The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Gregory Schmidt, committed the offenses alleged in a Second Amended Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, and dated September 6, 2002, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Education, which the Commissioner is the head of, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to investigate and prosecute complaints of violations of Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes (2001), against teachers holding Florida educator's certificates. Sections 20.15 and 231.262, Florida Statutes. The Education Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "EPC"), is charged with the responsibility of imposing discipline for any violation proscribed in Section 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes. Section 231.2615(1), Florida Statutes. Gregory Schmidt holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 609739, valid through June 30, 2003, covering the area of Physical Education. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Schmidt was employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools (hereinafter referred to as "M-D Public Schools"). Since March 1987 Mr. Schmidt has been a "teacher on special assignment" participating as a swimming instructor in the "Learn-to-Swim Program." The Learn-to-Swim Program is part of the Division of Life Skills and Special Projects of M-D Public Schools. As its name suggests, the Program is intended to assist students in the M-D Public Schools to learn how to swim. The Executive Director of the Division of Life Skills and Special Projects at all times relevant to this proceeding was Dr. Jayne W. Greenberg. Dr. Greenberg was the immediate supervisor of Mr. Schmidt's and the other teachers in the Learn- to-Swim Program at the times relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Schmidt's May 6, 1999, Confrontation with Lisa Vance. On May 6, 1999, Mr. Schmidt was teaching swimming classes to students from Jose Marti Middle School at Bucky Dent Pool, located in Hialeah, Miami-Dade County, Florida. In addition to Mr. Schmidt, Lisa Vance and David Diamond, Learn to Swim Program teachers, were also conducting classes at Bucky Dent Pool on May 6, 1999. Each teacher was located at a separate "teaching station" in the pool, with Ms. Vance's teaching station located between Mr. Schmidt's and Mr. Diamond's. Ms. Vance had returned to teaching on that day, after a brief absence due to illness. When she arrived that morning she was made aware that the swimming instructors had been told by someone1 in administration that female students were to wear t-shirts over their swim suits, in and out of the pool. Ms. Vance's last class of the day consisted of approximately ten female students who were lined up along the edge of the pool. Ms. Vance, despite having been informed of the t-shirt policy, had instructed her students to remove their t-shirts while in the pool and they had complied. Ms. Vance elected not to follow the policy due to safety concerns for her students, safety concerns shared by Dr. Greenberg. While Ms. Vance was teaching her class, Mr. Schmidt walked to the pool deck where Ms. Vance was located and told her that it was the policy that female students were required to wear t-shirts over their swim suits at all times. Ms. Vance responded, saying something to the effect that she would talk to him later and that she would discuss the matter with the principal, and Mr. Schmidt turned and walked away.2 Although Mr. Diamond, who was approximately 25 yards away from Ms. Vance and Mr. Schmidt, was aware that Ms. Vance and Mr. Schmidt were talking to one another, the tone of their voices was not loud enough for him to understand what they were saying. Ms. Vance was annoyed with Mr. Schmidt for interrupting her class to remind her of the t-shirt policy. She was also annoyed that Mr. Schmidt was attempting to tell her what to do and acting "as though he was in charge." When her class ended, Ms. Vance, still annoyed, went into the pool office where she found Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Diamond sitting. Ms. Vance walked up to Mr. Schmidt, who remained seated, and told him that what he had said to her was unprofessional and that he was not to disturb her again while she was teaching. Although Ms. Vance did not raise her voice, it was obvious from her demeanor that she was angry with Mr. Schmidt. In response to Ms. Vance's comments, Mr. Schmidt asked her whether she was going to throw a clip board at him, despite the fact that she was not holding a clip board. In response to Mr. Schmidt's comment, Ms. Vance replied, "No, I don’t want to" or words to that effect.3 Mr. Schmidt did not, as he testified at hearing, say to Ms. Vance words to the effect that "If you hit me like you did Manny