The Issue The issue is whether Nicholas Penn should be administratively assigned to the J. R. E. Lee Opportunity School Program in lieu of expulsion for misconduct at the W. R. Thomas Jr. High School.
Findings Of Fact During the 1987-88 school year Nicholas Penn was an eighth grade student at W. R. Thomas Jr. High School in Dade County, Florida. At the beginning of each year students receive a locally prepared handbook which informs the students of the code of student conduct for the Dade County Public Schools. During social studies classes early in the year the code of student conduct is reviewed. Nicholas Penn cut class on September 8, 1987. He was picked up by the police. When he was picked up he had a knife with him. Charges resulting from possession of that knife were dropped. As a result of truancy, he was seen by the Assistant Principal, Donal Helip, who referred Nicholas to the guidance counselor, Betty Thomas. When Betty Thomas saw Nicholas, he told Thomas that he did not enjoy school, did not have many friends, and felt frustrated at home. After a discussion with his mother, Ms. Alcantara, it was agreed that Nicholas would be put on work assignment around the school. Nicholas was also processed for a psychological referral on or about September 20, 1987, because he did not seem to be performing at his academic potential. On October 22, 1987, Nicholas was involved in a fight at school as a result of which he received a bloody nose and a head injury. As a result of the fight, Nicholas was put on a 2-day suspension. He did not attend school on Friday, October 23, or Monday, October 26. Mr. Helip spoke with him on Tuesday, October 27, when he returned to school. Nicholas told Mr. Helip the incident was closed and there would be no more problems about the fight. The other boy involved told Mr. Helip the same thing. On October 28, a student commented to Mr. Helip that Nicholas had a knife. Mr. Helip had the school security monitor bring Nicholas to his office, where Mr. Helip asked Nicholas to unload his backpack. At the bottom of the backpack was a wooden handled knife with a seven inch blade encased in a homemade, black sheath. Ms. Alcantara was called to the school where she identified the knife as one of the type which she had at home, which were part of a knife set purchased at J. C. Penny's. Nicholas was suspended for 10 days with a recommendation of expulsion. A request for waiver of expulsion and reduction of the penalty to suspension was made because the knife had not been used to threaten anyone else. At the time that Nicholas was withdrawn from W. R. Thomas Jr. High School he had a D in math, an F in shop and in physical education and incomplete grades for his other classes. The explanation offered by Nicholas for having the knife in his bag was that he had not brought it to school. During computer class his backpack was on a table and the students involved in the October 22, fight came up to him and said, "Nick, you got a weapon on you?," and when the class ended he picked up his bag and was going to the next class when the school security monitor asked him to go with him to Mr. Helip's office, who wanted to search his things. They went through his locker and in the backpack found the knife. Nicholas originally said that it was not his, but his mother told Mr. Helip that it was a knife like others she had at home. Of course, her knives did not have a black, homemade sheath like the one found on the knife in the backpack. When she returned home she determined that her knife set was complete. Mrs. Alcantara then informed school officials that she had been mistaken when she identified the knife as one of hers. There was nothing about Nicholas' expression at the time his backpack was searched which gave any indication that he was surprised about the knife found in his bag; in Mr. Helip's view, if the knife had been planted, it should have been closer to the top of the bag. Nicholas maintains that when he arrived home he found a rip in the corner of the backpack which would have allowed someone to plant the knife in the bag. The backpack was never produced at the hearing. The Hearing Officer finds it more probable than not, given all the circumstances, that the knife was not planted and Nicholas brought the knife to school.
Recommendation It is recommended that the assignment of Nicholas Penn at the J. R. E. Lee Opportunity School be maintained. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Rosa Alcantara Frank R. Harder, Esquire 13173 Southwest 11th Lane Circle Suite 2A-3 Miami, Florida 33184 175 Fontaineblau Boulevard Miami, Florida 33172 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Assistant Board Attorney Superintendent of Schools 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Dade County Public Schools Suite 301 School Board Administration Miami, Florida 33132 Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Betty Castor Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire Commission of Education General Counsel The Capitol Department of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the following facts are found: Respondent Kenneth Neil Watts has been employed by the Levy County School Board for ten years. He has continuously been assigned to Yankeetown School where he has taught seventh and eighth grade math, science and physical education. He has been on continuing contract status since 1975. Prior to coming to Yankeetown, he had an additional three years of teaching experience. On August 20, 1981, the first day of school for students, respondent came to school a little late. Harvey Markham, the Principal of Yankeetown School, believed that he smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. He had a conference with respondent and the building representative for the Levy County Educational Association, Barbara Delores Gaitanis, was present at this conference. Mr. Markham accused respondent of being inebriated and respondent denied that he had been drinking any alcoholic beverage: Respondent became very upset from his conversation with Mr. Markham, did not feel that he could go into his classroom in that upset condition and asked if he could be relieved from his duties on that day. Respondent then drove himself home. Nothing was placed in respondent's personnel file concerning this incident. Ms. Gaitanis did not notice any smell of alcohol from the respondent, and did not notice anything unusual about respondent's physical appearance. Mr. Markham believed he smelled alcohol and noted that respondent's face was flushed and his eyes were bloodshot. Respondent was not slurring his speech or staggering. On December 9, 1981, respondent did not report for work. This was the first occasion when respondent had not given prior adequate notice of his absence. The school called respondent's residence, respondent answered the phone and said that he had overslept and would be in later. Respondent's words during that