Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1980, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the areas of biology, chemistry, and general science. Petitioner had been certified by the State of Florida from August 20, 1974, through 1979 in these subjects. Petitioner allowed his prior certificate to lapse in 1979 as he was not sure he wanted to continue to be a teacher. At the time he allowed his certificate to lapse, he was involved in a drug problem, which drug problem resulted in the three arrests at issue herein. Petitioner was arrested in 1977, in 1978, and in 1979 for possession of controlled substances. Each of the arrests resulted in the withholding of adjudication. None of the arrests involved the sale of drugs, and Petitioner has never sold drugs. Petitioner has not used drugs since January of 1979, the date of his last arrest, and the drug used that date was a drug prescribed for him by a doctor. Prior to this application, Petitioner had reapplied for his teaching certificate. That application was denied since Petitioner was on probation from his arrests. Petitioner has completed all of his probationary periods. During the last year and a half, Petitioner has been teaching at the Miami Shores Preparatory School. He was hired to start a science department and has been teaching seventh and eighth grade life science, ninth and tenth grade biology, eleventh and twelfth grade honors biology, and eleventh and twelfth grade honors chemistry. He is also the swimming coach and serves as a counselor for seventh and eighth graders. Since he has been teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a student has written an essay about him in describing the characteristics of an ideal teacher for a literary contest. The students at Miami Shores have dedicated the school yearbook to him. He has started a program at that school for students with drug problems by enlisting the aid of persons in the drug program which he himself successfully completed. Petitioner has had no difficulty in his present teaching position. However, in order for him to continue teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a Florida teaching certificate is required. He is supported in his application for a teaching certificate by the principal of that school as well as by some of the other teachers, students, and parents of students at that school. Petitioner meets all requirements for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate, and the only basis for Respondent's denial of his application involves his three arrests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered approving Petitioner's application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate, providing that Petitioner be issued a Teacher's Certificate on a probationary basis for a period of five years, and further providing that such certificate be automatically revoked if Petitioner be arrested for possession of any controlled substance during his five-year probationary period. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Roberts, Miller, Baggett, LaFace, Richard & Wiser Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged acts of incompetence and ineffectiveness as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated July 23, 1996, in violation of Sections 231.28(1)(b) and (f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 353304, covering the area of English, which is valid through June 30, 1999. During the 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and first half of the 1994-1995 school years, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Oak Ridge High School in the Orange County School District. 3. During the 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 school years, administrators at Oak Ridge High School received numerous complaints from students and parents about the Respondent’s teaching performance. Many students requested permission to be transferred out of the Respondent’s English class because they were not learning anything. 4. During the 1992-1993, 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 school years, administrators at Oak Ridge High School conducted both formal and informal observations of Respondent’s teaching performance in the classroom. The administrator’s observations consistently disclosed that Respondent was disorganized and not in control of her students. Respondent exercised poor disciplinary methods with her students. Upon repeated requests, Respondent could not produce her grade book, or other documentation, to support her grading of students. Respondent’s behavior with, and around, students in the classroom was erratic and aberrant. Her actions in and out of the classroom were unusual, inexplicable and disturbing to her students and colleagues. Respondent’s assigned room was disheveled and dirty. Although administrators at the high school offered the Respondent professional help, made useful suggestions and recommended workshops and in-service training, the Respondent failed to follow their advice or attend any workshops or training sessions. As the result of her erratic and aberrant conduct, in January 1995, the Respondent was relieved of her teaching duties by the Orange County School District and directed to undergo psychiatric evaluation. The Respondent refused to comply with said directive. The Orange County School District brought dismissal proceedings against the Respondent based upon her unsatisfactory teaching performance, her inappropriate conduct and behavior, and her refusal to comply with directives. The Respondent failed to respond to the notice of the recommendation for dismissal. Respondent was subsequently dismissed from her position of employment. The Respondent’s teaching performance during the 1992- 1993, 1993-1994 and the first half of the 1994-1995 school years demonstrated that she was incompetent to teach. The Respondent’s personal conduct during the 1992-1993, 1993-1994, and the first half of the 1994-1995 school years at Oak Ridge High School seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Orange County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Respondent, Ruby Lightsey, did violate the provisions of Sections 231.28(1)(b)and (f), Florida Statutes, due to her incompetence and ineffectiveness. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent’s teaching certificate subject to re-application upon such conditions as the Education Practices Commission shall deem appropriate and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904)488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South 9th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Ms. Ruby Lightsey 524 Kittredge Drive Orlando, Florida 32805 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director The Florida Education Center Room 224-B 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for a Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 17, 2004, at the Kendall campus of Miami-Dade Community College (College), Petitioner sat for the general knowledge portion of the certification examination (Test), which included an essay question. In advance of the Test, Petitioner was informed in writing of, among other things, the following: In its continuing effort to assure fairness and equity in examination administration conditions, the Florida Department of Education is putting into written form those activities that have been, and continue to be, regarded as cheating by, or on behalf of, an examinee. The specific items represent cheating activities encountered throughout the history of the Department's assessment programs, but do not preclude the Department from appropriate action in cases of cheating that do not fall under a specific item. These guidelines are applicable to the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations program . . . . Section 1 defines those behaviors that constitute cheating. Section 2 lists materials, equipment and other aids that examinees are prohibited from using during the examination. . . . Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: * * * c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. * * * Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: . . . papers of any kind, including scratch paper; . . . * * * Annette Lorenzo, a College employee, was the "room supervisor" in the room in which Petitioner took the Test. Ms. Lorenzo was assisted by another College employee, Gladys Manrique, "who was "working as a proctor" in the room. When Petitioner arrived in the room the morning of the Test, she was checked in by Ms. Lorenzo, who assigned her a seat near the front of the room. Upon being told of her seat assignment, Petitioner "pointed to the last seat of the last row" and asked if she could sit there instead. Ms. Lorenzo "said, 'Okay, no problem,' and [Petitioner] went and sat down in that seat." After "checking everybody in," Ms. Lorenzo read "instructions for the exam" to the examinees (including "go[ing] through all the guidelines on what constitute[d] cheating, as well as what [was] and [was] not allowed in the room"), and, with Ms. Manrique's help, handed out the testing materials. Testing then began (at approximately 8:45 a.m.). Ms. Lorenzo and Ms. Manrique "walk[ed] around the room, up and down the aisles," to "mak[e] sure that nobody [was] cheating or using anything [prohibited]" while the test was being administered. As she was doing so, during the essay portion of the Test, Ms. Lorenzo noticed Petitioner periodically "looking into her [cupped] left hand [which was positioned on the desk in front of her, just above her answer booklet, and appeared to contain tissues] while she was writing" in the booklet with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo observed Petitioner's engaging in this suspicious conduct for "[a]t least ten minutes." During this time, Ms. Lorenzo was "staring at [Petitioner], watching her very closely." When she eventually made eye contact with Ms. Lorenzo, Petitioner moved her hands towards her face and "made a noise like she was blowing her noise." She then closed her left hand into a fist and continued writing with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo advised Ms. Manrique that she suspected that "something [was] going on" with Petitioner, and she asked Ms. Manrique to "take a look." Ms. Manrique observed Petitioner for approximately five minutes, after which she reported back to Ms. Lorenzo that she "believe[d] there [was] something going on as well." Ms. Lorenzo then "walked to the back of the room and stood to the right of Petitioner." From her vantage point, Ms. Lorenzo noticed "sticking out the bottom of [Petitioner's left] hand," which was "still in a fist," not only tissues, but "paper with some writing on it." Upon making this observation, Ms. Lorenzo asked Petitioner to show her "everything [Petitioner] had in her hand."3 Petitioner's immediate response was to "[u]s[e] her right hand [to] grab[] the tissues out of her left hand," which she then quickly closed into a fist again. She gave the tissues she had transferred from her left to right hand to Ms. Lorenzo, explaining that she had "just tissues" and nothing else. Ms. Lorenzo, however, knew otherwise and demanded that Petitioner open her left hand. Petitioner complied, revealing the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had seen "sticking out" of the hand when it was clenched. The paper was the size of a "small note [pad] sheet." It was crumpled from being held tightly by Petitioner. On the paper was a complete essay that that Petitioner had written before entering the examination room. The essay was entitled, "A Place to Visit: San Antonio Park."4 Ms. Lorenzo took the paper, as well as Petitioner's testing materials, including Petitioner's answer booklet, from Petitioner. In her answer booklet, Petitioner had written an essay about San Antonio Park, substantial portions of which were identical, word for word, to what was on the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had confiscated from Petitioner's left hand. Petitioner had knowingly brought this paper into the examination room with the intent to use it as an aid in answering