Hahn, I'll defend myself." Ms. Vance turned to begin gathering up her belongings. As she did, Mr. Schmidt, who was still sitting with Mr. Diamond, told her, "I'll kick your ass, you fucking bitch." Ms. Vance finished gathering her belongings and left the building without responding to this threat. After Ms. Vance left, Mr. Diamond admonished Mr. Schmidt for his "unprofessional" comment. Mr. Schmidt suggested at hearing and in Respondent's Recommended Order that he was intimidated or threatened by Ms. Vance and that he made his unprofessional statement in order to dissuade her from attempting to harm him. In particular, he testified that he was afraid that Ms. Vance would throw a clip board at him. His testimony in this regard was not persuasive. The suggestion that Ms. Vance had approached him in a "threatening manner," that she was "screaming and ranting and raving" at Mr. Schmidt, and "telling him that she was going to have him fired; and that she was going to call the police, the School Board and Dr. Greenberg" is not supported by the evidence. Mr. Schmidt, given his gender and size (six feet one inch tall and weighing 210 pounds), the fact that Mr. Diamond was present, and the nature of Ms. Vance's comments and actions, simply had no reasonable basis to be concerned in anyway for his safety. Ms. Vance was reasonably upset and concerned for her physical safety because of Mr. Schmidt's threat that he would "kick [her] ass." Therefore, Ms. Vance asked Mr. Diamond to assist her avoid being alone with Mr. Schmidt in the future. Despite her concern for her safety, Ms. Vance did not immediately report the incident to Dr. Greenberg in the hope that Mr. Schmidt would apologize and the incident could be forgotten. This did not occur. Therefore, in a letter dated June 10, 1999, Ms. Vance asked Dr. Greenberg that, upon her next assignment, she not be "teamed with Greg Schmidt." In support of her request, she related the May 6, 1999, incident to Dr. Greenberg. Mr. Diamond also signed the request as a "witness." In response to Ms. Vance's June 10, 1999, letter, Dr. Greenberg caused an investigation to be conducted about the incident. After an investigation by the Office of Professional Standards of M-D Public Schools, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Schmidt on November 2, 1999. The conference-for- the-record was conducted by Sharon D. Jackson, the District Director of the Office of Professional Standards and was attended by Mr. Schmidt, Dr. Greenberg, Lilia Garcia, District Director of the Division of Life Skills, and Dia Falco and Steve Goldman, representatives of the United Teachers of Dade. Mr. Schmidt was suspended as a teacher for 30 days by M-D Public Schools as a result of the May 6, 1999, incident with Ms. Vance and other events not relevant to this proceeding. At some time during the school year following the May 6, 1999, incident and after an investigation of the matter had been commenced, Mr. Schmidt telephoned Ms. Vance and apologized to her. The evidence failed to prove, as alleged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, that Mr. Schmidt "attempted to file a lawsuit" against Ms. Vance or Mr. Diamond "because they [had]reported his behavior to school authorities." Although Mr. Schmidt's threat to Ms. Vance was unprofessional and improper, the evidence in this case failed to prove clearly and convincingly that his conduct constituted "gross immorality" or an act of "moral turpitude." Mr. Schmidt's Threatening Comment About David Diamond. During the fall of 2000 Mr. Schmidt was working with Jo Ann Sutter, who was also employed in the Learn to Swim Program as a paraprofessional swim instructor. Ms. Sutter had known Mr. Schmidt for 15 to 16 years. Between September 5, 2000, and October 24, 2000, Mr. Schmidt made a number of comments to Ms. Sutter about Mr. Diamond's involvement or lack thereof in the May 6, 1999, incident with Ms. Vance. Among other things, Mr. Schmidt told Ms. Sutter that an investigation of the incident had been instituted, that Mr. Diamond was not present during the incident and, therefore, was lying about what he had heard.4 Among the comments Mr. Schmidt made to Ms. Sutter was that "if he got fired, David Diamond was dead."5 The comment was made in a serious tone and without any sign that Mr. Schmidt was kidding. Mr. Schmidt's threat, therefore, worried Ms. Sutter and, after thinking about it a few days, she went to Mr. Diamond to report the threatening statement.6 Given his relationship to Ms. Sutter, it cannot be concluded that Mr. Schmidt wanted or expected Ms. Sutter to relate any of the comments he made about Mr. Diamond, including his comment about Mr. Diamond being "dead" if Mr. Schmidt lost his job, to anyone, including Mr. Diamond. It is more likely than not, that Mr. Schmidt trusted that Ms. Sutter would