conversation were somewhat slurred. Respondent's wife later called in and reported that respondent would not be in that day. Mr. Markham asked respondent to go to a doctor that day and to bring him a note from the doctor. Respondent did go to a doctor and brought Mr. Markham a paid receipt for the visit. Two students believed they smelled alcohol on respondent's breath on or about December 18, 1981, the last day of school before the Christmas holidays. These students did not notice any change in respondent's physical appearance or behavior on that occasion. Three other students believed they smelled alcohol on respondent's breath on several occasions. They could not recall the dates. On such occasions, respondent showed no difference in behavior or physical appearance. Two teachers who had worked with respondent for ten years and saw him on a daily basis, sometimes in the morning, at lunchtime and again at the end of the school day, never smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. One of these teachers specifically remembered seeing respondent on the last day before the Christmas holidays. Three teachers' aides employed at Yankeetown School for 6, 4 and 2 1/2 years respectively, observed respondent on a daily basis--sometimes three times a day--and never smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. Twelve students who had respondent as a teacher for two or three periods a day on a daily basis during the 1981-82 school year never noticed the odor of alcohol from the respondent. Many of these students had respondent as a teacher during the first and second periods of the day and would have been present both on the day preceding the Christmas holidays and on April 19th, the day of his suspension. On April 19, 1982, Principal Markham's secretary noticed the smell of alcohol on respondent's breath as he was taking roll in his classroom. Mr. Markham called respondent to his office and building representative Gaitanis was again present. Markham accused respondent of being intoxicated, respondent denied that he had been drinking, and Markham then gave respondent the option to take a breathalizer examination. Respondent replied that he would do so if he could do it locally and did not have to travel to Bronson. Bronson is some thirty-five miles from Yankeetown and respondent did not have a car on April 19th. Mr. Markham did not order respondent to take the breathalizer exam. Mr. Markham sent respondent to the teachers' lounge and then asked his secretary to drive respondent home. Ms. Gaitanis noticed no odor of alcohol during the conference between respondent and Mr. Markham. A teacher's aide who saw respondent in the teachers' lounge at about 10:00 a.m. on April 19th and sat three to four feet away from him noticed no odor of alcohol. Mr. Markham admitted that respondent did not slur his speech, stagger or otherwise appear intoxicated in his behavior. He did observe that respondent's eyes were bloodshot and his face was flushed. Mr. Markham's secretary smelled the odor of alcohol while driving respondent home, but did not notice anything peculiar in respondent's behavior or appearance. Respondent does not like and does not drink hard liquor. He sometimes drinks a beer or two on the weekends or in the afternoon or evening after school. Respondent does not drink beer or alcohol at school or in the mornings before school. His eyes are often bloodshot and he occasionally has trouble sleeping at night. On Sunday, April 18th, respondent had been at the beach in the sun all day. Yankeetown is a small town with a population of approximately 500. If a resident had a drinking problem, it is probable that it would be common knowledge throughout the community. There was no testimony from parents, teachers or other community members that they had heard that respondent came to school intoxicated or with alcohol on his breath, or otherwise had a drinking problem. Principal Markham's "Instructional Evaluation" of respondent for the 1981-82 school year was prepared on March 18, 1982. As was true for the previous years' evaluations, respondent received a "Currently Satisfactory," the highest rating available, in all areas under the headings of "Teaching Competencies" and "Personnel and Professional Qualities." The subareas in which respondent was rated included "planning," "teaching techniques," "classroom management," "accurate and punctual in routine duties, records and reports" and "complies with school, county and state policies." Respondent took eleven full days and five half days of sick and personal leave during the 1981-82 school year. Other than the one December 9th occasion, respondent gave adequate notice of his absences. His leave days were always approved and he was paid for each of them. Mr. Markham felt that respondent's absences were a "minor" problem and he would not have recommended termination on this basis alone. He discussed respondent's absences with him on one occasion, but did not place anything in writing in respondent's personnel file. Respondent prepared lesson plans for substitutes to use during his absences and these plans were submitted to Principal Markham. Markham recalled discussing inadequate lesson plans with respondent on one or two occasions, but admitted that he had not previously placed much emphasis on lesson plans. No memoranda were placed in respondent's personnel file concerning lesson plans, and respondent could not recall any discussion with Mr. Markham regarding the adequacy of his lesson plans.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in the April 30, 1982, "Recommendation of Dismissal" be DISMISSED, and that respondent be immediately reinstated with back pay from May 7, 1982, the date of his suspension without pay. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 30th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Anthony Cleveland General Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Francis E. Rowell Superintendent School Board of Levy County, Florida Post Office Box 128 Bronson, Florida 32621-0128
The Issue Whether Respondent should be reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North.
