceding Saturday night. (TR-205) After Internal Affairs finished questioning Respondent, Bohan took her to the Employee Assistance Program and then later to the Broward Alcohol and Rehabilitation Center. Respondent claims she was denied use of a phone to contact anyone until she reached the Employee Assistance Program, but she concedes there were public phones available at the school and she did not insist on using any. At hearing, Respondent testified that she had never used cocaine and would not have used it in November, 1985 because she was breastfeeding her new daughter. She also testified that the contraband items were taken from her husband the morning of November 25, however, rather than corroborating this story, the testimony of Wilton Johnson, her estranged husband, is contrary to Respondent's account of the incident in so many details as to adversely affect Respondent's credibility that the incident occurred. Respondent was suspended with pay November 26-28, 1985, the remainder of the school week. On Monday, December 2, 1985, she was permitted to resume her classroom duties until she was notified of suspension with pay, December 6, 1985. On December 19, 1985, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Counts I and II, finding Respondent guilty as charged in Counts III and IV, and dismissing her from employment. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1986.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of a Rank III teacher's certificate, and was under continuing contract as a teacher with the Citrus County School Board. Respondent was assigned as a teacher to Crystal River Middle School for the 1978-1979 school year. Respondent was informed that all instructional personnel were to report to Crystal River Middle School on August 22, 1978. Respondent failed to report on August 22, 1978, and, in fact, has not communicated directly with any representative of the Citrus County School Board as of the date of the hearing in this cause. Respondent did cause a letter to be forwarded to the Principal of Crystal River Middle School, which letter was written on May 24, 1978, indicating that he had experienced some difficulty with her health, and was unable to advise Petitioner as to her future plans. At no time after the end of the 1977-1978 school year has Respondent requested or been granted a leave of absence. Representatives of Petitioner have attempted unsuccessfully on numerous occasions to contact Respondent to discuss her absence. These attempts have been to no avail, and Respondent's continued absence remains unexplained. Citrus County School Board Policy No. 6GX9-3.30(7)(h) provides as follows: Any member of the instructional staff who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence and his contract shall be subject to cancellation by the Board according to Florida Statute.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Citrus County School Board cancelling the continuing contract of Respondent, DeLoriss Fort, and dismissing her as an instructional employee of the Citrus County School Board. RECOMMEND this 24th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Pattinson, Esquire P.O. Box 1506 Crystal River, Florida 32629 Mrs. DeLoriss Fort P.O. Box 492 Wildwood, Florida 32785 Thomas Skidmore, Esquire P.O. Drawer D Wildwood, Florida 32785
Findings Of Fact Timothy M. Gray applied for an instructional position with the Pinellas County School Board in May 1984 and accepted an annual contract to teach at Safety Harbor Middle School for the school year starting in the fall of 1984. He taught a course to eighth grade classes called Power and Transportation, which is predominantly a shop course. Gray was certificated to teach industrial arts in 1980. The charges involved in these two cases stem from inappropriate remarks Gray allegedly made to various students in his class or in the school. Gray denies making the improper remarks attributed to him. Specifically, Respondent is alleged to have made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature to Paul Bartolo and Mark Fulghum while driving them home from a school detention period that caused them to miss their bus. Respondent admits that he gave these 14- and 15- year-old boys a ride home after their detention. He lived in the same direction as the two boys and giving them a ride home was not out of his way. Both of these boys were discipline problems. During the school year Paul served about 15 detentions and was suspended twice. Both were in Respondent's Power and Transportation class and both had been placed on detention by Respondent. During the ride home Paul was in the front seat of Respondent's car and Mark was in the rear seat. Both boys testified that during the ride home an extensive conversation ensued and that Respondent, after answering a question regarding his marital status in the negative, continued with he liked snatch. Respondent admits the conversation and his attempts to reach these boys to improve their attitudes toward school but denies ever using the word "snatch." During discussions with girls on the school bus and at school regarding Respondent and his comments, Paul and Mark told the girls that Respondent said he liked snatch. At this time a lot of rumors were being circulated among the eighth graders in Respondent's classes about the way he looked at them and comments he had made they deemed inappropriate. The prime mover of this group was Dana Shaver, who testified only by deposition in these proceedings. Dana urged Paul and Mark to report Respondent's remarks to the principal. In a deposition (Exhibit 1) Dana testified that Gray had seen her at the beach over the weekend and told her in class Monday that he had seen her at the beach in her bikini and that she did not have much of a tan for a beach girl. This embarrassed Dana and she hung her head and did not hear Respondent say she would look better without it (bikini) on. This was later reported to Dana by an anonymous girlfriend. Respondent admits he saw Dana and another girl at the beach but denies saying anything more to her than she did not have as good a tan as he did. Dana's parents requested she be moved from Respondent's class in Power and Transportation (which she did not like) because of her being "embarrassed" by Respondent. Evidently, no embarrassment was involved discussing use of the word "snatch" with boys in her class. Kera Lampman is a bright 13-year-old who was in Respondent's Power and Transportation class. She testified that Respondent told her she had a nice butt and that she could get straight A's in his class. Respondent denies ever using the word "butt" to Kera but does not deny the remarks about her grades as Kera is a straight-A student. Respondent also testified that he was trying to get Kera moved to a more challenging class when he was suspended. Alissa Lanier, a 14-year-old student at Safety Harbor Middle School, testified that while walking from the bus drop to the entrance door immediately before classes started in the morning she heard someone say, "You've got a nice ass." When she turned around she saw Respondent some 20 feet away. She had never talked to Respondent, was not in his class, and testified Respondent was the only person on the ramp besides her. Respondent not only denies making such a remark but also testified that he frequently has bus ramp duty before school starts and he has never been in the area between the bus stop and school entrance doors shortly before school was due to start when the area was not crowded with students. The testimony that this area would be crowded immediately prior to school starting is deemed more credible. Respondent's denial that he made any comment to any girl he did not even know is more credible than is the testimony that this remark was heard from someone 20 feet distant in the bus ramp area immediately prior to school starting. Shelly Evans, a 14-year-old girl in Respondent's class heard Respondent say he had seen Kera and Dana at the beach and they looked great in their bikinis. During the period when others were reporting Respondent's actions she too reported this comment to the principal. One witness testified that Respondent looked at her in a strange way in class; that it appeared to her that he was staring. Such discussion and remarks including comments about bodies were being circulated among students at Safety Harbor Middle School and was brought to the attention of the principal who interrogated some of the students. The principal was told substantially what was testified to at these proceedings. During the investigation which followed Respondent denied using the words "snatch," "butt," or "ass," while talking to any of the students. Respondent, before coming to Safety Harbor Middle School, had worked in a Y conservation program involving young men. This age group was doubtless older than the 13-15 year olds in the eighth grade class Respondent taught at Safety Harbor Middle School and were less impressionable than eighth grade students. Hearing from one of her teachers that rumors were going around the school regarding Gray's language in the presence of students, Mrs. Raymond, Principal of Safety Harbor Middle School obtained the name of one or more students reported to be aware of such language and called them into her office. After obtaining statements from these students, who appeared as witnesses in these proceedings, Mrs. Raymond confronted Gray, who denied making inappropriate comments. Nevertheless, she recommended his immediate suspension with pay pending the next meeting of the School Board, who was authorized to suspend Gray without pay. Upon her recommendation, Gray was immediately suspended.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, respondent was employed as a distributive education teacher at Coconut Creek High School. Respondent was also a sponsor or teacher coordinator for DECA -- Distributive Education Clubs of America. As such he was appointed, with the approval of the School's principal, as a chaperone for the Coconut Creek High School students attending the DECA national convention in Chicago, Illinois, from May 8, 1976, through May 13, 1976. Prior to attending said national convention, respondent was aware of those provisions of the Coconut Creek High School teachers' handbook pertaining to chaperones' and students' responsibilities on field trips. All distributive education teachers and students who were to attend the national conference in Chicago had a meeting on April 27, 1976, to discuss the rules and regulations which were to be followed at the conference. While the curfew hour set in the teachers' handbook for students on field trips was midnight, the curfew at the national convention was set at 2:00 A.M. and this curfew was adopted by respondent for his students. Among the students for whom respondent had responsibility as a chaperone were four females who were assigned a hotel room located across from respondent's room. At curfew time each evening, it was respondent's practice to check in on his students and then retire to his room, leaving his door ajar about six inches so as to be able to hear any disturbances. On the morning in question, May 13, 1976, which followed the last night of the convention, respondent started his "rounds" to check on his students at approximately 1:45 a.m. Assured that his students were all in their respective rooms, at about 2:15 a.m. respondent went back to his hotel room and went to sleep, rather than attending a party or gathering which other teacher/chaperones attended. At approximately 4:00 a.m., respondent was awakened by noises in the hall. He got up to see where the noises were coming from and found several teacher/chaperones from Broward County standing in the door way to his female students' room. It appeared to respondent and one of the female students who testified at the hearing that at least some of these teacher/chaperones had been drinking alcoholic beverages. Respondent considered some of these persons to be his immediate supervisors inasmuch as they were employed at the county and state levels. In order to ascertain what was happening, respondent dressed and went over to the girls' room. He took no affirmative action to remove the teacher/chaperones from the room. He sat on the couch in the room and fell asleep. When he awoke between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m., the other chaperones had gone and he then left and returned to his room. Prior to leaving for the convention, respondent instructed his students not to bring or consume any alcoholic beverages at the convention. While in the girls' room on the morning in question, respondent noticed a beer can in the trash receptacle. Having never seen any of his students consume alcoholic beverages at the convention and realizing that the other chaperones had been drinking on the morning in question, respondent did not make inquiry of his students as to the beer can. There was evidence that one of respondent's female students had consumed alcoholic beverages in her room while attending the convention. However, there was no evidence that respondent or any other chaperone attending the convention had any knowledge of or reason to suspect that this occurred. No complaints were received by the school principal or the administration from either parents or students concerning activities at the convention.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that his back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. 4th street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Mr. Leonard Fleet 4001 Hollywood Boulevard . Hollywood, Florida 33021 Mr. Ronald G. Meyer 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is entitled to an athletic coaching certificate, as described in section 1012.55(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(4).