not repeat his comments. Therefore, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schmidt's threatening language was intended to "interfere with [Mr. Schmidt's] colleagues exercise of political or civil rights and responsibilities" or that it was made as a "reprisal against any individual who has reported an allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules " Mr. Diamond reported that Ms. Sutter had told him that Mr. Schmidt had made a threatening statement and, on October 30, 2000, he gave a written statement concerning what Ms. Sutter had told him to Dr. Greenberg. Although Mr. Schmidt's comment about Mr. Diamond was unprofessional and improper, the evidence in this case failed to prove clearly and convincingly that his conduct constituted "gross immorality" or an act of "moral turpitude." Mr. Schmidt's Use of Excessive Force. In January 2002 M. G. was an 11-year-old male, sixth grade student, attending Parkway Middle Community School. M. G. stood approximately five feet, two inches tall and weighed between 70 and 100 pounds. On January 24, 2002, M. G. attended a physical education class which was taught by Mr. Schmidt. M. G. had first met Mr. Schmidt the day before. During the class, some of the students were throwing rocks. Although the students were not throwing the rocks at one another, one of the rocks, thrown by M. Gi., one of M. G.'s classmates, struck M. G. on the leg. M. G. walked over to where M. Gi. was standing and asked if he had thrown the rock that had struck him. M. Gi. answered "yes." M. G. then asked M. Gi to apologize, but M. Gi. refused. M. G., angered by M. Gi.'s refusal to apologize, shoved M. Gi. There then ensued a shoving match between the two boys. Neither of the boys, both of whom were rather slight in stature, actually threw a punch. Before the shoving match could escalate, Mr. Schmidt intervened. He first put an arm around M. Gi.'s neck, from behind him (commonly referred to as a "choke hold"),7 forced one of M. Gi.'s arms behind his back, and forcefully pushed M. Gi. onto the concrete pavement in a sitting position. After placing M. Gi. on the ground, Mr. Schmidt turned his attention to M. G., who continued to jump and prance around. Both boys, still angry, continued to taunt each other verbally, but Mr. Schmidt stood between them. Mr. Schmidt told M. G. to sit down and when M. G. did not comply, Mr. Schmidt, as he had with M. Gi., grabbed M. G. from behind in a choke hold,8 forced one of M. G.'s arms behind his back, and forcefully pushed M. G., who was resisting Mr. Schmidt's efforts to get M. G. to sit on the ground, face first onto the concrete pavement. After hitting the pavement, M. G. attempted to get up but Mr. Schmidt prevented him from doing so by placing a hand on the back of M. G.'s head with enough force that the left side of his face was forced onto the concrete. M. G., who began to cry, continued to struggle until Mr. Schmidt released him. As Mr. Schmidt released M. G.'s head and allowed M. G. to get up, Annette Burris-Williams9, a teacher at Parkway Middle Community School, came to see what had happened. She witnessed M. G. get up and proceed to walk hurriedly away from Mr. Schmidt and in her direction. M. G. was crying and bleeding from the lip. She stopped M. G. until security personnel, who had also arrived as Mr. Schmidt released M. G. from the ground, took M. G. away. As Mr. Schmidt, who had been following M. G., came up to her, Ms. Burris-Williams asked Mr. Schmidt what had happened, to which Mr. Schmidt matter-of-factly, callously, and inaccurately replied: "He swung at me. He got what he deserved." As a result of Mr. Schmidt's actions, M. G. suffered abrasions to his forehead, primarily on the left side, and his left shoulder, a bruise on the area around his left cheek bone, and a laceration to his bottom lip, which required stitches to close. The incident was subsequently investigated and Mr. Schmidt was arrested and charged with child abuse. These charges were still pending at the commencement of the final hearing. The force used by Mr. Schmidt to subdue M. G. was excessive and unnecessary. M. G. could have easily been subdued by Mr. Schmidt, who was significantly larger and stronger than M. G., had M. G. required subduing, with much less force. G., however, although still angry and excited, did not require subduing. He was not making any real asserted effort to get to M. Gi., because Mr. Schmidt barred his path by his mere presence, he did not initiate any contact with Mr. Schmidt, and he did not swing his fist at Mr. Schmidt or at M. Gi. M. G. merely made the mistake of not following Mr. Schmidt's directive to immediately sit down. Mr. Schmidt's actions, under the circumstances, of placing M. G. in a choke hold, twisting his arm behind his back, pushing him to the ground, and pushing his face into the concrete were inconsistent with the policies of the M-D Public Schools concerning how to intervene in a fight. Mr. Schmidt's actions, which caused physical injuries to M. G., exposed him to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and failed to protect him from conditions harmful to M. G.'s physical safety, constituted "gross immorality" and acts of "moral turpitude." The evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly, however, that Mr. Schmidt acted under "color of authority of the laws of the State of Florida" to violate M. G.'s "legal rights." Mr. Schmidt's March 4, 2002, Anger Management Group Meeting. Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement entered into by Mr. Schmidt and accepted by the EPC, described in further detail, infra, Mr. Schmidt was participating in the Recovery Network Program (hereinafter referred to as the "RNP") during March of 2002. As part of his participation in the RNP, Mr. Schmidt attended an anger management group meeting (hereinafter referred to as the "Group Session") on or about March 4, 2002. The Group Session was conducted by Carter Wiggins, a clinical social worker, who had been approved at that time to provide services to individuals participating in the RNP. During the March 4, 2002, Group Session, Mr. Schmidt, who owns a .38 caliber revolver, told Mr. Wiggins, "I have a gun." As a result of this statement, Mr. Wiggins, out of concern for the safety of the participants in the Group Session, dismissed the meeting. He also dialed Mr. Schmidt's home telephone number and spoke to someone who identified himself as Mr. Schmidt's roommate. Mr. Wiggins asked the "roommate" whether Mr. Schmidt had any guns, to which the roommate said either "No" or "I don't know." When Mr. Schmidt arrived home after this incident, he took his revolver out of his desk and gave it to Joe Milligan, his roommate. He then asked Mr. Milligan to telephone Mr. Wiggins and tell him that Mr. Schmidt had complied with Mr. Wiggins' request that he turn his gun over to his roommate. Mr. Milligan complied with Mr. Schmidt's request. Mr. Wiggins spoke with Deborah Dove about the events of March 4, 2002, on March 5, 2002. Ms. Dove made the following contemporaneous note in the RNP Educator Activity Log concerning what Ms. Wiggins told her during the conversation: TC from Carter Wiggins; last night at anger group Greg had two guns on Him [sic] and was angry. . . . Last night he had two Guns [sic] on him and appeared explosive. When told Mr. Wiggins was Going [sic] to call police, he indicated there would be a shoot out; he also Stated [sic] there was a sense of hopelessness because he was going to lose Everything [sic]; he ran out of the group. Mr. Wiggins called his home and his Roommate [sic] was able to get the guns from him. Mr. Wiggins and He [sic] called Dr. Kahn today and he will call RNP tomorrow. I spoke to Carter At [sic] 4:15 PM and again at 4:28 PM. . . . Although it is clear that Ms. Dove accurately reported what Mr. Wiggins reported to her on March 5, 2002, the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that these hearsay statements are accurate. Indeed, Mr. Wiggins specifically repudiated almost all of Ms. Dove's account of his conversation with her and no other evidence was presented to prove this hearsay evidence. A counseling session to discuss the March 4, 2002, incident with Mr. Schmidt was scheduled by Mr. Wiggins for March 7, 2002. Mr. Wiggins scheduled the meeting because he felt the need to discuss whether Mr. Schmidt required additional therapy as a result of what had happened on March 4, 2002. On or about March 8, 2002, after Mr. Schmidt had missed the March 7, 2002, counseling session, Mr. Wiggins sent a letter to Mr. Schmidt requesting that Mr. Schmidt contact his office. Mr. Wiggins ultimately referred Mr. Schmidt to a psychiatrist because of the March 4, 2002, incident. On June 5, 2002, Mr. Wiggins wrote to Ms. Dove and informed her of the following: The purpose of this correspondence is to update you regarding Mr. Greg Schmidt's behavior on March 4th, 2002, when during the group session, he made none specific threatening remarks. This concern has been clinically and appropriately addressed during the course of the treatment. The evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that Mr. Schmidt appeared at the Group Session on March 4, 2002, in an angry emotional state, that he had two handguns (or even one), that he was advised by Mr. Wiggins or anyone else that the police would be called, that Mr. Schmidt threatened a "shoot out" if the police were called, that one or more persons felt threatened or fearful for their person as a result of Mr. Schmidt's actions that evening, or that, after leaving the session, Mr. Schmidt was "disarmed." While Mr. Wiggins did eventually