Findings Of Fact During the whole of the 1987-1988 and the beginning of the 1988-1989 school years, Respondent was a student at Carroll City Senior High School. As of fall, 1988, he was ranked as a 9th grader. Ms. Schipelberg was Respondent's mathematics teacher during the 1987- 1988 school year. In her class, he was outspoken, never brought required supplies to class, and did not work productively when Ms. Schipelberg provided supplies to him. Although Ms. Schipelberg spoke with his father, who promised better behavior on his son's part, better behavior was not forthcoming from Respondent, and on February 18, 1988, Ms. Schipelberg referred Respondent to the office for the same repeated behavior. On March 10, 1988, Respondent was referred by another teacher to Mr. William E. Henderson, a Carroll City High Assistant Principal, for cutting class and leaving school without permission. Three days indoor suspension was meted out as discipline. On May 17, 1988, Respondent was again referred for the administration of discipline by Mr. Henderson. This referral was the culmination of an incident in which Respondent entered a classroom without permission while a class was in progress; "visited" with a student who was properly assigned to that class; refused to leave when requested to do so by the teacher; prevented the teacher from closing the door to shut him out; and directed profanity at the teacher. A security monitor had to be called to eject Respondent from the room, and Mr. Henderson counselled with Respondent's parents and imposed three days outdoor suspension on Respondent. During the whole of the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent initiated repeated incidents of disruptive behavior. He frequently moved around the school without a hall pass, contrary to school rules and the Code of Student Conduct. He repeatedly had excessive absences, cut classes, and left the school grounds without permission. During that period he was referred to the guidance counsellor, the visiting teacher, the occupational specialist, and the dropout program. He was placed on a "behavioral contract" requiring weekly progress reports through him to his parents but he failed to comply. By the end of the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent's exit grades were seven failing classes (F's) and one "D," and he had accumulated 89 absences out of 180 days of school. On September 8, 1988, approximately one month into the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent was referred to Mr. Arthur Lindsey, also an Assistant Principal of Carroll City High School. This referral was for counselling due to Respondent's verbal abuse of a substitute teacher. Mr. Lindsey advised Respondent that his behavior was in direct defiance of the Student Code, which it was. Later that same day, Mr. Lindsey was summoned by walkie talkie due to Respondent's presence in the hall without a hall pass, refusal to go back to class, defiance of a school security officer, and loud use of sexually explicit obscenities. Respondent's father was notified, and Respondent was suspended for 10 days. After review by a child study team on September 12, 1988, Mr. Lindsey formally recommended that Respondent be transferred to the alternative education program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North, an "opportunity school" established by the Dade County School Board. The child study team concluded that this was the appropriate placement for Respondent since all of Respondent's infractions and suspensions fell in the Group 5 range of the Student Code. Group 5 offenses rate suspension, expulsion, or transfer to alternative education. The transfer was deemed the least harsh alternative. At formal hearing, Mr. Henderson stated that he concurred in Mr. Lindsey's recommendation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Robert Ward to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Fernandez, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building--Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. and Mrs. Derek Nesbitt 3130 Northwest 174th Street Miami, Florida 33056 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Donald Wieber holds certificate number 192912, Rank II, covering the areas of elementary education, junior college, administration, and supervision, which expires on June 30, 1985. Mr. Wieber, the Respondent, was employed by the Dade County School Board for thirteen years. He served as a teacher for seven years, a Community School Director for two years, an Administrative Assistant to the Principal for three years, and an Assistant Principal for one year. II. FILM AT DEVON AIRE BLOCK AND MASON PRESENT IN OFFICE In August 1980, Donald Wieber was appointed by the school board to serve as assistant principal at Devon Aire. When he began, Emma Mason was already serving as secretary and Sandra Block as librarian. Sometime in late September or early October 1980, Francis G. DeLaurier, the principal, directed Librarian Block to videotape an educational television broadcast by Dr. Willamerle Marshall related to Individual Educational Plans (IEPs), so that it could be shown later to teachers who missed the broadcast. Shortly thereafter, Respondent, at DeLaurier's direction, asked Block if she had made a copy of the "Marshall" tape. Upon finding out that such a tape existed, Respondent then asked Block to set up a videotape machine in DeLaurier's office around noontime for showing the IEP tape. After the videotape machine had been delivered to DeLaurier's office, DeLaurier personally invited Block to see the film. Additionally, around this same time, DeLaurier invited Mason into his office to see the "Marshall" film. WHOSE FILM WAS IT? At approximately 11:00 a.m. on the morning that the film was shown, DeLaurier sent Respondent to investigate a problem with insects. Complaints had been received about children being stung by bees in the area of the portable classroom buildings at Devon Aire. In looking for the bees, Respondent crawled under a portable classroom and found a paper bag. Inside the paper bag was a videotape cassette with no label. After completing the bee inspection, Respondent took the cassette in the bag to DeLaurier's office. When Respondent entered with the bag, DeLaurier was talking on the telephone. He interrupted his call when Respondent showed him the videotape cassette. Respondent indicated where he had found the cassette and stated he did not know its contents. DeLaurier then directed Respondent, "Well, put it on the machine and [let's] see what's on it." DeLaurier then returned to his telephone conversation. As instructed, Respondent placed the tape on the videotape machine and turned it on. SHOWING THE FILM As Respondent was placing the unmarked videotape cassette into the machine, Block and Mason came into DeLaurier's office to fix their lunches and watch the "Marshall" tape. It is undisputed that the tape which Respondent found and which began to play while Mason and Block were watching the screen was a videotape displaying overt sexual activity between naked men and women. However, the tape admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is clearly not the videotape which was shown at Devon Aire, and any similarity between that exhibit and the film observed that day is only that--a similarity. The videotape began to play, and Block watched for approximately forty- five seconds. She then said to Mason, who was making a sandwich, "Are you sticking around for this?" Mason answered, "Yes, why not?" However, Mason had not yet looked up and observed the contents of the tape. Block then left DeLaurier's office. Approximately three minutes later, Mason left DeLaurier's office, and the two women went to a nearby