Findings Of Fact Early Life: 1960-1978 Petitioner was born on December 22, 1960. Petitioner is the youngest of five sons born to a Bahamian mother, who worked as a beautician, and a Jamaican father, who worked as a custodian. Petitioner's four older brothers have all earned college degrees. Petitioner's oldest brother served as an Army psychiatrist. Two other brothers also served in the military: one as a comptroller and the other as a Navy pilot. Petitioner's youngest brother is the executive director of a well-known hotel on Miami Beach. Petitioner grew up in the Liberty City section of Miami and graduated from Miami Beach Senior High School in 1978. Liberty City was a dangerous area in which to live with gunfire a familiar sound to residents. Two years after Petitioner graduated, Liberty City and other parts of Miami were torn by race riots. Unlike all of his siblings, Petitioner has never attended college. After high school, Petitioner worked as a washer and cook at a local hospital, but continued to pursue his real interest, which was performing as a disc jockey (DJ). Interning nights at a local radio station, Petitioner acquired enough experience to start a mobile DJ business in Liberty City and Miami Beach, where he worked on weekends. Criminal History: Essentially 1979-1986 Respondent's characterizations of Petitioner's criminal history as "extensive," in the Amended Notice of Reasons, or, worse, "storied," in his proposed recommended order at page 7, are unsupported by the record. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, only two criminal incidents are relevant, and they are misdemeanors that occurred over 25 years ago. The rest of Petitioner's criminal history consists entirely of arrests for which the charges were later dropped, except for a 1986 case in which the court withheld adjudication on a felony weapon charge to which Petitioner's plea is not in the record and a 2009 arrest for unpaid child support for which the purge amount was about $10,000. On August 28, 1979, Petitioner, then 18 years old, was arrested in Dade County for reckless display of a firearm and possession of over five grams of marijuana, both felonies. The marijuana charge--Petitioner's only arrest for drugs or alcohol--was dismissed, but Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and fined $25. This incident will be referred to as the "1979 Misdemeanor." In a letter dated May 7, 2009, to the Miami-Dade School Board Executive Director of Fingerprinting, Petitioner stated that he was in the backyard of his parents' home with one of his brothers and in possession of a bb gun. The small fine corroborates Petitioner's explanation. It is therefore found that a "bb gun" was the weapon in question, although Petitioner's letter misstated that all charges were dropped. On February 12, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for loitering and prowling and carrying a concealed weapon, the former a misdemeanor and the latter a felony. By operation of a deemed admission to Respondent's Requests for Admission, Petitioner, while a passenger in a vehicle, was found in possession of a semi-automatic weapon concealed in a ski mask. The misdemeanor charge was dismissed, but the court withheld adjudication of guilt on the felony charge and imposed a fine of an unspecified amount. The record does not disclose Petitioner's plea to this charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that, while he was DJing in a park without a permit, he had a concealed weapon without a permit, but misstated that both charges were dropped. On November 18, 1985, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for inciting rioting, a felony. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that he was DJing in a park and was arrested because the music was too loud. On October 4, 1986, Petitioner was arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with grand larceny with a firearm, a felony. Based on a guilty plea, Petitioner was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and sentenced to time served. This incident will be referred to as the "1986 Misdemeanor." In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was DJing a party in Tampa when a group of men started to beat a young woman in the parking lot. When security refused to intervene, Petitioner displayed a firearm to break up the crowd. Petitioner's letter misstates that the charge was dismissed. His explanation fails to account for the portion of the charge involving grand larceny, but makes sense when applied to the charge of which Petitioner was convicted. On December 13, 1987, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County for two or three counts of aggravated assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon to commit a felony, all felonies. These charges were dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a large fight broke out at a skating rink, but surveillance video revealed that he had not been involved in the fight, nor had he possessed a weapon. On or about June 15, 1993, Petitioner was arrested in Cook County, Illinois, and charged with disorderly conduct. This charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that he was staying at the Ritz in Chicago. While shopping along the riverfront, a law enforcement officer asked him if he could afford to shop there. A confrontation ensued, and the officer arrested Petitioner, but the charge was later dropped. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon, a felony. The charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight had broken out at a house party, and the police arrested everyone in attendance. There is no record of a 1997 arrest for battery. There is an arrest in July or October 1996 for battery in Louisiana, but Petitioner pleaded not guilty, and the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner mentioned a 1997 case involving a nightclub fight with which he had not been involved. A week later, a complainant claimed that Petitioner had hit him, but the charge was dismissed. On July 5, 1999, Petitioner was arrested in Dade County and charged with battery, a misdemeanor, which may have been raised to aggravated battery, a felony, by the prosecutor. Either way, the charge was dismissed. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner explained that a fight broke out at a nightclub, but witnesses verified that Petitioner had not hit the complainant, who originally said that another person had hit him. On October 6, 2002, Petitioner was arrested in Dorchester County, South Carolina, and charged with aiding or procuring a person to expose private parts in a lewd and lascivious manner--namely, the insertion of a soda bottle by two strippers into the vagina of a member of the audience who climbed onstage during a performance, as well as several acts of unspecified obscenities by two male members of the audience with the aforesaid strippers. The charge was that these unlawful acts were in the presence of and with the encouragement of Petitioner. The South Carolina documentation is contradictory as to disposition. The most plausible rendering of the disposition comes from the general sessions docket, which reports that, on October 13, 2003, this charge was dismissed with leave to restore, if Petitioner violated an agreement not to appear in South Carolina for five years at a revenue-producing event. Another document completed by the court clerk states that Petitioner was sentenced to six months in the state Department of Corrections, based on a plea not otherwise described, but the sentence was suspended for five years, pursuant to the agreement identified above. A partial transcript of the October 13, 2003, court proceeding quotes the judge as saying that the state was nolle prossing two charges, and the court was sentencing Petitioner to six months on apparently a third offense, even though nothing in the other documents describes three charges, but the judge suspended the sentence for five years, subject to the above-identified agreement. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the burden of establishing what took place in South Carolina falls on Respondent. Nothing in the record supports the judge's reference to three charges, which renders the judge's description of events unreliable. The most that can be said of the South Carolina incident is that a lone charge was dropped, subject to reinstatement, if Petitioner made a revenue-producing appearance in South Carolina for five years. The evidence fails to establish any finding of guilt by the court, plea of guilty by Petitioner, or subsequent reinstatement of the charge. In his May 7, 2009, letter, Petitioner stated that the club owner had performers on stage, but Petitioner had nothing to do with their performance. Petitioner testified that he had been paid merely to appear at the club and sign autographs. On February 17, 2009, Petitioner was arrested on a writ of bodily attachment in connection with a finding of contempt of court for failing to pay child support. The purge amount was $10,223.36. The disposition of this matter is unclear, although it is obvious that Petitioner was arrested for an unpaid child-support obligation and was released, presumably after paying the purge amount or such lower amount as the court deemed fit. Luke Records and 2 Live Crew: 1987-1992 After graduating from high school, Petitioner grew his DJ business to the point that, by 1987 or 1988, he had started Luke Records, Inc., a record company devoted to the production and sale of hip-hop music. Using funds provided by his brothers, Petitioner eventually employed over 40 persons in Miami and elsewhere around the United States. The growth of Luke Records was largely the result of its association with 2 Live Crew (2LC), a hip-hop group known for its sexually explicit songs. Not yet under contract with a record company, 2LC visited Petitioner in Miami, where the parties agreed to a recording contract. Petitioner appears to have quickly assumed substantial business and performance roles with 2LC and wrote some of the songs that the group performed. Serving as the frontman for 2LC, Petitioner was prominent in the group's performances, which, according to Petitioner, featured dance music informed by the twin themes of sex and comedy. Clearly, 2LC's songs were dance music that featured sex. Regardless of the role of comedy in 2LC's music, Petitioner himself acknowledges that its sexual themes rendered the music inappropriate for minors. The evidentiary record does not include the lyrics to 2LC's songs, but the more offensive titles include vulgar references to male and female genitalia and a reference to women as "hoes," meaning "whores, as well as at least one album cover featuring Petitioner surrounded by scantily clad women. Given the explicit sexual content of the titles and lyrics, Petitioner helped promote the use of parental advisory stickers to be applied to albums, tapes, and CDs, including those of 2LC, that contained lyrics inappropriate for minors and thus constituted a form of adult entertainment. On the other hand, two unimpeachable sources--the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--found serious elements in at least certain of the 2LC songs of this era. In a copyright infringement case that arose after Luke Records had sold over 250,000 copies of 2LC's adaptation of Roy Orbison's, "Oh, Pretty Woman," the Supreme Court held, in a case of first impression, that commercial parody could be protected under the fair-use exception to copyright law. Describing the song itself, the Supreme Court opinion states: While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies. It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 583 (1994). In Luke Records v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1022 (1992), Petitioner and others won a reversal of a district court declaratory judgment that the 2LC musical recording, "As Nasty As They Wanna Be," was obscene under state and federal law. In another case of first impression--this time applying the obscenity test in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), to a musical composition containing instrumental music and lyrics--the appellate court relied on the testimony of two newspaper music critics that the subject music possessed serious musical or artistic value. More interestingly, the court relied on the testimony of a Rhodes scholar who was soon to undertake employment as an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. This testimony, which focused on the lyrics, traced "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" to three oral traditions of African-American music: the "call and response," "doing the dozens," and "boasting." Noting that the lyrics of "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" reflected many aspects of poor, inner-city blacks, this witness added that some of the lyrics contained statements of political significance or used literary devices, such as alliteration, allusion, metaphor, rhyme, and personification. Assuming without deciding that the trial judge had correctly determined that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" met the first two prongs of the Miller test--i.e., the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest based on contemporary community standards and the work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law--the appellate court rejected the trial court's determination that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" fails the third prong of the Miller test--i.e., that it "lacks serious artistic, scientific, literary or political value." 