reluctantly admit at hearing that Mr. Schmidt said "I have a gun," he evaded all efforts of the Commissioner to elicit any further information about the circumstances surrounding this statement or the context in which it was made. As a consequence, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly prove what Mr. Schmidt meant by his comment.10 Without proof of the circumstances surrounding the statement or the context in which it was made, any number of meanings can be attributed to the statement, including that Mr. Schmidt meant to threaten Mr. Wiggins or someone else at the Group Session or that he was simply relating a fact, that he indeed does have a gun, albeit, one that was tucked safely in a desk at his residence when he made the statement. Although Mr. Wiggins' reactions in response to Mr. Schmidt's statement may indicate that the comment was meant as a threat or at least a possible threat, Mr. Wiggins refused to provide evidence to support such a conclusion clearly and convincing. Consequently, any conclusion about what Mr. Schmidt meant when he said, "I have a gun," would be based upon mere speculation and not clear and convincing evidence. Previous Disciplinary Action. On or about October 7, 1999, an Administrative Complaint was issued against Mr. Schmidt. In pertinent part, the October 7, 1999, Administrative Complaint alleged the following factual basis for taking disciplinary action against Mr. Schmidt's teaching certificate: 3. On or about October 23, 1997, Respondent made inappropriate threatening and abusive remarks toward one of his students Z.H. Respondent called the student a "Black Bitch" and a "Punk" and asked him to take a swing so he, the Respondent, could knock him out. On or about January 7, 2000, Mr. Schmidt agreed to and did execute a Settlement Agreement resolving the charges of the October 7, 1999, Administrative Complaint. Although the Settlement Agreement provides specifically that Mr. Schmidt, by entering into the Settlement Agreement, "neither admits or denies . . . the allegations set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint . . . ", Mr. Schmidt agreed to the following disciplinary actions: . . . . The Respondent agrees to accept a letter of reprimand, a copy of which shall be placed in his certification file with the Department of Education, and a copy of which shall be placed in his personnel file with the employing school district. The Respondent agrees, within sixty days of issuance of the Final Order accepting this settlement agreement . . . to undergo such evaluation relating to issues cited in the Administrative Complaint, as determined by the Recovery Network Program to be appropriate, to submit to said evaluation by a qualified provider approved by the Recovery Network Program, and undergo any counseling or treatment as may be prescribed by said professional. The Respondent shall provide the EPC with written verification of successful completion of the evaluation and any recommended treatment. . . . . The Respondent agrees that he shall be placed on probation for a period of 2 years, commencing upon the issuance of the Final Order by the Education Practices Commission [EPC] accepting this settlement agreement if the Respondent is currently employed as an educator in Florida. . . . In the event that the Respondent's employment in the teaching profession is interrupted for any reason prior to the expiration of the probationary period, the probationary period shall be tolled until such time as the Respondent resumes employment as an educator in Florida. As conditions of probation, the Respondent shall: . . . . violate no law and shall fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006; and, satisfactorily perform his assigned duties in a competent, professional manner. Waiving the statutory procedures of Section 231.2615(6), Florida Statutes (formerly number Section 231.28(6), Florida Statutes (1999)), for disciplining an educator's teaching certificate for a violation of the terms of the educator's probation, Mr. Schmidt, in executing the Settlement Agreement, agreed to the following: 7. In the event the Respondent fails to comply with each condition of probation set forth herein, the Respondent agrees that the Petitioner shall be authorized to file an Administrative Complaint for sanctions up to and including the revocation of his teaching certificate based upon the violation of the terms of this agreement. On or about March 10, 2000, the EPC issued a Final Order in the case of Tom Gallagher, as Commissioner of Education vs. Gregory Schmidt, EPC Case No. 99-0335-RT, at a meeting on February 25, 2000, accepting the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Schmidt's two-year probation period began to run March 10, 2000, and ended on March 10, 2002. In the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this