the essay question on the general knowledge portion of the Test,5 and she carried out this intent once the Test began.6 As Petitioner started to "g[e]t a little bit loud," Ms. Lorenzo escorted her from the room and took her to see Juan Meza, the College's testing director.7 On the way to Mr. Meza's office, Petitioner insisted that she had not cheated and "begg[ed] [Ms. Lorenzo] to let her go finish the exam." Ms. Lorenzo responded that Petitioner's "test [was] over for today." After Ms. Lorenzo had told Mr. Meza that she had "found [Petitioner] cheating," Mr. Meza spoke to Petitioner and told her that she could not "continue taking the test" because she had been caught cheating. Petitioner denied to Mr. Meza that she had been cheating. Mr. Meza, in turn, informed Petitioner that he would send an "irregularity report" to the Department and that the Department would "make [a] decision" as to whether she had been cheating and then "contact her to let her know what [was] going on." As promised, on or about April 19, 2004, Mr. Meza sent an "irregularity report" to the Department (along with the materials that Ms. Lorenzo had taken from Petitioner in the examination room). On April 26, 2004, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioner: This letter is in response to information I have received from staff at Miami Dade College, Kendall campus confirming that you failed to follow testing procedures during the administration of the General Knowledge Test on April 17, 2004. Along with the admission ticket you received for the examination, you received a letter that outlines the State's policy on cheating. Section 1 (c) and (f) and Section 2 state the following: "Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: Timex Data Link™ wrist watch; electronic pager; cellular telephone; pocket organizer; electronic writing pen or pen-input device; any electronic device with an alphabetic keyboard; dictionary or other books; ruler; papers of any kind, including scratch paper; slide rule; protractor; compass; laptop computer; calculator watch, or calculator except those calculators provided at the test center for the following tests: Mathematics 6-12, the math portion of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (MGIC), Middle Grades Mathematics 5-9, Chemistry 6-12, Physics 6-12, and the math subtests of the General Knowledge Test." As a result of your failure to abide by this policy, the score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test under your name and Social Security number . . . for the April 17, 2004, test administration has been invalidated. By copy of this letter, I am also informing Professional Practices Services and the Bureau of Educator Certification of this decision. This decision means that you have yet to fulfill the State's requirements for a passing score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test. You are entitled to dispute this decision through legal administrative procedures. If you wish to do so, you must send a written request for an administrative hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The written request must be postmarked within twenty (20) calendar days of the date you receive this letter and submitted to the following address: . . . . If you fail to submit the written request within the specified time period, you will have waived the opportunity to contest the decision through administrative proceedings, and the score invalidation decision will be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Petitioner responded by sending a letter to the Department, which read (verbatim) as follows: I have received your letter about the problem I had the day of test. I'm so sorry about the day. In 20 years of being a teacher, I never had that kind of problem. That day I had a bad cold and when I finished my test, the only thing that I had to do was to check it, but I was coughing badly and I took a napkin that was inside my bag on the floor, but together with the napkin came out a paper. I took both in my hand. I put my hand up, because I knew that if the teacher saw me in this moment I got in trouble, but it was too late. The teacher came to me, asked for the paper and the napkin and without I could explain anything. She took to the supervisor and explained everything to him. He told he had to follow the rules, then he had to report the incident. So I think I should have an opportunity to do my tests again. The Commissioner subsequently notified Petitioner that her application for certification was being denied because she had "attempted to cheat" on the essay portion of Test "by referring to a complete essay she had in her possession when she entered the room." This denial of Petitioner's application for certification is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order sustaining the denial of Petitioner's application for certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 August, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in conduct that violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and/or Florida Administrative Code 1 All references to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, are to the 2020 codification. Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed against her Florida Educator's Certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator's certificate, and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 717826, which is valid through June 30, 2025, and covers the area of physical education (PE"). As of February 28, 2018, the date on which the conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred, Respondent was employed by Petitioner in a partial assignment as a PE teacher at Coral Gables Preparatory Academy ("CGPA"), formerly known as Coral Gables Elementary School, within the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"). Respondent was simultaneously employed in a partial teaching assignment at a different school in the District. The Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in inappropriate conduct on February 28, 2018, consisting of throwing students' book bags, resulting in damage to electronic devices that were in the book bags. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the damage to the electronic devices was over $2,000.00. Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(j)3 by having violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession adopted by the State Board of Education. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.,4 by having failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Evidence Adduced at the Hearing As noted above, the incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 28, 2018, at CGPA. At the time of the incident, some students were on their way out to the athletic field outside of the school for PE class, while others were on their way out to the field for recess. An indeterminate number of students left their bookbags in the walkway near the exit door to the field, despite previously having been told by Respondent to place their bookbags against a wall adjacent to the walkway in order to ensure that no one tripped over bookbags. Respondent moved the bookbags out of the walkway by "tossing" or "throwing" them.5 There is conflicting evidence regarding the force with which Respondent moved the bookbags. 3 All references to chapter 1012, Florida Statutes, are to the 2017 codification, which was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding. See Orasan v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 668 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(law in effect at time of alleged violations applies in disciplinary proceedings). 4 The version of rule 6A-10.081 that was adopted by the State Board of Education on March 23, 2016, was in effect at the time of the conduct giving rise to this proceeding, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. See Orasan, 668 So. 2d at 1063. 5 A key issue disputed by the parties is whether Respondent "tossed" or "threw" the bookbags. This dispute appears to center around Respondent's culpability because, presumably, if she "threw" them, she did so in anger, without regard to whether the contents would be damaged, thereby warranting a more severe penalty than if she had merely Student J.R. credibly testified that he saw Respondent "furiously" throwing the bookbags, including his bookbag. He testified that as a result of Respondent's actions, his iPhone, which was in the bookbag, was broken and had to be replaced. A photograph that was admitted as part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 depicts J.R.'s iPhone with the glass having been shattered. J.R.'s signature and "3/14/18," the date on which he was interviewed as part of the District's investigation of the incident, are written below the photograph. J.R. also testified that his glasses, which were in his bookbag, also were damaged as a result of Respondent's conduct.6 Another student, H.B., testified, credibly, that she witnessed Respondent throwing the bookbags "really hard." She testified that as a result, her iPad and her brother's iPad, both of which were in her bookbag, were broken. Two photographs that were admitted as part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 depict the damaged iPads. H.B.'s signature and the date of March 14, 2018, the date on which she was interviewed as part of the District's investigation of the incident, are written below the photographs. A.A. also testified that she saw Respondent throwing the bookbags, and that Respondent threw her bookbag with such force that it broke her water bottle, which was inside the bookbag. A.A. testified that this upset her, because the water bottle was her favorite one.7 Salvatore Schiavone, the former principal of Southside Elementary School ("SES"), testified on behalf of Respondent. Respondent is assigned to "tossed" them, and the damage to the electronics was accidental. The undersigned does not find this label dispositive of the penalty imposed in this proceeding. 6 Because the Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with having damaged students' property other than electronic devices, damage to J.R.'s glasses cannot form the basis of discipline in this proceeding. However, the fact that J.R.'s glasses were damaged is probative regarding the force with which Respondent threw the bookbags. 7 See footnote 3, above. Damage to A.A.'s water bottle cannot form the basis of discipline in this proceeding because it was not charged in the Administrative Complaint. However, the fact that her water bottle was broken as a result of Respondent having thrown her bookbag is probative regarding the force with which Respondent threw the bookbags. SES, and was so assigned during the time period of 2006 through 2017, when Schiavone was principal. Schiavone testified, credibly, that he viewed Respondent as "the consummate professional" and an outstanding teacher; that he had never observed her having anger issues or causing property damage; and that she was very well-liked by her students. Respondent testified that on the day of the incident, students from four classes were entering and exiting the sole doorway to and from the athletic field, and that many of them had thrown their bookbags in a pile in the walkway. She asked them more than once to move the bookbags, but most of them did not do so, so she, with help from a few students, moved them from the walkway to against the wall adjacent to the doorway exit to the athletic field. She testified, credibly, that she did not know electronic devices were in the bookbags. She denied smashing the bookbags on the ground and intentionally damaging students' property. Respondent entered into an agreement with the District under which she received a written reprimand and agreed to pay $558.00 in restitution for the damage to the electronic devices. Respondent has taught for over 27 years and has not previously been subjected to discipline. Findings of Ultimate Fact The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent threw some students' bookbags with sufficient force to damage electronic devices inside the bookbags. This determination is based on the credible testimony of the students who testified at the final hearing. Respondent moved the bookbags from the walkway, where students were entering through, and exiting from, a doorway between the inside corridor and the outside athletic field. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the bookbags had been piled in a location where they posed a potential tripping hazard. However, even if the bookbags were obstructing the walkway and presented a potential tripping hazard, and notwithstanding that Respondent had told the students to place their bookbags against the wall, that did not justify Respondent throwing the bookbags with the amount of force sufficient to damage the contents in some of the bags. Thus, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that in moving students' bookbags with sufficient force to damage electronic devices inside the bookbags, Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect the students from conditions harmful to students' mental health and safety. To this point, as discussed above, the evidence establishes that at least some of the students were distressed as a result of their electronic devices being damaged. Thus, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. As a result of having violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j). However, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent did not know that students' electronic devices were in some of the bookbags that were thrown, and the evidence does not establish that Respondent intended to damage students' property. Additionally, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent's actions caused over $2,000.00 worth of damage to the electronic devices in students' bookbags. Although the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent's actions damaged some students' electronic devices, no competent evidence was presented regarding the value of the damaged electronic devices. There was no evidence presented showing that students' physical health or safety was in any way harmed or adversely affected by Respondent's actions in throwing the bookbags.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to section 1012.796, the Education Practices Commission issue a written reprimand to Respondent, with a copy placed in her certification file, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(f). DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Peter Caldwell, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based on my obersvation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the briefs which were filed post- hearing, the following relevant facts are found. Ernest B. Brown is the holder of Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 167290, covering administration and supervision, elementary education and junior college which by its term is valid until June 30, 1985. Ernest Brown, Respondent, has been employed in the public schools of Pinellas County as fifth grade teacher at Gulf Beaches Elementary School since August, 1975, and was on continuing contract during the 1976-77 school year. He resigned effective May 31, 1977 after inquiries were raised concerning his personal conduct with a female fifth grade student (Michelle Stewart). Thereafter the Department of Education received a report from the Pinellas County School officials on or about June 1, 1977 indicating that Respondent had been charged with lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a female child under the age of 14 and handling and fondling a female child under the age of 14 years. Pursuant thereto and following an inquiry by the staff of the Professional Practices Council, on July 18, 1977, said Council issued a report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council whereupon the Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exist to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. By letter dated July 27, 1977, the Commissioner found probable cause and directed the filing of the instant petition herein. Michelle Stewart, eleven years old and presently a fifth grade student at Gulf Beaches Elementary School, was a student of Respondent while she completed here third grade instruction. Ms. Stewart was approximately three weeks late reporting for classes during her third grade school year. After being in school for approximately two weeks, she sought assistance from Respondent regarding problems she was having with her math. At that time, there were approximately three or four other students also seeking assistance from the Respondent. Respondent asked Michelle to sit in a chair behind his desk where she waited until the other students had received their assistance. According to Ms. Stewart, Respondent asked to touch her pants in the crotch section. Ms. Steward was shocked but did not protest when the Respondent touched her in the seat of her pants for approximately one minute. On another occasion, Respondent was invited to attend a birthday party given at Michelle's house by her. Respondent was reluctant to attend inasmuch as he did not have a gift to give her. He reluctantly agreed to attend based on the enticement of Ms. Stewart, her mother, and several other students who attended the party. When persuaded to attend the party, Respondent agreed only to come if Ms. Stewarts mother permitted him to take Ms. Stewart shopping for some clothing within the next few days. As best as can be determined from the record, it appears that the birthday party was during the early part of May, 1977. Within a few days, Respondent arranged to take Ms. Stewart shopping by obtaining permission from her mother. However, as the facts were later brought out, it appears that Respondent obtained permission from Ms. Stewart's mother by telling her that he wanted Ms. Stewart to assist him in arranging some books on his book shelves, and Ms. Stewarts mother agreed with the condition that Ms. Stewart be brought back home before six oclock. Ms. Stewart testified that she was picked up by Respondent and taken to his home where they were alone. Immediately