960 F.2d at 138 (citing Miller, 413 U.S. at 24). After 2LC: 1992-2008 Petitioner and 2LC parted ways in 1992. Three years later, Petitioner and Luke Records, Inc. filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in the assignment of all masters and copyrights owned by Petitioner or Luke Records, Inc., to a company formed by a former in-house counsel of Luke Records. Thompkins v. Lil' Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1299-1301, and 1314n.22 (11th Cir. 2007). To some extent, perhaps due to the bankruptcy, Petitioner lost exclusive use of names associated with him, such as "Uncle Luke." As an asset of Petitioner, the Luther Campbell brand suffered a loss in value. The evidentiary record provides an incomplete picture of what Petitioner did during the ten years following his departure from 2LC. The arrests and Petitioner's explanations suggest that he DJed at house parties, made paid appearances at autograph-signing events, and attended nightclubs, although whether as a performer, audience member, or promoter is not clear. Petitioner released four hip-hop albums from 1992-2006. As always, Petitioner remained in Miami. In 1991 or 1992, Petitioner was among the persons who started the Liberty City Optimist youth football program. Competing with the local John Doe gang, Petitioner and other founders of the Optimist youth football program got kids off the dangerous streets and onto the football field. During the early years of his involvement with the youth football program, Petitioner invested considerable time and money, contributing at least $80,000. Petitioner helped lobby the Miami-Dade County Commission for what was eventually an expenditure of an estimated $14 million in facilities to serve organized football at local parks. Now, the Liberty City Optimist youth programs serve 6000 boys and girls, from 4-16 years of age, through a variety of sports and academic programs. Petitioner's wife, a local attorney and former FSU cheerleader, chairs the Liberty City Optimist youth cheerleading program. Although there have been some football-famous graduates of the program, such as Chad Johnson, the program's larger success is that 90 percent of the first group of youth to complete the program started college. Until 2005, Petitioner was not directly involved with the children in the Optimist youth programs. In 2005, realizing that his entertaining career had "taken a turn," Petitioner began coaching an Optimist youth football team. As he dialed up his involvement with youth, Petitioner tapered off his performances and appearances. Petitioner's two most recent albums are Somethin' Nasty, which was released in 2001, and My Life and Freaky Times, which was released in 2006. In contrast to the earlier cover art of 2LC, the cover art for the last album depicted Petitioner surrounded by fully clothed women. But some of Petitioner's titles would fit easily among the oeuvre of 2LC in its heyday. Somethin' Nasty includes "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," and "Hoes," and My Life and Freaky Times includes "Pop That Pussy" and "South Beach Bitches." In 2008, Petitioner made his last appearance, to date, with 2LC, at what was limited to an autograph-signing event. At the beginning of this period of Petitioner's life, in 1993, he became acquainted with James Harbor, Jr. Mr. Harbor was working for a state representative and met Petitioner through Congressman Alcee Hastings. Mr. Harbor later did an internship with Petitioner. Still later, Mr. Harbor was elected as a state representative from Palm Beach County and enlisted Petitioner in get-out-the-vote campaigns throughout Florida. Interestingly, Mr. Harbor testified that, as part of a voter-recruitment campaign, Petitioner appeared "in character." Mr. Harbor stressed repeatedly the distinction between the public persona of Petitioner and his private personality. Not a party person, during the time that Mr. Harbor has known him, Petitioner has always been "structured," hard-working and responsible, respectful toward women, and a firm disciplinarian when it came to his children. Mr. Harbor's testimony about the distinction between Petitioner's public persona and private personality finds support throughout the record, including a careful examination of the timelines. The 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor both involved weapons, not sex, and 2LC's main theme appears to have been sex, not violence or weapons. Whatever image of garish defiance that Petitioner may have cultivated during his 2LC-era, by the start of that era, he was never arrested again on charges that resulted in an admission of guilt, a no-contest plea, or a finding of guilt, except for the child-support arrest. Although the certification of Petitioner must take into consideration his public persona, to the extent that it still derives from his short-lived career with 2LC, there is no indication over the past 20 years that, outside of his performances and appearances, Petitioner has resembled the sex- song impresario, whom he portrayed with 2LC and in his later albums. High School Football: 2009-Present Starting in the 2009-10 school year, Petitioner turned from coaching Optimist youth football to coaching local high school football. During the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Central Senior High School, where his wife teaches a law class. For the 2011-12 school year, Petitioner served as an assistant football coach at Miami Northwestern Senior High School. Although he would be willing to work as an unpaid volunteer, Petitioner has been required, due to insurance requirements in the school district, to accept the pay of a part-time contract football coach, which is $1000-$1200 per year. No longer living in Liberty City, Petitioner lives closer to another Miami-Dade County high school whose students are less exposed to violence and less at-risk than the students attending Miami Central or Miami Northwestern. Nearby Broward County public high schools do not require an athletic coaching certificate because school district policy allows a volunteer to coach. But Petitioner has decided to help the most vulnerable, most at-risk students from the inner-city neighborhood where he grew up. Petitioner has served these students in ways that other persons would find difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Trying to combat the sense of hopelessness that sometimes afflicts at-risk youth, Petitioner has worked at both schools to install a sense of school pride in football and academics. When he arrived at Miami Central, the school was an F school, but Petitioner joined a school-wide effort to improve learning conditions, and, when he left two years later, the school was a B school. Similarly, when Petitioner arrived at Miami Northwestern, it was a D school, but it earned a B during the most recent school year. Miami Northwestern is located directly across the street from housing projects, and its students are regularly the targets of violence, often involving weapons. About one-quarter of its students are required to attend gun programs. The football team includes many homeless children and children with children. In the month preceding the hearing, two Miami Northwestern students had been killed. On a positive note, about 70 percent of the 95 students on the Miami Northwestern football team are graduates of the Optimist youth football program. Also, as many as 90 percent of the students who played on the high school football teams that Petitioner has coached are attending college. The students with whom Petitioner works appreciate his dedication and hard work. They know that Petitioner has spent his entire life in Miami and has known some hard times. Generally, they know that, before they were born, Petitioner had been a celebrity as a member and promoter of a hip-hop group, itself known for its frank defiance of convention, at least in terms of graphic sexual language. As Petitioner testified, his students' mothers know Petitioner from when he was a DJ on a streetcorner, through his association with 2LC and discovery of new talent, such as the hip-hop artist Pitbull, and now from his work with youth. This familiarity presents unique mentoring opportunities to Petitioner. For instance, Petitioner knew one student's father, who later went to prison where he was murdered. One day, the student's mother approached Petitioner and asked him to tell her child about the good things that his father had done before he went to prison and died. Reflecting Petitioner's dedication to at-risk youth, for at least the past four years, Petitioner has rented one or two 15-passenger vans and, at his expense, transported interested players to schools in the southeast where they might be able to attend college. Petitioner does not reserve his attention to potential stars; instead, he tries to find colleges and junior colleges at every level that might be interested in admitting an individual student. Steven Field, the head coach of the Miami Northwestern football team, testified on Petitioner's behalf. Coach Field, who has most recently coached at University of Miami and Hampton University in Virginia, also coached at Miami Central from 2000- 2004. Coach Field testified that Petitioner is an "essential" member of his coaching staff, not for his name or past career, but for his way with the students. Petitioner leads by example and always fulfills any promises that he makes to the students--things that may otherwise be lacking in the lives of some of these inner-city youth. According to Coach Field, Petitioner's "no-nonsense, professional" style of dealing with the students commands their attention and respect. For example, as the coach in charge of the weight room, Petitioner does not allow swearing. When one student became disrespectful to another coach, Petitioner ordered the student to leave the premises. Neither Petitioner nor Coach Field would allow 2LC music to be played in the weight room due to its inappropriate adult content. Petitioner testified that, in trying to save students, he will "talk 'till I'm blue in the face," revealing not only the necessary dedication, but, more importantly, the insight that that there are no shortcuts or quick fixes in trying to communicate with at-risk children. Reinforcing the realism evident in Petitioner's testimony, Coach Stevens described his and Petitioner's efforts with the students as not much more than reinforcing the notions of living right at home and "getting your books at school." Coach Stevens stressed that he and Petitioner do not concentrate exclusively on the students who are talented enough to play football in college. At least a half dozen students are in felony programs. With these students, Coach Stevens testified that he and Petitioner do not speak about "getting into Georgia Tech"; they speak about finishing high school and getting a job. Coach Stevens has never heard Petitioner speak to the students about mistakes that he has made, nor does he wish Petitioner to do so. Coach Stevens, Petitioner, and the other coaches try to set a positive tone, so they talk to the students about what they need to do, not about mistakes that the students--or coaches--may have made in the past. However, if the school resource officer tells Petitioner about problems that an individual student is having, Petitioner will talk to the student one-on-one. In such conversations, Petitioner does not shy away from relating personally to what the student is going through. The Application Received on April 27, 2010, the Application answers "yes" to the following questions: Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offense? Have you ever had adjudication withheld on a criminal offense? Have you ever pled guilty to a criminal offense? The Application answers "no" to the following questions: Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense? Have you ever pled nolo contendere to a criminal offense? The Application lists the following arrests and states that the disposition of all charges was dismissal, except for the South Carolina charge, which is reported as "guilty/adjudication withheld": Miami--8/79--reckless display of firearm Miami--2/85--loitering/prowling Miami--11/85--inciting riot Miami--12/87--aggravated assault Hillsborough--12/87--aggravated assault Miami--5/94--aggravated assault Miami--7/99--battery Dorchester County--10/22--"dissem promote" The Application is flawed in its disclosure of Petitioner's criminal history. As alleged in the Amended Notice of Reasons, the disclosure of the "loitering/prowling" arrest fails to mention the felony weapons charge, which was part of the same incident, and thus fails to note that the court withheld adjudication on this charge. Also, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Hearing, the Application fails to disclose the 1986 Misdemeanor, which occurred in Hillsborough County. Although the Application discloses a Hillsborough County arrest, it seems to confuse the incident with a later arrest in Dade County, but, more importantly, omits mention of the finding of guilt on this misdemeanor weapon charge. However, these flaws do not prove that Petitioner intentionally concealed information or was less than honest in completing the Application. Obviously, he has had many arrests, so the potential for confusion or even omission exists, and there are comparatively few inaccuracies. On these facts, it is found only that Petitioner filed an inaccurate application, but not that he filed an application with fraudulent or dishonest intent. Petitioner: At Present Petitioner does not pose a risk to the safety of the students entrusted to him. For the past seven years, Petitioner has had significant direct contact with vulnerable youth without any reported problems. In light of this critical fact, the 1979 Misdemeanor, 1986 Misdemeanor, and Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC and the adult entertainment industry lose whatever contrary predictive value that they might otherwise have. Simply put, Petitioner does not resemble the youth who committed the 1979 Misdemeanor or 1986 Misdemeanor or the man who performed with and promoted 2LC 20 years ago. Petitioner resembles the middle-aged man who released sexually explicit songs in 2001 and 2006, but this is addressed below. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, good moral character requires consideration of a person's honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and the law, so consideration of student safety, although important, is not sufficient. But the 1979 Misdemeanor and 1986 Misdemeanor, as old misdemeanors, provide insufficient support for a finding that, today, Petitioner lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law. Nor do these criminal offenses support findings that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude, as those terms are defined in the Conclusions of Law. Likewise, Petitioner's 2LC career 20 years ago and even his more recent releases of 2LC-like albums in 2001 and 2006 do not support a finding that he lacks honesty, fairness, or respect for the rights of others and the law or that he is guilty of gross immorality or moral turpitude. For the reasons noted above, the redeeming value to be found in the releases means that they do not violate the law, provided they also conform to any laws restricting their dissemination, such as not to minors or not on television during certain hours of family viewing. Absent an attempt to market the offensive material in some broadly accessible fashion, such as on billboards or the sides of public buses, such non-obscene works similarly do not violate the rights of others. As noted above, the flaws of the Application do not support a finding of dishonesty or fraud. But, in his proposed recommended order, Respondent fairly questions Petitioner's initial refusal to identify his Application at the hearing. This failing of Petitioner, as well as the two others discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, cannot serve as standalone grounds for denial because: 1) they arose at the hearing and thus were not available as grounds in the Amended Notice of Reasons and even if alleged, they do not rise to the level of a lack of good moral character, as in a lack of honesty or fairness. But they do provide part of the justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner. Petitioner's failure at the hearing initially to identify his Application was not due to any confusion. There were not multiple versions of applications from which to choose. There was one Application on the table, and Petitioner initially testified, more than once, that he could not identify it. The temptation appeared palpable for Petitioner to off-load the responsibility for an obviously flawed application onto someone else who may have completed it for Petitioner, who nonetheless signed it. Cannily, Respondent's counsel moved for a summary order. The Administrative Law Judge warned Petitioner that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction in the absence of an application. Petitioner and his attorney made good use of a short recess to confer. After the recess, Petitioner identified Respondent Exhibit 1 as the Application that he had filed for an athletic coaching certificate. Petitioner's second failing of this type, also noted in Respondent's proposed recommended order, consists of his unwillingness to own up to his role or roles in any of the salacious songs that he has performed or produced. While it is possible that Petitioner might not have been responsible for the more salacious songs performed by 2LC, he clearly was responsible for the five sexually graphic titles on the two most recent, post-2LC albums, which, as discussed above, were released in 2001 and 2006. Petitioner's third failing of this type occurred when he testified about his bad period from 1979 to 1986. Petitioner admitted only to not living a "perfect" life and associating with bad persons. This seems a little lean for two misdemeanor weapons convictions and a withholding of adjudication of guilt on a felony weapon charge--all in the span of seven years. As Respondent points out, Petitioner has displayed minimal contrition for the bad choices that he made during this period. At minimum, he missed an opportunity to describe how he has changed when he "admitted" only that he was not perfect or implied that his legal problems were caused by bad associations. In these three instances, Petitioner sought to escape personal responsibility by claiming or implying that other persons prepared the flawed Application that he was somehow compelled to sign, other persons forced him to perform songs with five salacious titles in 2001 and 2006, and other persons got him into trouble during the bad period over 25 years ago. Although not evidence of a lack of honesty, Petitioner's failure to affirmatively own up to these acts suggest a lack of self- insight and perhaps even a misapprehension of the extent to which he must subject himself to the regulatory oversight that is imposed on applicants for certificates and, later, certificateholders. The other justification for adding conditions to any certificate issued to Petitioner is the prospect of his return to adult entertainment. In addition to part-time coaching at Miami Northwestern, Petitioner also owns a company, Luke Holdings, which deals in movie scripts and produces elements of television commercials, among other pursuits in the entertainment industry. In recent years, extreme examples of adult entertainment, such as pornography, have emerged bearing the Luther Campbell brand, but Petitioner denied that he has been involved in the production of such material. His denial is credited, although it would have been more persuasive, absent Petitioner's failings described in the preceding paragraphs. As noted above, Petitioner lost exclusive control of his brand after the bankruptcy in 1996, and, presumably, given the shadowy nature of the pornography industry, illegal use of his name is not out of the question. The distinction between past and present involvement in adult entertainment is an important one. In a recent case, EPC did not treat past involvement in the adult entertainment industry the same as involvement while a certificateholder. See In re: The Denial of the Application for Teacher's Certificate of Shawn J. Loftis, EPC Case No. 11-0464D (April 5, 2012) available at http://www.myfloridateacher.com/discipline/icmsorders/101-2590- FO-040512155402.pdf). In Loftis, Respondent denied Mr. Loftis's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate on the grounds of a lack of good moral character, gross immorality, and moral turpitude, as well as personal conduct that seriously reduces one's effectiveness as a school board employee, which violates section 1012.795(1)(g). The factual bases for the denial was that, between 2006 and 2008, Mr. Loftis had appeared in over 20 pornographic films featuring him engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the films were still available for viewing, including on the internet, although this employment had ended prior to Mr. Loftis's temporary employment as an instructor in Miami-Dade County public schools. After an informal hearing, EPC ordered that Mr. Loftis be allowed to continue to pursue certification. EPC stated that, if "found qualified," Mr. Loftis would be issued a Florida Educator's Certificate, subject to the conditions that he obtain from an approved, Florida-licensed provider written verification that he poses no risk to children and is capable of assuming the responsibilities of an educator and that, upon employment that requires possession of a Florida Educator's Certificate, Mr. Loftis be placed on probation, subject to the following conditions: 1) he immediately notify the DOE investigative office upon employment or termination of employment requiring a Florida Educator's Certificate; 2) his immediate supervisor send annual performance reports to the DOE investigative office; he pay EPC $150 for the costs of monitoring his probation; and 4) he violate no law or rules, satisfactorily perform all assigned duties in a professional manner, and bear all costs of compliance with the final order. The Loftis final order illustrates EPC's ability to issue a conditional certificate, even without a finding that the applicant had failed to meet the qualifications for certification. In considering the requirement stated in section 1012.795(1)(g) concerning personal conduct that seriously reduces the effectiveness of the certificateholder as a school board employee, the Notice of Reasons in Loftis, when compared to the Amended Notice of Reasons in the subject case, more closely approaches the most elastic requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that a certificateholder (or applicant) "[s]hall 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." Juxtapose this broader, objective requirement of protecting the student from conditions harmful to learning or harmful to the student's mental health with: 1) Petitioner and Coach Field's efforts to inculcate in their at-risk students such values as strength of character, perseverance, dedication, and hard work in the pursuit of ambitious goals and 2) the future release of more artistic or entertainment efforts along the lines of "Suck This Dick," "We Want Big Dick," "Hoes," "Pop That Pussy," and "South Beach Bitches." Consider the bewildering effect on students if, one afternoon, in the weight room and on the field, Coach Campbell were to promote rectitude and grit and, that night, the same man were to don the garb of the sex-song impresario and promote the escapist pursuit of sexual gratification. The addition of music or elements of African boasting and literary allusion in, say, "Pop That Pussy" or "Suck This Dick," which would rightfully spare these works from successful prosecution as obscenity, would not have any bearing on the extent to which the superficial appeal of this form of adult entertainment could undermine the hard, patient work of these students' coaches, teachers, and parents in trying to shape them into responsible young men. Impressionable inner- city youth might be easily confused by these competing messages, as they compared the paltry sums paid their contract coaches and modest sums paid their regular coaches and teachers with the riches lavished upon the producers of adult entertainment. Although the Loftis final order emphasizes that the applicant no longer is engaged in the making of pornographic films, neither that authority nor the record in this case provides a sufficient basis for attaching a condition to Petitioner's certificate prohibiting his engaging in the adult entertainment industry. Such litigation awaits another day and, one hopes, another certificateholder than Petitioner or Mr. Loftis. However, conditions attached to Petitioner's certificate could focus his attention on the ethical obligations that he has assumed as a certificateholder and the very real possibility that that his return to the performance or production of adult entertainment, while a certificateholder, would be at crosspurposes with the broad mission of education and expose his certificate to suspension or revocation. Petitioner should receive an athletic coaching certificate because he generally meets the substantive certification requirements that call for consideration of such broad criteria as good moral character and the absence of gross immorality and moral turpitude, he possesses unique attributes for reaching at-risk, inner-city youth, and he has demonstrated his commitment to, and effectiveness with, working with these children for at least seven years.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that EPC issue an athletic coaching certificate to Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: The certificateholder shall be placed on probation for five years, immediately upon issuance or, if later, employment that requires a certificate. Upon issuance of the certificate and on each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, EPC or its agent shall contact the Department of Revenue and inquire if Petitioner owes any child support arrearages. Upon receipt of written notice of such arrearages from the Department of Revenue or a circuit court, EPC shall immediately suspend the certificate until the arrearages are paid in full. The payment of a purge amount that leaves an arrearage owing does not satisfy this condition. Within six months of issuance of the certificate and within six months of each anniversary of issuance, during the term of probation, Petitioner shall complete 10 hours in coursework in the area of ethics with emphasis on the Principles of Professional Conduct, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 and shall deliver to the DOE investigative office written proof of such coursework. At the start of every school year, during the term of probation, Petitioner and his immediate supervisor will sign a statement certifying that each has read the Principles of Professional Conduct and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 20 days of the first day of school. The supervisor's statement shall confirm that he or she understands that his or her professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(l) that he or she "shall not assist entry into or continuance in the profession of any person known to be unqualified in accordance with these Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and other applicable Florida Statutes and State Board of Education Rules." Petitioner's statement shall confirm that he understands that his professional obligations include the obligation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) that he "shall 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." If Petitioner's immediate supervisor changes during the school year, the new supervisor shall sign a supervisor's statement within 30 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner and deliver the signed statement to the DOE investigative office within 60 days of his or her assumption of supervisory duties over Petitioner. Within 30 days of the preparation and delivery of an evaluation to Petitioner, during the term of probation, he shall submit a copy to the DOE investigative office. During the term of probation, if Petitioner becomes actively involved in the adult entertainment industry, in any manner, he shall notify the DOE investigative office, in writing, within 30 days of first involvement. For the purpose of this paragraph, the performance or production of a sexually explicit song that would be inappropriate for the football team weight room or the appearance at an autograph- signing event promoted on the basis of Petitioner's former involvement with 2LC is active involvement in the adult entertainment industry. During the term of probation, the certificateholder shall reimburse EPC or its agent its reasonable costs of monitoring. If any of these conditions, except for the condition stated in paragraph 2, are not timely performed by Petitioner or, if applicable, his supervisor, EPC may suspend the certificate until Petitioner demonstrates compliance (or the term of the certificate expires) or, at its discretion, revoke the certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael John Carney, Esquire Kubicki Draper, P.A. Wachovia Bank Building, Suite 1600 One East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 mjc@kubickidraper.com Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 charles@ctwpalaw.com