case, it is alleged that Mr. Schmidt violated his probation and, thus, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "by committing the acts described [in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint]." The incidents involving Ms. Lance described in Section A, supra, took place before Mr. Schmidt was placed on probation and, therefore, do not support the allegation that he violated the terms of his probation. The incident involving Mr. Diamond described in Section B, supra, took place during September or October 2000, and therefore, occurred during the probation period. Mr. Schmidt's comment concerning Mr. Diamond, however, did not constitute a violation of the "law" or "district school board regulations," "school rules," or "State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006." The incidents involving M. G. described in Section C, supra, took place on January 24, 2002, and, therefore, occurred during the probationary period. To the extent those incidents have been determined to be violations of "district school board regulations, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B- 1.006," Mr. Schmidt violated the terms of his probation. Finally, the incidents alleged to have occurred during the Group Session on March 4, 2002, described in Section D, supra, while occurring during the probation period, have not been proved to constitute a violation of "district school board regulations, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B- 1.006." G. Mr. Schmidt's Effectiveness as an Employee of the M-D Public Schools. The evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that any of Mr. Schmidt's actions with Ms. Vance or Mr. Diamond constitutes conduct "which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board."11 The evidence also failed to prove clearly and convincingly that Mr. Schmidt's violation of the terms of his probation constituted conduct "which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board." Mr. Schmidt's mistreatment of M. G., however, does constitute conduct "which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Gregory Schmidt has violated Section 231.2615(1)(c), (f), (i), and (k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 1.006(3)(a) and (e), and 1.006(5)(d), and (o), Florida Administrative Code, and permanently revoking his Florida Educator's Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 16th day of May, 2003.
The Issue Whether or not on or about January 26, 1976, the Respondent, Alberta Quarterman, did physically and verbally attack Mrs. Bettie Shelor, Dean of Girls at the Largo Middle School, Largo, Florida, and whether the Respondent, Alberta Quarterman, should be dismissed from the public schools of Pinellas County, Florida for those alleged acts, which are regulated under Chapter 230.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 26, 1976, an eighth grade assembly was being held in the Largo Middle School, Largo, Florida. Alberta Quarterman was in the assembly area, which is the gymnasium of that school, and was seen by Mrs. Bettie Shelor, the Dean of Girls, to be without her shoes and blouse. In addition, the Respondent was not with her assigned class group and was jumping up and down on the bleachers in the gymnasium. Mrs. Shelor approached Alberta Quarterman and asked her to put on her blouse and shoes and told Miss Quarterman she would not be allowed to stay in the assembly if she did not comply. Alberta Quarterman did not adequately comply with the request, and was asked by Mrs. Shelor to return to the administration offices for the duration of the assembly period. It was the intention of Mrs. Shelor, to have the Respondent stay in the so called "time out room", for the duration of the assembly period. The "time out room" is a room in which students being disciplined are asked to stay for disciplinary purposes. Mrs. Shelor returned to her office after leaving Alberta Quarterman in the "time out room". Alberta Quarterman then came into Mrs. Shelor's office, unannounced, and sat down and attempted a confrontation about the matters that had transpired in the assembly room. At the time the Respondent was in Mrs. Shelor's office, she spoke in these terms, "I don't care about shit", "You're a bitch", "Damn", "Hell", etc. Mrs. Shelor attempted to escort Alberta Quarterman from her office by placing her hand on Miss Quarterman's arm to assist her from the chair. This movement was not with force. At that time Alberta Quarterman stood up and hit Mrs. Shelor with her fist on Mrs. Shelor's upper left arm. The Respondent then ran from the room and was gone for a period of about 10 minutes. The Respondent returned to the administration offices and went directly into Mrs. Shelor's office at the moment of the second encounter. After attempting