office to finish their lunch. After Block and Mason left, DeLaurier completed his telephone call and, for the first time, observed the screen of the videotape machine. It was then that he learned that the unidentified cassette contained such sexually explicit material. DeLaurier and Respondent watched the sexually explicit tape for approximately an additional six to seven minutes. At some point during that lunch hour, Respondent and DeLaurier were joined briefly by Rosalie Luis, who viewed a few seconds of the film and left. At no time were children present in DeLaurier's office while the videotape was being viewed. In fact, the screen was not in a position to be viewed by anyone who did not come into the office and walk to a position where they could view the screen. Additionally, later during that lunch hour, the "Marshall" tape was actually played. After viewing the tape for a few minutes, DeLaurier ordered Respondent to take the cassette and "get rid of it fast." Respondent complied and disposed of the tape by running it through a garbage chute behind the cafeteria. He handled disposal of the cassette in this manner in order to ensure that no child could come into possession of the cassette. KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT At the time the videotape was turned on, Respondent did not have any knowledge of its contents. The videotape machine had been set up to play the "Marshall" tape and, in fact, was used for that purpose. There is no evidence to indicate that Respondent intended to or did lure or trick Block or Mason into seeing a sexually explicit film. After Respondent became aware of the contents of the tape, he and DeLaurier did watch it for approximately seven minutes and another staff person, Ms. Luis, did inadvertently observe a few seconds of the film. To this extent, Respondent did participate in the showing of a film portraying nude bodies and explicit sexual activities at his office at Devon Aire Elementary School during school hours and while members of the school staff were present. THE AFTERMATH After the September incident involving the videotape, Block, Mason and Luis continued to work at Devon Aire Elementary School. Respondent continued to perform his duties, and there was no evidence that the film incident had adversely affected his job performance or his relationship with the school staff and teachers. In fact, between September 1980 and January 1981, the only two persons who were offended by the film (Mason and Block) did not report or complain about the incident to any school authority. Luis was not overly concerned about her exposure to the film, and she continued to work well with Respondent. In January 1981, Mason reported the incident to Renee Kachman, a person generally known to be critical of DeLaurier and who had, in the past, expressed an interest in and intention to get DeLaurier removed from Devon Aire Elementary School. Soon thereafter, the school board launched an investigation. The entire episode became a matter of public interest after a series of articles were published in the Miami Herald. Even after reading the article in the May 2, 1981, issue of the Miami Herald, most of the staff members and teachers at Devon Aire Elementary School signed a petition requesting that Respondent be reinstated as assistant principal. Ultimately, however, the school board instituted dismissal proceedings. III. LIQUOR ON HIS BREATH There is no credible or competent evidence that Respondent was ever present at school during working hours with the odor of liquor on his breath. IV. RESPONDENT'S WORK PERFORMANCE AND OTHER MITIGATING FACTORS Prior to the alleged misconduct, Respondent had an outstanding, and even exemplary, record as both a teacher and administrator. No negative comment or complaint was ever made against him. His evaluations from his superiors, both as a teacher and as an administrator, were excellent, often the highest rating obtainable. In one evaluation, he was recognized as a "dedicated professional who always goes the 'extra mile.'" Respondent was described as a phenomenal teacher by a member of the school board's South Central Area Office staff who had previously worked with him at Key Biscayne Community School. This testimony indicated that Respondent had the ability to motivate children to accomplish far more than they thought they were capable of, and that parents wanted their children to be assigned to Respondent's classroom. Respondent has earned the respect and friendship of many parents, teachers, and staff members. They petitioned and testified on his behalf and asked that he be reinstated.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the evidence of record, as well as the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's teaching certificate be reprimanded. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 11th day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Alan B. Oppenheimer, Esquire Suite 120, 1515 North West 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Ralph Turlington, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The respondent, Dianne Tice, began teaching home economics at the Jan Mann Opportunity School North (Jan Mann) in the 1981-82 school year. Jan Mann is a school devoted to students with behavior problems, attendance problems and learning disorders. Student James Woody, thirteen years old, was a continuing discipline problem for teachers at Jan Mann. At the time of his admission to Jan Mann, there were discussions as to whether Woody was the type of student who should be admitted. The staff psychologist at Jan Mann believed that a more appropriate placement would have been a residential facility. Nevertheless, Woody was admitted to Jan Mann. On March 13, 1984, Woody was attending respondent's fifth period home economics class. Due to his loud, profane language and banging on desks and chairs, respondent sent Woody to the Principal's office with a referral slip. Approximately twenty minutes later, Woody returned to the respondent's classroom and again became disruptive. Respondent then requested the security guard or hall monitor to either talk to Woody or again take him to the Principal's office. The hall monitor spoke with Woody, placed him back in the classroom and told respondent to put Woody outside the classroom with him if Woody caused any further trouble. Thereafter, the respondent was in the front of the classroom when another student asked to be assisted with the placement of buttonholes in some pants she was sewing. The respondent picked up a pair of scissors, a seam ripper and some keys and began walking to the rear of the classroom to get other equipment from a cabinet so that she could assist the student. At this point, Woody again became disruptive -- pounding on desks and using loud, profane language. The evidence is very conflicting as to what then transpired. Woody left his desk, and it is not clear whether respondent