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations set out in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a teacher by Florida Teaching Certificate Number 239016, covering the areas of physical education and administration, issued on March 7, 1978. From January, 1981 until September 25, 1984, he was employed as a Physical Education (PE) Instructor at W. E. Cherry Elementary School in Clay County, Florida and as such was an employee of the Clay County School Board. Clay County School Board rules and policies stipulate that no one but a school principal or his/her designee is authorized to administer corporal punishment in the schools of that county. This policy was in effect prior to, during, and subsequent to the entire period of time the Respondent was employed with the school board and during the period in question in this proceeding. At the beginning of each school year, the school principal, Mr. Philemon, would conduct a staff meeting during which he clearly outlined the school board's policy and procedures regarding the administration of corporal punishment. Respondent was in attendance at these meetings while employed at Cherry. In addition, each teacher was furnished a copy of the Faculty-Staff Handbook, a copy of the Code of Student Conduct for Clay County, and a copy of the Clay County School Board rules on discipline. In addition to the above, Respondent attended a training session for new teachers conducted by Ms. Linday Blanton, Assistant Principal at Cherry on August 27, 1981, during which the policies on corporal punishment were thoroughly reviewed. From the above, it is clear that Respondent was well aware of the policy of the school board on corporal punishment and the procedures to be followed when corporal punishment was necessary. It is clear that he understood these policies from the showing that during the initial phase of his employment, he followed the procedure properly. However, beginning with the 1982-1983 school term, he discontinued using the prescribed referral forms needed by the principal and assistant principal to administer corporal punishment and refused to use them until such time as he became aware of the investigation into his alleged misconduct in the Spring of 1984. In spite of his knowledge as to the appropriate procedure, he continued to persist in administering corporal punishment even after being advised of the impropriety of his actions. He was administered a letter of reprimand because of his personal administration of corporal punishment on February 22, 1982, because of complaints received from parents that Respondent was improperly spanking their children. Elizabeth C. Hart has been teaching for 16 years. At some point during the 1982 school year, she was coming back from her break to pick up her third grade class who had been at PE with the Respondent. She saw the students lined up and watched the Respondent strike another student, Ricky Kogut, twice with his bare hand on the buttocks. The child was crying as a result and it appeared to Ms. Hart that Respondent had struck him quite hard. On another occasion during this 1983-84 school year, she observed Michael Donnel crying as he was walking back from the direction of Respondent's portable classroom. When she asked the student if Respondent had spanked him, the child nodded his head "yes". On another occasion, on September 12, 1984, as Ms. Hart's students were coming to her in line from PE, she observed Respondent stop one student, Christina Smith, and shout at her for not walking fast enough. Respondent also berated the child, directing her to answer, "yes, sir" to his questions, and as a result, the child began to cry and remained crying for approximately 10 minutes after the next class period started. In Ms. Hart's opinion, this incident had a disruptive effect on the class and as a result, she complained to the principal about the situation. In addition, she felt this type of conduct was not proper behavior for teachers. On the basis of what she saw of the Respondent, she began to avoid him and this had an adverse effect on the teacher to teacher relationship. Similar activity was reported by Ruth Green, whose 8- and-9-year-old students had Respondent as their PE teacher during the 1982-1984 school year. On one occasion during the first part of that school year, she was going to pick her students up from PE when she heard Respondent yell at a child to bend over. She observed the Respondent strike the student, Lanier Austin, on the buttocks with his hand resulting in the child being reduced to tears. This incident took place at the edge of the sidewalk near the school clinic. Though no other teacher was present, the other children in the class were and the student who was struck was considerably embarrassed as was Ms. Green and the other students who stood silently by not knowing what to do. During the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year, while in her classroom with some other teachers, she overheard Respondent and Mr. Philemon arguing at the foot of the stairs outside her room. This conversation related to a third grade student with neurological problems who had a restricted physical activities slip and to whom Respondent had given a hardball. Mr. Philemon was contending that was not good judgment on the part of the Respondent who was debating whether Mr. Philemon had the right to tell him this. In May, 1984, Ms. Green sent one of her students into Respondent's office to get gym equipment. Respondent came out of the PE building and shouted at her and her students about equipment being lost. He then ejected the student she had sent in, exited his office, locked the door, and went back to the school. This surprised, shocked and frightened Ms. Green because it had never happened before. In the past, she had used the school's PE equipment without any difficulty. The incident also upset the students and from that point on, because her students didn't want to be involved with the Respondent and because she didn't want an encounter with him, she never again asked for the use of PE equipment for her class. Ms. Green subsequently reported this incident to Mr. Philemon. Similar incidents were reported by Debra S. Baylor. During the 1983-1984 school year, while standing at the drop-off point one day, waiting for Respondent to come and get her class for PE, she observed Respondent bringing back the prior class and saw and heard him shout at one student, Brian Cozort. This altercation resulted from an incident which allegedly had occurred out on the playing field. When Brian, a small child, tried to explain, Respondent yelled at him to be quiet and not speak. He refused to let the child say anything but kept on berating him for several minutes. As a result, the child began to cry and shake. This incident embarrassed both the teacher and the students in her care and as a result, she took them away. When Respondent subsequently came to get them, he told her that she should not have moved the class, that her students needed to hear what happened so that it might prevent similar things from happening with her class. After the Cozort incident, Respondent cut all relationships with Ms. Baylor. Helen Vitullo, Cozort's teacher, also observed the incident. After Respondent released the class, she took them back to their room where Brian continued crying for 10 minutes or so. When he finally calmed down, she tried to find out what had happened to prompt Respondent's outburst and though she could not get a complete answer, it was obvious to her that nothing serious had happened and that Respondent had overreacted. As a result, after school was over that day, Ms. Vitullo went to the school office and reported the incident to Ms. Blanton, the vice-principal. Somewhat later, when she went into the teacher's lounge, Respondent questioned her as to why she had reported the incident. During the 1983-1984 school year, Dawn F. Wilson counseled two young sisters regarding emotional instabilities arising out of their poor home situation. In January 1984, Respondent asked her what she was doing with them. When she told him, he replied it was none of her business that they would have to "tough it out" and get on with their lives. Ms. Wilson had not solicited this discussion with Respondent and felt that if she had argued with him, the discussion could have become more seriously confrontational. Therefore, she did not pursue it. In the Autumn of 1984, the school received a student from another State who was neurologically impaired and who, in his previous school, had had a specialized PE program. This child had some head/spinal cord injury. According to Ms. Wilson, he had a structured goals and objectives plan already prepared and to facilitate his integration into the school, Ms. Wilson talked to the Respondent about implementing the preplanned goals in his physical education plan. This was an adaptive PE program somewhat separate from the general PE program. In response, however, Respondent advised Ms. Wilson he was philosophically opposed to children getting special PE except in those cases where the child could not physically perform. Ms. Wilson advised Respondent that was not their decision to make, that they had no choice. Nonetheless, in order to facilitate working with the Respondent, Ms. Wilson discussed the matter with the county PE resource teacher who advised that this particular child could take regular PE if Respondent would write new goals and objectives consistent with the child's situation. Respondent did not agree to do this. After talking with the county again, Ms. Wilson drafted the new goals herself and left them in Respondent's box in the office. At this point, he agreed but the entire transaction took some 30 to 40 days which were unnecessary. Another aspect of Respondent's conduct deals with his habit of imposing "birthday spankings" on his students. This came to light when the daughter of a county school official, one of Respondent's students, expressed concern over the practice. Several of the teachers also expressed concern about it and several students complained to their parents who, in turn, reported the matter to the principal. The practice consisted of Respondent picking out children whose birthdays it was and tossing them into the air all the while maintaining contact with at least the child's arm. Many of the children to whom this was done enjoyed it. Others did not. Even the teachers who commented on it, however, while considering it to be an undesirable practice, nonetheless conceded that Respondent maintained adequate control over the situation. Mr. Miller, in April, 1984, attended a conference at Cherry Elementary School in Ms. Blanton's office, attended by Respondent, Ms. Blanton, Mr. Philemon, and Ms. Wilson. This meeting was to look into Respondent's actions of spanking a child and berating the principal. Though Respondent answered the questions asked of him, at one point, he indicated he had no respect for the principal. Because of Respondent's demeanor at this meeting, both in what he said and the way that he said it, Mr. Miller considered Respondent to be rude and belligerent to not only the principal but to any authority. During the 1983-1984 school year, on one occasion, Sally Jones' son, David Thomas, came home from school crying and related that Respondent had hit him. He indicated that other things had happened before and as a result, Ms. Jones went to school to see Respondent. When she got there, Respondent appeared to be upset and regaled her with a list of things her child had done over the prior weeks. As a result, a loud argument developed outside the principal's office observed by Ms. Hart, the substance of which was that in the opinion