after entering Respondents house, he asked here if she was hungry and whether or not she would like to fix herself a sandwich and watched TV for a few minutes. Thereafter Respondent took some pictures of here with his Polaroid camera. Respondent later offered her some clothing and brought them out telling her that she could try the dresses on in his presence. Ms. Stewart undressed in Respondent's presence and when she finished trying on her dresses that he had purchased, Respondent went to the bathroom and undressed, entering his living room area with only his shirt on. During this time Ms. Stewart was undressed and Respondent asked her to lie down on the floor where he had placed a towel and had relocated an electric fan positioned so that it would blow down on them. She testified that he laid on top of her for approximately ten minutes stroking and kissing her. After this incident was over (approximately ten minutes) Respondent pleaded with Ms. Stewart to refrain from telling anyone about the incident to which she agreed. However she testified that she did tell some of her friends about the incident. Ms. Stewart testified that during the next school year she opted to be in another teacher's classroom and Respondent rebelled by talking to her and here mother in an attempt to get her to change her mind. She refused to do so because she wanted to be in the class with a neighbor and her boyfriend. During the school year Ms. Stewart recalled that she and approximately two other students were taken to several extracurricular activities by Respondent after school hours, including the circus, lipizian stallions, and Holiday on Ice. Detective William Creekbaum presently employed as a real estate salesman, was formerly employed as a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department was assigned to investigate complaints regarding incidents that the Respondent had allegedly been engaged with several minor students including Michelle Stewart. Detective Creekbaum was assigned to investigate the case on or about May 19, 1977 at which time, and during the course of his investigation, he interviewed approximately ten minor female students. On May 31, 1977, he decided that he should contact the Respondent and make certain inquiries of him, which he did at the school. He visited the school and asked the Respondent to come with him down to the police station for some questions. The Respondent drove his car down to police headquarters and a statement was given to Detective Creekbaum. Prior therto, Respondnent was apprised of his rights per Miranda. Detective Creekbaum explained to Respondent the necessity of his being truthful during his investigation, although he stressed the fact that he made no promises that the matter would be handled internally". He testified, and the statements bear out the fact that the Respondent was, in fact, advised that the investigation was criminal in nature. Initially, during the interview, Respondent denied the material allegations of the charges that he had fondled Michelle Stewart, however, upon repeated questioning by Detective Creekbaum, Respondent admitted that he had fondled Michelle Steward as charged. Although Respondent's position on this admission is that he only told Detective Creekbaum that he had fondled Michelle Stewart because he "thought that was what he wanted to hear and further he was led to believe that nothing would come of it". After the admissions by Respondent, Detective Creekbaum advised Respondent that he was under arrest where he was taken to the booking section of the police department. Immediately thereafter, Douglas McBriarty, an employee of the personnel department for the Pinellas County school system and charged with resolving teacher problems, visited Respondent at the jail where Respondent also admitted to the charge of fondling Michelle Stewart. Dr. McBriarty advised Respondent that it would be the Board's recommendation to immediately suspend him pending a decision on the merits and further action by the board to seek revocation of his (Respondent's) teaching certificate by the Professional Practices Council. Respondent asked if he had any options whereupon Dr. McBriarty told him that he could resign. At that point, the Respondent resigned effective May 31, 1977. The Respondent took the stand and testified that he was misled by Detective Creekbaum into thinking that nothing would come of the incident and that while he denied initially fondling Ms. Stewart, he only changed his story to an admission because he was of the opinion that that was what Detective Creekbaum wanted. He also testified that he was of the opinion that nothing would come of the incident as related by Detective Creekbaum. 1/ Without question, the Respondent enjoys a good reputation in the community and by his fellow peers at the school. He is regarded as a very good instructor who goes over and above his call of duty with respect to his classroom duties. Witnesses Nancy H. Akins and Catherine Smith, both instuctors in the Pinellas County school system, testified of their familiarity with the Respondents professional life and both gave him high marks. As stated, the Respondent denied the material allegations of the charging allegations in this case. Presently he is project director for the Tampa sickle cell disease project. In addition to denying the allegations of the complaint herein he testified that he was "set up" by Detective Creekbaum. He voiced his opinion that he felt that if he were cooperative and stated what Detective Creekbaum wanted him to say that he would go free. The undersigned has examined the record to see whether or not any misrepresentations or other statements were made to prompt Respondent to admit to the fondling of Michelle Stewart and the record is barren in this regard. Based thereon, I shall recommend that the allegations contained in the petition filed herein be sustained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of Respondent, Ernest B. Brown, be suspended for a period of two years. ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