told him to leave the classroom before then or whether he was attempting to proceed to the rear of the room in order to use the restroom. In any event, Respondent was walking toward or behind Woody with the scissors, seam ripper and keys still in her hands. They both ended up at the rear door of the classroom, which opens and closes by means of a push bar. Woody was on the outside of the door and respondent was on the inside. The evidence is again conflicting as to whether respondent was attempting to hold the door closed so that Woody could not reenter her classroom, or whether she was attempting to open the door to either bring him back in or see where he had gone. Whatever she was attempting to do, Woody was either pulling or pushing in the opposite direction. The hall monitor, sitting some ten to fifteen feet away from the door, observed Woody at the door outside the classroom pulling on the door, and began to go over to the door when Woody released the door and cafe over to him. The monitor observed blood on Woody's hand and took him to the bathroom to wash his hand. He then went back to respondent's classroom and asked respondent how Woody had gotten cut. Respondent then ran into the bathroom to help. What was said in the bathroom is also the subject of conflicting testimony. Woody at first told school personnel that he cut his hand while banging on a desk. Respondent told him not to try and protect her. Whatever was said, respondent does not deny that Woody may have been accidentally cut with the scissors, seam ripper or keys during the scuffle at the rear door of the classroom. After the incident, respondent told several people that she had cut Woody. There is no evidence, however, that respondent intentionally stabbed Woody's hand during the incident. As noted above, respondent was first employed at Jan Mann for the 1981- 82 school year. Her annual evaluation for that year indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories of the evaluation and was recommended for re- employment by her then Principal, Robert Edwards. During this first year, respondent was also formally observed by the Dade County School Board Supervisor of Home and Family Education. She was found to be acceptable in all categories and all comments were very favorable. During the 1982-83 school year, respondent was formally observed in her classroom on three occasions. In November of 1982, Assistant Principal Altman rated respondent unacceptable in the two categories of "classroom management" and "techniques of instruction," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. She was given an overall summary rating of acceptable. In January of 1983, respondent was again observed by Ms. Altman and received an unacceptable rating in three categories, but an overall summary rating of acceptable. Approximately one week after the January evaluation, respondent and Ms. Altman were involved in an incident which resulted in respondent filing a grievance against Ms. Altman for allegedly pushing her in the presence of her students. Principal Oden investigated the matter and decided that respondent's allegations against Ms. Altman were unfounded. In March of 1983, a Department of Education consultant performed an instructional program review and found respondent to have met all assessment standards. Additionally, it was noted that respondent was "commended for her management and organization of the facility." Respondent's annual evaluation by Principal Oden, dated June 9, 1983, indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories except for the category entitled "preparation and planning." Principal Oden remarked that respondent "does a good job at teaching, but needs to devote more attention to planning." Respondent was recommended for re-employment by Principal Oden. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent had two formal classroom observations. Assistant Principal Willie Shatteen observed her classroom on October 6, 1983, and found her performance to be acceptable in all categories. His written comments included the following: "lesson plans are evident," "materials are arranged far in advance," "students orderly and attentive," and "has knowledge of background of each student to provide for individual's need." In a follow-up letter, however, Mr. Shatteen criticized respondent for not following her lesson plans and for her negative attitude toward constructive criticism. Several conferences were held between respondent and her supervisors in October and November, 1983. By letter dated November 17, 1983, Principal Oden expressed several concerns he had relating primarily to respondent's planning, teaching and classroom management skills, and made ten recommendations for improvement. Principal Oden formally observed respondent's classroom on December 8, 1983, and rated her acceptable in all categories except "preparation and planning," but gave her an overall rating of acceptable. His comments in the area of "preparation and planning" included "improvement may be achieved through better planning." A "conference for the record" was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss the recommendations made in the November 17th letter. Also discussed was the possibility that respondent would not be recommended for continued employment at Jan Mann should she fail to make the necessary improvements discussed in the November 17th letter. Another conference was arranged for a time between January 19, 1984, and January 25, 1984. The record is not clear as to whether that conference occurred. Respondent's lesson plans were submitted to and reviewed by her supervisors every week. While the January 4, 1984, review found that the plans were not organized to include certain items and that a conference was needed, the plans for the following five weeks were found to be "accepted" and, in one instance, "plans are excellent. No improvement is needed at this time." Just prior to the March 13, 1984, incident involving student James Woody, Principal Oden decided that he was going to recommend respondent for a continuing contract. He told her this and her name was included on the list submitted to the School Board containing those recommended for a continuing contract. While be felt that there were some modifications needed in her teaching behavior, he also felt that there was room for her to improve with the beginning of a new year. Had it not been for the Woody incident, Principal Oden would have recommended respondent for a continuing contract. Indeed, his decision of "not recommended for employment" contained on the 1983-84 annual evaluation contains the remark "pending S.I.U. ..." -- referring to the investigation of the Woody incident by the School Board's Special Investigative Unit. Had respondent been cleared of the Woody incident, she would have been recommended by Principal Oden for re-employment on a continuing contract basis. His annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, signed