of Ms. Jones, her child's conduct did not justify Respondent's hitting him. Both Respondent and Ms. Jones were called into the principal's office where, in her opinion, Respondent was loud, rude, scoffing, and intimidating in both posture and demeanor. She has two other children in this school and does not want them in Respondent's class. She feels that Respondent had no reason to hit her child and if the child was a problem, Respondent should have either contacted the parent or sent the child to the office. It should be noted at this point that Ms. Jones admits that her son is a disciplinary problem but contends the Respondent's reaction to her was unjustified and unnecessary. Respondent did not use profanity or vulgarity during their argument, and here it must be noted that neither did any of the complainants, nor did he physically threaten her, but she was intimidated and repelled by his attitude, demeanor, and approach. Connie Jo Babe's son, Herman, a 10-year-old school patrol member, had Respondent for his PE teacher during the 1983-1984 school year. In February, 1984, her son came home from school one day in tears indicating that he had been fired from the school patrol by Respondent who was head of that group. Ms. Babe went to see Respondent to find out why this action had been taken. He was evasive and said he did not want to discuss it, but that her son was fired and when she said she would go to the school office about the situation, his response was, "fine." She subsequently found out why her son was dismissed from the patrol and can accept that action. What she cannot accept is the humiliating way in which the removal action was taken -- in front of a lot of other patrol members in public. Because of this, Ms. Babe does not want her son back on the patrol, in any case, because she does not want him to have contact with the Respondent. Yet another parent, Nora Mae Crothers, has a son, Kevin, age 11, who was one of Respondent's 5th grade PE students during the school year 1983-1984. The boy was petrified of the Respondent to the extent that he began to want to miss school. Her inquiry finally revealed that he had gotten into an argument with the Respondent during which the Respondent had told him that if he didn't bring a cardboard box to school to replace one that had been broken during horseplay, he would receive a spanking. When she heard this, she called Respondent on the phone telling him that she resented his threat to strike her son and that he'd better not do it again. She admits that she was screaming at Respondent and perhaps was irrational and as a result, Respondent hung up on her. As a result, she reported the incident to the principal and arranged for her son's transfer to another school. Respondent's relationships were not good with other teachers as well as the Principal at Cherry. Peggy Williams had a conversation with Respondent toward the end of the 1982-1983 school year regarding a field day for the students. During prior years there had been a different type of event in which Respondent had not participated. This year, Respondent had drawn up a schedule for the day and the lunch period had been reduced by 15 minutes (lunch schedule is set at the beginning of the school year by the administration). Ms. Williams told Respondent that the lunch schedule could not be changed due to the needs of the cafeteria, to which Respondent replied that it had to be his way or not at all. To avoid a confrontation at that point, Ms. Williams left. Mr. Philemon received several complaints from parents regarding Respondent spanking their children or his relationships with them. In one case, Respondent had ordered a parent off the campus without authority from Mr. Philemon. In prior years, Mr. Philemon had rated Respondent satisfactory based solely on classroom evaluation. In February, 1984, however, after the gradual deterioration of Respondent's attitude and performance, he rated him unsatisfactory. In the various meetings that he had with Respondent about his attitude and performance, he found him difficult to confer with. In his opinion Respondent is arrogant and overbearing and demonstrates a total intolerance of the opinion of others. On April 2, 1984, Mr. Philemon met with Respondent regarding a trip for the school safety patrol. Respondent had put a note in the principal's box asking, in part, about the year end trip. The principal responded to this request and when Respondent saw the response, he immediately got angry. At this point, the principal called Respondent into his office and Respondent immediately verbally abused the principal to the point that he felt it necessary to call in a witness. It was obvious to Mr. Philemon that Respondent did not understand the answer to the note. From the way he shook his finger at and berated him during this incident, Mr. Philemon took them as a physical threat. The next day, Mr. Philemon again met with Respondent to discuss proposed discipline for the prior day's incident. Others, including the union representative, the vice-principal, and the assistant superintendent were present. In addition to the discipline discussion at this meeting, Mr. Philemon told Respondent that he was not to administer corporal punishment to any student and Respondent indicated he understood. It was at this meeting that Respondent indicated he had no respect for the principal as an individual. He admitted that the office of principal was due some respect but not the individual incumbent. On April 17, 1984, in a letter to the Superintendent of Clay County Schools, Mr. Philemon recommended Respondent be suspended because of (1) unsatisfactory evaluation rendered in February, 1984: and (2) the fact that Respondent's conduct had not improved since that time. After a copy of this letter was given to the Respondent, he became aloof and would not speak. The staff indicated that they were afraid of Respondent and didn't want to be around or deal with him because of his yelling and abrasiveness. Even though Respondent was competent as a PE instructor, Mr. Philemon felt that his personal relations skills with teachers, supervisors, and parents were totally lacking based upon both personally observed conduct and reports by others. This opinion was not held solely by Mr. Philemon. The majority of teachers with whom Respondent worked indicated that his personality changed over the period of time that he was employed at Cherry Elementary School. He became withdrawn and the incidents such as those described above seemed to have increased. It was their opinion that Respondent had become a martinet who breached no challenge to his opinion and his way of doing things. Some of the staff have, as a result, become concerned about the safety of the students and the school. Notwithstanding this, Respondent was not dismissed from employment at the end of the 1983-1984 school year and returned to school at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year, but his conduct and behavior did not improve. On the opening of the pre-school session, he was 45 minutes late without any explanation. On September 11 and 12, 1984, he berated several children which resulted in a conference with the principal on September 12. Respondent immediately wanted to know who had reported his actions. He would not discuss the incident and kept making comments such as accusing the principal of having it in for him. Respondent accused the other teachers of being neurotic and suggested that the principal go to the school board and get rid of him. During this conversation, though Respondent was loud and belligerent, he denied yelling at the children. He contended that he had a firm voice. It was on this occasion that he called Mr. Philemon, "The most pathetic excuse for a man I've ever seen." In Mr Philemon's opinion, Respondent lacks the personal relations skills to be employed as a teacher either in Clay County or anywhere else. Admitting that he failed as a principal to mark Respondent's previous evaluations as he should have, he contends that if he had done what was appropriate, he would have evaluated Respondent lower than he did prior to the 1984 evaluation. He states however, that whenever he discussed Respondent's incidents with him, Respondent would either admit or fail to deny the strikings and on each occasion he felt constrained to give Respondent another chance. Now, however, he considers Respondent totally unfit as a teacher because he intimidates students, staff, and parents and would not want Respondent to work for him in any capacity. The aberrant tendencies demonstrated by Respondent as described above did not begin, however, at Cherry Elementary School. Respondent was employed at Roosevelt Elementary School in Tampa, Florida during the 1970's and worked for several different principals. During 1974-1979, his principal was Myrna Robinson who found him to be a hardworking PE teacher. He had a basically good relationship with the students and, overall, he was a good teacher whose students achieved. Respondent also got along with other members of the faculty when things went his way. However, he did have difficulties from time to time. On one occasion, for example, he got into an altercation with the bus drivers over getting closer to the school during rainy periods. He was contemptuous to the principal when she subsequently tried to investigate this incident and as a result, was not reappointed to be the safety patrol sponsor. Respondent also refused to obey orders of the principal in regard to corporal punishment. He refused to bring children to the office for corporal punishment and imposed it himself on the spot. When instructed that this was not to be done, he demanded that these instructions be put in writing and only when that was done did he comply. Ms. Robinson believes that Respondent's major problem was his inability to follow the corporal punishment policy and a subordinate problem was his inability to accept criticism. Though Ms. Robinson recalled no incidents of Respondent verbally abusing students, she does recall times when faculty members would complain about his relationship with them, but would ask the principal not to say anything to him about it. This volatility when things did not go his way adversely affected Respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher. Ms. Robinson does not want Respondent to work for her again. Though he is a good teacher and a good organizer, his volatile nature makes it impossible for him to accept criticism or rejection of his proposals. Ms. Robinson warned Respondent long ago, when he worked for her, that if he continued to administer corporal punishment himself, he would some day face a hearing. His response to that warning was that he "would take the chance." Richard Blandy took over from Ms. Robinson as principal at Roosevelt in 1979, and Respondent worked for him at that location through December 1980. When Mr. Blandy first arrived at Roosevelt, he had a meeting with all the teachers to go over the policies of the school and the school board and the teacher's handbook. He talked specifically about corporal punishment. Initially, he had no problem with Respondent in that regard, but after a while, he began to get some complaints. In September, 1980, he received a complaint from an officer of the Tampa Police Department based on a complaint filed by parents of a student about Respondent's administering corporal punishment to their child. It appears that the complaint was not that the child had been spanked but that it was done without any witnesses present. When Mr. Blandy talked with Respondent about this, Respondent advised him that it was too far to bring the student to the principal's office for paddling. In light of this, Mr. Blandy was convinced that Respondent knew what to do and ignored the policy. In the interview, Respondent was courteous and admitted he understood. On each occasion, when the policy was brought to Respondent's attention, he never said he would not follow it but he always ignored it. Dorothy F. Perricone was the principal at Roosevelt who hired Respondent initially and subsequently recommended him for continuing contract. She found him to be a hard working teacher who had a good relationship with the students a majority of the time. He also got along with a majority of the faculty members and Mrs. Perricone does not recall any friction created by Respondent in that regard. She has seen Respondent overreact and get too angry in a relationship with children. He is a strong disciplinarian who expects perfection. Though he got along with most students, he had difficulty with those whose discipline or physical skills were less than he considered acceptable. He did not agree with the state law limiting corporal punishment to administrators and felt that he should have the right to administer it. Respondent was suspended from his employment with the Clay County schools by letter from the Superintendent dated September 25, 1984. This suspension was to continue until a hearing could be held before the school board regarding his proposed dismissal. However, on November 20, 1984, Respondent submitted a personal letter of resignation which obviated the need for the hearing on the dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therfore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent's teacher's certificate issued by the State of Florida, be revoked permanently. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August. COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esq. 331 East Union Street 2nd Floor Jacksonville, Florida 32202 I. J. Green P. O. Box 192 Vina, Alabama 35593 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the School Board should dismiss respondent or impose other appropriate sanctions for the misconduct in office and immorality which the petition for dismissal alleges had the effect of impairing respondent's effectiveness?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Bobby Leon Murphy holds a Florida teacher's certificate, No. 170876. He began his teaching career in Mobile, Alabama, at Satsuma High School, in 1958. Now 55 years old, he has served as aquatic coordinator for Escambia County and director of the Washington Aquatic Center since June 14, 1982, twelve days before he lost the eldest of his three sons in an automobile accident. Sherman L. Robinson, the black principal of Washington High School, was among the first to learn of the tragedy, and came promptly to the family home to console his friend, "Bobby Lee," as he is known. It was Mr. Robinson to whom Coach Murphy referred, on some ten occasions, in conversations with another employee of Washington Aquatic Center, as a "big nigger" or simply as a "nigger." He once called his principal "just a big nigger trying to throw his weight around." T.102. Wife To Blame Mr. and Mrs. Murphy were with friends at Rosie O'Grady's in Pensacola on April 14, 1968, when a dispute arose between respondent Murphy and another patron. The gentlemen decided to pursue the matter outside. Mr. Murphy landed the first and perhaps only blow before a policeman ended the altercation and placed him under arrest for "assault with hands." Eventually, Mr. Murphy paid a $50.00 fine on account of the incident, or so he testified at hearing. On his application for extension of certificate dated March 24, 1987, after these proceedings began, Mr. Murphy reported that he had been fined $75.00. The application for extension was granted. On three previous applications for teacher's certificates, dated November 16, 1971, July 27, 1973, and April 4, 1983, there was no mention of the arrest. In response to the question, "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?," the box in front of "No" had been checked on the 1971 and 1973 applications. On the 1983 application, "No" had been checked in response to the question "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Respondent testified that he had not meant to mislead anybody in submitting the applications he did after his arrest and before the present charges were laid. It was just that his wife had filled earlier applications out, he explained, while he himself had completed the most recent and only accurate application. Life at Poolside Mr. Murphy has coached swimming for many years, and enjoys an interstate (Florida and Alabama) reputation as a good swimming coach. Since former Superintendent Stokes named him director of the Washington Aquatic Center, however, his principal duties have been administrative. The Center was built on the campus of Washington High School, but is used by junior and senior high students from other Escambia County schools as well. The office Mr. Murphy occupied at the Center opens onto the pool deck, and the office door is mostly glass. Almost all of the office is visible from outside, but passersby cannot see the corner of the office into which he retreated one day in the summer of 1982, while addressing Susan Lynn Graham, then 18 years old, and the only other occupant of the office. He urged her to join him in the corner and rub her "boobs against him, but she declined. Ms. Graham was a pool attendant at the time. Mr. Robinson, the principal, had delegated to Mr. Murphy authority to hire and fire pool attendants, young people paid minimum wage to work as lifeguards, and to help with teaching, coaching and keeping the Center clean. Coach Murphy regularly hugged the pool attendants and others, and Ms. Graham was no exception. A witness described these as lateral, as opposed to frontal, hugs. Standing beside the recipient, he placed an arm around his or her shoulders, and pulled, squeezing the near shoulder against the side of his chest. For the most part, these hugs were gestures of friendship, encouragement or commendation, but, in Ms. Graham's case, he whispered into her ear when he hugged her, "I'm going to make love to Sue Graham," or "I'm going to make love to Sue Graham before the summer's over, or "Don't you forget it, baby," or something of the kind. This happened repeatedly. Once, when just the two of them were in his office, he told her he would eat her "pussy," then stuck his tongue out, emitted a "kind of laugh," (T.22) and shook his head. At this, she left the office, shocked and embarrassed, telling him not to say things like that. He seemed to her always to be leering: sometimes he raised his eyebrows. He offered to meet her "any time" at his condominium. (T.24) He once told her he liked watching her jump up and down on the diving board and seeing her bosom bounce. Ms. Graham told coworkers that Mr. Murphy had made passes at her and asked them not to leave her alone with him. When she complained to Mike Haas, however, the Center's assistant director, he seemed to support Mr. Murphy. She decided against reporting Mr. Murphy's attentions to his superiors, and left her job in May of 1983. She "just decided that it was not worth the pressure [she] was under to continue to work there." (T.24) Ann Cobb Palmer had known Mr. Murphy since she was eight years old, maybe even longer. He had been her swimming coach. Hired by respondent as a lifeguard at Washington Aquatic Center, she felt intimidated and degraded one day at work when, in her presence, he said to two young men, Messrs. Haas and Martin, "I wonder what she would be like in bed." (T.70) Eighteen years old at the time, she burst into tears and left his office crying a few days later when, again in her hearing, Coach Murphy told Mike Martin, "I would like to get in her pants." Id. Teresa Hunter Murphy, no relation to the respondent, was a married college graduate when she began working as a swimming instructor at Washington Aquatic Center in the summer of 1982. In October of 1982, as she and Coach Murphy sat in his office, he "stared at [her] crotch and said, mmmmm, I think I could eat on that thing for a few days," (T.96) adding, "[B]aby, we'd have to send out for room service." (T.97) When she expressed dismay at his language and stood up to leave, he asked, "[D]on't you like it?" Id. During the three years or so she worked under respondent's supervision, Ms. Murphy's first marriage deteriorated and eventually came to an end. Coach Murphy, who was aware of her marital problems, said to his assistant Mike Haas, "Mike, Teresa is not getting any, can you handle that[?]" (T.94) Another time, Coach Murphy asked her if she would "go for" dating or having sex with either of the "PE coaches" at Washington High School. Looking at a picture of the Washington High School girls' swim team one day, Coach Murphy pointed out to Ms. Murphy that "several of the girls on the front row had shown through their bathing suits" (T.95) and said it "looked like they had been busted wide open ... [meaning that they] were not virgins any longer." (T.96) The pool attendants had no guarantee of continued employment and, at least one, Katherine Taylor, was dismissed by Mr. Haas, who said he and Coach Murphy had reached the decision together. At the time, the only explanation he offered was that it was for her benefit. (T.53) At hearing, however, he testified she was fired because she had been unwilling to clean a toilet. Keys to the Condo Coach Murphy hired Julie Ann Halpern Schweitzer, 22 years old and unmarried, to work at the Washington Aquatic Center as a lifeguard in September of 1983. At school board expense, he sent her to a coaching convention in Orlando in the company of his assistant, Mike Haas, Teresa Murphy, and Mike Byrd, who did not work at the Center. Upon their return, Coach Murphy summoned Ms. Halpern, as she then was, to his office. When she arrived, Mike Haas was already there. Coach Murphy asked if anything had happened on the trip, "insinuating hanky-panky and asked Mike Haas if he made a pass at [Ms. Halpern]. Mike Haas said he had tried. But the truth was, he never had tried." (T.42) After more banter in almost a sick joking manner, Id., Coach Murphy handed some keys to Ms. Halpern, saying, "Julie, these are the keys to my condo. I want you and Mike to go out there and finish your business." (T.43) Mike Haas drove Ms. Halpern to the condominium and, after she declined his invitation to go inside, to Cordova Mall where they bought a birthday card for a boy they worked with, before returning to Washington Aquatic Center. This excursion took place "on Aquatic Center time." (T.47) After it was over, Coach Murphy called them into his office and asked what had happened. When Ms. Halpern told him they had not even gone inside the condominium, "he was upset very silent." (T.45) "[H]e was silent for two days straight. For that whole week, we didn't get much out of him. We had to walk on eggshells." (T.47) This lack of communication made him less effective as an administrator. Many of the young women working under Coach Murphy's supervision avoided him, even though they needed to communicate with him regularly to do their jobs as well as possible. His behavior toward young women impaired his effectiveness as an administrator. New employees were sometimes told to avoid him. Electioneering Ann Cobb Palmer, a pool attendant named Daniel, Katherine Taylor, Teresa Murphy, Mike Haas, Michael T. Martin all were directed by respondent to display signs or make telephone calls on behalf of Charles Stokes, the former superintendent of schools who sought reelection, and did so, many of them on school time, during the fall of 1984. Respondent gave Renee Branum permission to make telephone calls on behalf of the Stokes' candidacy on school phones during her working hours. (T.305) Students Not Involved As far as the evidence showed, respondent never propositioned any student or discussed any sexual topic with a student. He testified without contradiction, "I don't even have sex, and I haven't for the past three or four years." (T.295)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (1999), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (b), (e), and (f), Rule 6B-1.006(4)(a) and (b), Rule 6B-1.006 (5)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (o), and Rule 6B-1.001(1), (2), and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Jenkins holds a Florida Educator Certificate. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, he was employed as a physical education teacher at Pasedena Lakes Elementary School (Pasedena Lakes) in the Broward County School District, where he had been teaching for 15 years. Mr. Jenkins was a Master Steward for the teachers' union. He was also a member of the School Advisory Council (SAC) and was chair of the Safety and Discipline Committee, which is a part of SAC. Jill Wilson has been the principal at Pasedena Lakes for six years and has a total of 29 years of educational experience. The assistant principal at Pasedena Lakes is Charlene Hogan, who has been at Pasedena Lakes for five years and has a total of 28 years of experience in the field of education. On October 29, 1998, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Mr. Jenkins came to Ms. Wilson's office and yelled at her, accusing her of discrediting him and making things worse at the school. During this incident, Donna Blank, a former employee of Pasedena Lakes, was leaving the building and, through a window, observed Mr. Jenkins pounding on Ms. Wilson's desk and saying, "You're not my boss." Ms. Blank went to her car, but returned to the building because she felt that she could not leave Ms. Wilson alone in that situation. When Ms. Blank went to Ms. Wilson's office, Ms. Wilson was visibly shaken. Ms. Wilson felt intimidated by Mr. Jenkins and, as a result of the incident, issued a memorandum to Mr. Jenkins dated October 30, 1998. The memorandum outlined the events that had taken place in Ms. Wilson's office on October 29, 1998, advised Mr. Jenkins that his actions were inappropriate, and required him to schedule future meetings with her secretary so that she could have another staff member present when they met. Pasedena Lakes has about 900 elementary students. Parking was a problem at the school, as well as traffic congestion when parents dropped off students in the mornings. Parents would park in the teachers' parking spaces, and there would be disruptions in the flow of traffic when the parents would take time to dole out lunch money, dress the children, say farewells, and otherwise take up additional time as they were dropping off the students. Mr. Jenkins volunteered to help direct traffic in the mornings in order to reduce the congestion in the parking lots. His mode of directing traffic was more aggressive than the methods that had been used previously by the other teachers. Mr. Jenkins used a bull horn to shout at the parents to move the traffic along and to tell them to kiss their kids at home and not at school. At first his efforts were commendable, but he began to become frustrated with the job. Mr. Jenkins would yell at the parents and the students, upsetting both the parents and the students. On one occasion while on traffic duty, Mr. Jenkins, using his bullhorn, called another teacher "Deadwood," belittling her in front of students, parents, and other staff members. Sometime during the fall of 1999, Patricia Lewis was bringing her two children to the school. Ms. Lewis needed to talk to one of her children's teachers, so she dropped her children off and told them to wait for her while she parked the car. While she was parking the car, Mr. Jenkins yelled at her children, "You little monkeys, hurry up and get back to class." Ms. Lewis, a Haitian-American, was upset at his remarks and