on March 21, 1984, rates respondent as unacceptable in the two categories of "preparation and planning" and "professional responsibility," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. Apparently in connection with the investigation of the Woody incident, a psychiatric evaluation of respondent was performed by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist. After spending approximately one hour with the respondent on March 20, 1984 (the same day that respondent was informed that she would not be recommended for employment), Dr. Wainger concluded that respondent appears to be suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, and that she experiences misperceptions and shows evidence of poor judgment. This diagnosis was based, in part, upon the respondent's expressions to the effect that the school administration was against her and was attempting to get rid of her and also her relating to Dr. Wainger incidents which occurred at an apartment complex in which she formerly resided. Dr. Wainger is of the opinion that respondent would be likely to decompensate during stressful situations. On June 20 and 22, 1984, another psychiatric examination of respondent was performed by Dr. Lloyd Richard Miller, a psychiatrist. Dr. Miller spent approximately three hours with the respondent over two different days, performed some psychological testing, and also reviewed Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. It was his conclusion that respondent did not suffer from a mental illness, and he did "not view her as guarded, suspicious or paranoid in any way. It was Dr. Miller's opinion that respondent has the sufficient mental capacity to return to work as a teacher. An expert in the area of teaching personnel evaluation and personnel management employed with the Dade County School Board, Dr. Desmond Patrick Grey, reviewed respondent's personnel files, including her classroom performance and annual evaluations, the investigative reports of the Woody incident and Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. Dr. Grey was of the opinion that respondent's performance evaluations indicate a serious problem that would limit her effectiveness as a teacher; that the Woody incident impaired the integrity of the profession and the respondent; and that respondent has an incapacity to perform the expected function of a teacher. Three employees at Jan Mann testified in respondent's behalf. A school psychologist believed that respondent's character and reputation at Jan Mann were outstanding. A graphic arts aide felt that respondent was excellent dealing with the children and was dedicated in her occupation. A workshop instructor felt that respondent had been a "pretty competent teacher."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Specific Notice of Charges against respondent Dianne Tice be DISMISSED, and that she be awarded back salary for the remainder of the contract period following her suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 16th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Robertson, Esquire Merritt, Sikes and Craig, P.A. McCormick Building - 3rd floor 111 Southwest Third Street Miami, Fla. 33130 Carl DiBernardo, Esquire Commercial Bank of Kendall 8603 S. Dixie Highway - Suite 210 Miami, Fla. 33143 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Fla. 33132
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Polk County School Board, to terminate Respondent, Stacia Boyd from her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board contends that just cause exists to terminate Ms. Boyd because her actions constitute “gross insubordination” or “willful neglect of duty,” as those terms are defined in section 1012.33(1)(a) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(4) and (5).8/ Whether Respondent committed the alleged misconduct is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier-of- fact in the context of each alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1985); McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing, the School Board failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Boyd committed gross insubordination. However, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Boyd committed willful neglect of duties. Accordingly, “just cause” exists for the School Board to discipline Ms. Boyd. § 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Ultimate Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Polk County School Board, enter a final order upholding its decision to dismiss Respondent, Stacia Boyd, from her employment contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's professional services contract with the Hernando County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the school system in Hernando County. The School Board has employed Mr. Ellison almost continuously since 1979. In addition to teaching, he has coached students in various sports. Until September 16, 2005, he taught pursuant to a professional services contract at Central High School. On September 15, 2005, Mr. Ellison's 1996 Dodge truck was located at the school's auto shop. Mr. Ellison had driven it there. Students studying automobile repair were to attempt to repair his truck's air conditioner, which was not functioning. Mr. Ellison had provided the truck to the auto shop personally after having made arrangements with the automobile repair teachers the previous day. He was aware that the repair job was to be accomplished by students. Peter Koukos, the vocational instructor, informed Mr. Ellison, that in order to repair the air conditioner the glove box would have to be removed. Mr. Ellison assented to this procedure. While attempting to remove the glove box, students discovered a loaded Power Plus .38 special revolver in it. The students who found it duly reported its presence to Mr. Koukos, who took custody of it. It was eventually delivered to the school resource officer, Deputy Sheriff Debra Ann Miles, who placed it into evidence in accordance with Hernando County Sheriff's Office procedures. It is found as a fact that the revolver was owned by Mr. Ellison and it was he who had placed the weapon in the glove box of the truck and it was he who had driven it onto the Central High School grounds on September 15, 2005. Mr. Ellison had experienced a previous incident with this weapon on January 21, 2002. This incident was precipitated when a citizen reported to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office that a man was standing by a parked pick-up truck in the Fort Dade Cemetery with a handgun in the left front pocket of his jacket. A deputy was dispatched to the cemetery. The deputy stopped a truck as it exited the cemetery. The truck the deputy stopped was being driven by Mr. Ellison and it was the same 1996 Dodge that was involved in the September 15, 2005, incident. On the prior occasion Mr. Ellison related to the deputy that he was having domestic difficulties and the deputy, with Mr. Ellison's permission, seized the weapon which was in his possession. The weapon seized by the deputy was the very same .38 special revolver found at Central High School on September 15, 2005. The weapon was released to Mr. Ellison on February 12, 2002, because his actions with it on January 21, 2002, were completely lawful. He thereafter placed the weapon in the glove box of the 1996 Dodge. He forgot that it was there and if he had thought about it, he would not have left it in the glove box of the truck when he delivered it to the students in the auto repair shop on September 15, 2005. There was no intent to bring the weapon on campus. Mr. Ellison is aware of the harm that can ensue from carelessly leaving weapons in an environment where curious students might retrieve it and harm themselves or others. He has never denied that the gun was his or that anyone other than himself was responsible for the weapon being brought to the campus. Mr. Ellison knew that School Board Policy 3.40(6) provides that no one except law enforcement and security officers may possess any weapon on school property. This was explained to all of the teachers in a pre-school orientation session conducted August 1-5, 2005, which Mr. Ellison attended. Procedures to be followed in the event a gun or other dangerous weapon was found on campus were reviewed during this orientation session. These procedures are contained in the Central High School Blue Book, 2005-06 and Mr. Ellison knew this at the time he drove his truck onto school property. Mr. Ellison was and is familiar with the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct that addresses the behavior of teachers. He is aware that he has a duty to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions that may be harmful. Ed Poore, now retired, was an employee of the School Board for 31 years. He served in the district office as administrator of personnel and human resources, and specifically, was involved with the administration of discipline and the enforcement of School Board policy. Mr. Poore stated that intent was not a factor in determining whether a violation of School Board Policy 3.40(6) had occurred. He further noted that the Policy does not provide for a sanction for its violation. He testified that in determining a sanction for a violation of this section, he had observed in the past that the School Board had considered the sanction imposed on others in similar situations, the individual person's time and service as a teacher, and any other pertinent mitigating circumstances. Mr. Ellison's character was described by several witnesses as follows: Brent Kalstead, the Athletic Director at Hernando High School, who has been a teacher for 18 years, stated that he had coached with Mr. Ellison and that he had entrusted his son to him so that he could teach him baseball. He said that Mr. Ellison was dedicated to the youth of Hernando County. Marietta Gulino, is Mr. Ellison's girlfriend and a school bus driver. She stated that Mr. Ellison often takes care of children after working hours. Richard Tombrink has been a circuit judge in Hernando County for 17 years. He has known Mr. Ellison for 15 years as a baseball coach and at social events. He said that Mr. Ellison is committed to educating children and has great character. Lynn Tombrink is the wife of Judge Tombrink and is a teacher at Parrott Middle School and has known Mr. Ellison for 20 years. Ten years ago she taught in the room next to him. She would want him to teach her children. Regina Salazo is a housewife. She stated that Mr. Ellison was her son's pitching coach and that he loves children and they love him. Timothy Collins, a disabled man, said that his grandson and Mr. Ellison's grandson play baseball together and that he knows Mr. Ellison to be professional, a no nonsense type of person, and a gentleman. It is his opinion that the School Board needs people like him. Gary Buel stated that Mr. Ellison was his assistant baseball coach and that Mr. Ellison was dedicated and motivated. He described him as selfless. The parties stipulated that if called, the following witnesses would testify that they know Mr. Ellison to be a good, decent, honorable man; that they know him to be a good educator and coach; that they are aware of the circumstances surrounding the gun being in his truck on School Board property; that they do not believe that termination is the appropriate action in this case; and that he would remain an effective teacher: Carole Noble of Ridge Manor; Rob and Vickie Fleisher of Floral City; Vinnie Vitalone of Brooksville; Tim Whatley of Brooksville; Rick Homer of Brooksville; Rob and Candy Taylor of Spring Hill; Robbie Fleisher; Mark Frazier of Brooksville; Miya Barber of Brooksville; Nate Dahmer of Brooksville; Hank Deslaurier of Spring Hill; John and Mary Jo McFarlane of Brooksville; Pete Crawford of Brooksville; Patrick Ryan of Tampa; Ed Bunnell of Spring Hill; and Alan and Cecilia Solomon of Brooksville. It is found as a fact, based on the record of hearing, that Mr. Ellison is an excellent teacher who works well with children and whose character is above reproach. He is not the type of person who would consciously bring a weapon onto school grounds or commit any other purposeful act which might endanger students. Mr. Ellison has not been the subject of prior disciplinary actions.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Final Order imposing a 30-calendar-day suspension without pay be imposed as a penalty in this cause, and that Respondent, Michael Ellison, be reinstated to a teaching status and be awarded back pay and benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled since November 15, 2005, less the 30-calendar-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 23rd day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wendy Tellone, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601-2397