confronted him. She told Mr. Jenkins, "My kids have a name. You do not call them that." Mr. Jenkins replied, "If you don't like it, go get a lawyer, and my lawyer will win." Visibly upset, Ms. Lewis went to the school administration's office and asked to speak to the principal. She talked with Ms. Wilson and explained what had happened in the parking area. Ms. Wilson assured her that she would take care of the matter and talk to Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Lewis left the office and went to find her child's teacher to talk with her as originally planned. She ran into Mr. Jenkins in the hallway. Mr. Jenkins said, "Oh, you're the one who went to the principal." Ms. Lewis told him that she did not want to talk with him and turned away. Mr. Jenkins began to yell at her, and she went back to the office in tears. When she got to the principal's office, Ms. Lewis was loud and upset. Again Ms. Wilson calmed her down. In the fall of 1999, the Safety and Discipline Committee had concerns over the traffic problems at Pasedena Lakes and over unauthorized visitors on campus. A meeting of SAC was scheduled for November 9, 1999, to discuss these issues. The Safety and Discipline Committee met and drafted a letter which was to be sent to the parents asking them to come to the meeting and outlining the concerns which would be discussed. Ms. Hogan was on the Safety and Discipline Committee, and she edited the draft letter with input from other committee members so that the letter would fit on one sheet of paper. Mr. Jenkins was not happy with the edited version, but he did not tell Hogan of his displeasure at the time the letter was rewritten. Mr. Jenkins helped distribute the letter to the parents in the parking lot. Alice Lacy, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes, was the chair of SAC, and Hogan was co-chair. On November 1, 1999, Mr. Jenkins told Ms. Lacy that he wanted to have a meeting prior to the SAC meeting scheduled for November 9, 1999, in order to get the teachers to form a coalition and come to the November 9 meeting to support him. As chair of SAC, Lacy told Mr. Jenkins that it would be better to send a memorandum to the teachers rather than schedule a separate meeting. Later on the same day, Mr. Jenkins told Ms. Lacy that he was demanding that the teachers come to the November 9 SAC meeting. He became angry with Ms. Lacy and told her that it was a personal issue and that the teachers owed it to him. He stormed away from Ms. Lacy. Ms. Lacy became concerned about the November 9 SAC meeting and felt that Mr. Jenkins should clarify his intentions prior to the meeting. She sent Mr. Jenkins a memorandum, requesting that he provide her with an agenda by November 5. Mr. Jenkins did not supply an agenda. Ms. Lacy heard him yelling at teachers outside her classroom on November 5, but did not know what he was discussing with the teachers. Ms. Lacy became concerned and sent a memorandum dated November 5, 1999, to Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan, urging that the November 9 SAC meeting be postponed until the issues involving Mr. Jenkins could be resolved. The administration met with Mr. Jenkins, and Ms. Lacy was assured that Mr. Jenkins understood that the SAC meeting would be under Ms. Lacy's direction, the agenda would be followed, and the meeting would take place in the media center. When Ms. Lacy went to the media center on the evening of November 9, 1999, she found that the media center was locked and that Mr. Jenkins was setting up the meeting in the cafeteria, where he could have teachers sit on stage with him to lend him support. Lacy confronted Mr. Jenkins and told him that the meeting would take place in the media center as planned. Mr. Jenkins shook his finger at Ms. Lacy and told her that she was making a big mistake. When Ms. Lacy was calling the meeting to order, Mr. Jenkins called out of turn and said, "I motion to move this meeting to the cafeteria." Ms. Lacy called Mr. Jenkins out of order. There was a large turn-out for the SAC meeting, and it was agreed that each speaker would be limited to two minutes. When Mr. Jenkins began to make his presentation for the Safety and Discipline Committee, Ms. Lacy felt that he was unprepared and was improvising. Several times Mr. Jenkins spoke and went over his two-minute limit. When he did, Ms. Lacy would cut him off and go on to the next speaker. After this happened three times, Susie Ruder, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes, sent a note to Ms. Lacy, telling Ms. Lacy that she felt Ms. Lacy was being rude to Mr. Jenkins. After Ms. Lacy received the note, she gave Mr. Jenkins more time to speak. The day after the meeting, Mr. Jenkins ran into Ms. Hogan and Cathy Greenspan, a reading resource specialist at Pasedena Lakes, on the school campus. Mr. Jenkins shook Ms. Hogan's hand and commented that the SAC meeting had been a good meeting. Approximately ten minutes later, Mr. Jenkins went to Ms. Wilson's office. He was wearing shorts, a shirt, and a fanny pack. His purpose for the visit was to discuss sending flyers to parents advising them of the decision of SAC to require parents to obtain a visitor's pass to come on the school campus. Ms. Wilson told him that the passes had been ordered but had not arrived and that she did not want the flyers to be sent until the passes had arrived. Mr. Jenkins shifted the conversation and told Ms. Wilson that she was responsible for the rumor mill around school and accused her of changing a letter that had been written by the Safety and Discipline Committee in October to advise the parents of the November 9 SAC meeting. Mr. Jenkins said the letter that went home to the parents was not the letter the Safety and Discipline Committee had agreed upon. Ms. Wilson did not know about the changes to the letter and called Ms. Hogan to come into the office to discuss the letter. Ms. Hogan brought in the disc on which the letter had been saved, and they viewed it on the computer. Mr. Jenkins again shifted the conversation to the November 9 meeting and held Ms. Wilson responsible for the rudeness he felt Ms. Lacy displayed at the SAC meeting. Mr. Jenkins then shifted the discussion again and wanted the South Area Office to look into what Ms. Wilson's role was on SAC. Mr. Jenkins started to yell and point his finger in Ms. Wilson's face. His face got red, and his voice became louder. He told Ms. Wilson that she would be in charge of damage control. Ms. Hogan told him not to point his finger at Ms. Wilson. Mr. Jenkins turned to Ms. Hogan and said, "I've got an attorney, I've got the union, and I've got a gun." Both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan asked Mr. Jenkins what he said. He replied that he did not know what he said and that he had been interrupted. Either Ms. Wilson or Ms. Hogan told him that he had said, "I've got a gun." Mr. Jenkins became flustered and walked out of the office. Both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan were shocked by Mr. Jenkins' outburst. Neither woman could tell whether Mr. Jenkins actually had a gun in his fanny pack. A conference room was located next to Ms. Wilson's office. Cathy Greenspan, Donna Blank, and Barbara Perkins were in the conference room when Mr. Jenkins was meeting with Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan. Both Ms. Blank and Ms. Perkins heard Mr. Jenkins say the word, "gun." Ms. Greenspan heard Mr. Jenkins say, "I've got a gun." After Mr. Jenkins left the administration office, Ms. Hogan called the Special Investigative Unit (SIU), which is the school police, and requested assistance. Investigator Evelyn McCabe came to the school. Ms. Hogan was afraid of what Mr. Jenkins might do and locked herself in her office until Inspector McCabe arrived. Mr. Jenkins returned to the administration office with Sydna Satterfield, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes and a friend of Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Satterfield, Investigator McCabe, Ms. Wilson, and Ms. Hogan went into to Ms. Wilson's office. A few minutes later Susie Ruder, another teacher and friend of Mr. Jenkins, joined them. Mr. Jenkins denied saying that he had a gun and then stated that he did not know what he said. He threw his keys on Ms. Wilson's desk and asked to be transferred to an "F" school. He walked out of the office but returned and said that he wanted an investigation. Ms. Wilson told him to think about whether he wanted an investigation or wanted to work out things. She advised him that she was willing to work with him on their problems. Mr. Jenkins said he did not know what he said, but apologized for whatever he had said. Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Wilson hugged, and they agreed to try to work together. That evening and the next morning, Ms. Wilson received calls from staff members who feared for their safety and the safety of their children as a result of the incident with Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Wilson began to think about what had happened and the complaints from staff. She also saw an article in the newspaper concerning a colleague who had not contacted authorities concerning an incident that had happened at his school and had tried to resolve the situation by himself. She felt she had to get assistance. Ms. Wilson called Bruce Wagar, who is in charge of professional standards. He advised her to file a complaint with SIU, which resulted in an investigation. As part of the investigation, Mr. Jenkins underwent a psychological evaluation in April 2000 by Dr. Joel Kimmel. The evaluation report stated: Personality tests and behavioral observations indicate that Mr. Jenkins is a frustrated individual who believes he is being prevented from doing his job. His responses to the personality tests indicate that he tends to define his identity based upon his position and derives a lot of satisfaction from his job. He enjoys working with students and motivating them to achieve their potential. He likes the status and recognition he receives from his position and may have a lonely life outside his job. He also appears to be somewhat incompetent, or inefficient. When frustrated, he can escalate and demand his way. However, there are no signs of any violent behaviors in any of his responses suggesting that he probably will not act out when frustrated. He does believe in the benefit of talking things out. However, he does want to do things his way and may not respect others if they disagree with him. He also does appear to have some boundary issues in terms of not understanding where his authority ends and being able to accept the authority of others. His greatest fear is that of failure and losing his job which could represent a failure for him. His provisional diagnosis would be Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features (DSM IV 309.28). It is highly recommended that Mr. Jenkins participate in sensitivity training and interpersonal relationship programs in order to develop his capacity to tolerate others' viewpoints as well as decrease his frustration. A stress reduction program would also be helpful in improving his ability to control his frustration and developing more patience. Meetings between he [sic], his principal, and a counselor may be of assistance in improving their relationship. Mr. Jenkins has demonstrated inappropriate behavior on different occasions involving his students. He showed his paycheck to a first grade class and asked them if that was not a lot of money. Another time, he read an article from a newspaper to a kindergarten swim safety class about a student who had drowned and told the class that they could drown. Mr. Jenkins left his physical education class outdoors unattended when their regular classroom teacher failed to pick them up on time. On November 17, 1999, Ms. Wilson inadvertently referred to Mr. Jenkins during a morning announcement as Thomas Wilson rather than Thomas Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins and his wife composed a letter to show how one word could be misconstrued. The letter, which Mr. Jenkins referred to as a private joke, stated that Mr. Jenkins thinks that Ms. Wilson fantasizes about him being her husband, that she wants his body, that Ms. Wilson was a "horny lady," and that she might lose control and have sex with him. Mr. Jenkins' wife shared the letter, which Mr. Jenkins called a "nothing" letter, with other employees of Pasedena Lakes. Both teachers and parents testified that they were fearful of Mr. Jenkins based on his past conduct and that he had created a hostile work environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Thomas Jenkins violated Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (1999), and Rule 6B-1.001(1), (2), and (3), Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), and (e), Rule 6B-1.006(4)(a), and Rules 6B-1.006(5)(d),(e) and (o), Florida Administrative Code; finding that Thomas Jenkins did not violate Rule 6B-1.006(3)(b) and (f), Rule 6B-1.006(4)(b), and Rule 6B- 1.006(5) (a), (c), and (f), Florida Administrative Code; suspending Thomas Jenkins' teaching certificate for 60 days followed by a probation period of three years; requiring that Thomas Jenkins take courses in professional responsibility, improving interpersonal communication skills, and sensitivity training; requiring Thomas Jenkins to have periodic psychological evaluations prior to and after returning to work; and requiring Thomas Jenkins to have a fitness-for-duty examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Randy A. Fleischer, Esquire 4801 University Drive, Suite 3070 Davie, Florida 33328 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Frank L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