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent’s employment as a teacher without pay for 15 days.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board in August 1998. Respondent is currently employed by the School Board as a teacher at Gulfstream Academy (K-8), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2014). Respondent teaches Microsoft Office applications and computer coding. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. The conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension of Respondent involves a series of threats by Respondent on June 25, 2015, to resort to “extreme violence.” On this day, Respondent was frustrated because she believed the School board had placed her salary at the incorrect “step” level and that she was owed for certain days in 2015 while teaching at McArthur High School during the previous school year. Against this backdrop, at approximately 2:15 p.m. on Thursday, June 25, 2015, Terry Kopelman, a clerk for Talent and Operations at the School Board, received a telephone call from Respondent requesting to speak with the director, Susan Rockelman. Ms. Kopelman told Respondent that Ms. Rockelman was not in her office and that she did not have voicemail. Ms. Kopelman advised Respondent that if she calls again, she should speak with Susan Cooper in the School Board’s Employee Labor Relations Department. In response, Respondent threatened to resort to “extreme violence.” Ms. Kopelman was frightened by Respondent’s remarks, so she placed Respondent on hold and got her supervisor, Golda Hoff. Around this same time, Ms. Rockelman also appeared at Ms. Kopelman’s cubicle. Ms. Kopelman put Respondent on speakerphone, at which time Respondent repeated her threat to resort to “extreme violence.” Ms. Rockelman asked Respondent if she was threatening her, and Respondent responded by repeating, several times, the same threat to resort to “extreme violence.” Ms. Rockelman viewed Respondent’s remarks as a serious threat towards herself and other office workers who had spoken to Respondent. That same day, Ms. Rockelman reported Respondent’s threats to the Chief of Police of the School Board’s police department and to the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. During the afternoon of June 25, 2015, Respondent also called the School Board’s Employee and Labor Relations Department in an effort to speak with Ms. Cooper. Sherline Manzo, an employee of the department answered the telephone call from Respondent. During the call, Respondent was irate and yelled at Ms. Manzo. Respondent told Ms. Manzo to take the following message verbatim for Ms. Cooper: “I am severely disabled and have autism and you are beyond my patience and tolerance level and will now resort to extreme violence to elevate my frustrations.” Ms. Manzo asked Respondent if there was anything else she could help her with, but Respondent told her no. Respondent told Ms. Manzo to re-read the statement to make sure Ms. Cooper received the exact message. Ms. Manzo viewed Respondent’s remarks as a serious threat of workplace violence, which conjured images in Ms. Manzo’s mind of a “post office incident where one of the employees came in . . . and started shooting their colleagues.” Ms. Manzo relayed the message to Ms. Cooper that same day. Ms. Cooper viewed Respondent’s remarks as a serious threat of violence which needed to be urgently addressed. On June 25, 2015, at approximately 2:35 p.m., Respondent also called the Florida Education Association (“FEA”), an organization in Tallahassee, Florida, which represents teachers in school districts throughout Florida. Tamara Odom, a legal secretary at FEA who had spoken to Respondent on prior occasions and was familiar with her voice, retrieved the following voicemail message left by Respondent on an FEA telephone at 2:35 p.m. on June 25, 2015: This is Diane Neville, personnel number 31013 with the School Board Broward County. I am tired of people hanging up on me. I am tired of being shuffled into voicemail and no one picking up the phone. I have no more patience. I have no more tolerance. I’m severely disabled. I have autism. I am now going to resort to extreme violence. Thank you all so much. The sooner you get back to me the happier I’ll be. Because right now I am at the level of act out the violence. Thank you. On her voicemail, Respondent emphasized the point of “extreme violence.”2/ Respondent’s voicemail was taken seriously by Ms. Odom as a threat. In response to the voicemail, FEA contacted law enforcement and Respondent’s photograph was posted at the front door with instructions not to let her inside. Subsequently, Respondent showed up in Tallahassee at the FEA building, at which time she was met by law enforcement personnel. During the afternoon on June 25, 2015, Respondent also called the Broward Teachers Union (“BTU”) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BTU is a union which negotiates the teacher contract in conjunction with the School Board and provides support and assistance to its union members. Ms. Kathy Goldweber, a BTU office manager, retrieved the following voicemail message left by Respondent on an FEA telephone on June 25, 2015: Hi Kathy This is Diane Neville. I don’t know if you are familiar with my case. I am a severely disabled teacher. I have two forms of [ ] including Aspergers. I am now pretty much beyond my patience and beyond my tolerance. I have not been paid in over seven weeks. I am going to miss my son’s wedding on Saturday. I am still starving. I’m running on food from the food bank. Today I ate ½ can of peas to conserve. I have no more patience and tolerance. I am now going to resort to extreme violence to alleviate my frustration. (Repeat) I am out of patience and I am out of tolerance. I am now going to resort to extreme violence to alleviate my frustration. Thank you for your help. Respondent’s conduct was inappropriate, harassing, abusive, and intimidating. Respondent could certainly have conveyed her frustration about her pay without the need to harass, intimidate, and resort to threats of extreme violence. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 5.056. By her threats to resort to extreme violence, Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(2)(c) by engaging in conduct which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment, and failing to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment. Respondent also violated rule 6A-5.056(2)(e) by engaging in conduct which reduced Respondent’s ability or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of incompetence in violation of rule 6A-5.056(3). By her threats to resort to extreme violence, Respondent failed to discharge her required duties as a teacher as a result of inefficiency. Respondent was inefficient by failing to perform duties prescribed by law and by failing to communicate appropriately with and relate to colleagues, administrators, or subordinates. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent violated School Board Policy No. 2410. By her threats to School Board employees to resort to extreme violence, Respondent violated School Board Policy No. 2410. Respondent’s threats to employees of FEA and BTU to resort to extreme violence are beyond the scope of the policy. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent violated School Board Policy No. 4008(B)1. and 3. By her threats to resort to extreme violence, Respondent failed to comply with the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida and all rules and regulations prescribed by the State Board and the School Board. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated School Board Policy No. 4008(B)2., which pertains to certain traits to be infused in the “classroom.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order upholding the 15-day suspension of Respondent without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2017.