to engage in conversation with Mrs. Shelor, Alberta Quarterman jumped out of the chair she was seated in and started knocking Mrs. Shelor about the room with her fists, in the area of Mrs. Shelor's arms and chest. Five or six blows of this nature were administered to Mrs. Shelor. While this action was taking place Mrs. Shelor called for assistance from a Mr. Jack Ellott, the campus security officer, who was in the outer office. At this point Alberta Quarterman picked up a chair and raised it over her head and attempted to strike Mrs. Shelor with the chair. Mrs. Shelor blocked the blow from the chair. At this moment, Martha Matthews, secretary for the Dean of Girls entered the room, and pushed a chair between Alberta Quarterman and Mrs. Shelor. Alberta Quarterman jumped over the barrier and tried to reach Mrs. Shelor again but was unsuccessful. The security officer, Jack Ellott, entered the room and stopped the Respondent from further action. There was no further encounter between Mrs. Shelor and the Respondent. The above findings of fact were testified about and agreed to by Mrs. Bettie Shelor, Mrs. Martha Matthews and the Respondent, with the exception that the Respondent denied raising the chair against Mrs. Shelor. Since September, 1974, when the Respondent became a student at Largo Middle School, she has been referred for discipline approximately 34 times while in the seventh grade; for physical violence, violation of school rules, defiance of teachers, and verbal abuse. This same course of conduct has occurred approximately 23 times while the Respondent has been in the eighth grade at Largo Middle School. Many of these circumstances have led to the student's suspension, both from the school grounds and on-campus suspensions. The testimony of these statistics was offered by Mrs. Bettie Shelor, the custodian of these records and the Dean of Girls, for the Largo Middle School. Eight suspensions, according to Mrs. Shelor, for a total of 29-1/2 days in the course of the two years were out-of-school suspensions. According to Mrs. Shelor, the student has problems following instructions and participating in a structured environment, to the extent that the student will not remain seated while class is in session and on many occasions has walked out of class. The school has tried to help the Respondent by providing individual attention and counseling, such as affording the Respondent individual responsibility for maintaining a garden located on the school grounds. The Respondent has been counseled by the school's social worker and school staff psychologist. Linda C. Rubin, of the Pinellas County School System, Pinellas County, Florida, took the stand. Ms. Rubin has a Masters Degree in school psychology and while she was working at the Largo Middle School was involved in counseling and testing the Respondent. She testified that the Respondent lacks academic achievement and evidences disruptive behavior. In addition, she has learning problems and an auditory memory problem, observations born out by certain tests. Moreover, the Respondent was involved in a number of instances which were attributable to a short attention span and a short temper. The Respondent had lost her parents several years ago and the witness felt that this contributed to the Respondent's adjustment problem. To the witness's knowledge, no psychologist is working with the Respondent at this time, in the form of an in- school staff psychologist.
Recommendation It is recommended: If a program is available to handle students with Alberta Quarterman's background, within the public school system of Pinellas County, Florida, then the Respondent should be tried in such a program. Should no such program be available within the Pinellas County School System, it is recommended that the Respondent, Albert Quarterman, be dismissed from the Pinellas County School System for the balance and duration of the 1975-76 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: George M. Osborne, Esquire 55 Fifth Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Mrs. Nancy Roberts 2054 119th Street, North Largo, Florida 33540 B. Edwin Johnson, General Counsel School Board of Pinellas County Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Linda C. Rubin 1895 Golf to Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida Alberta Quarterman 2054 119th Street, North Largo, Florida 33540
The Issue Whether there exists just cause to suspend Respondent without pay for fifteen work days.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Madruga has been employed as an English, Stagecraft, and Theater Arts teacher at Ronald Reagan/Doral Senior High School since 2006. During the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Madruga taught Stagecraft and Theater Arts. In his Stagecraft class, the students learned how to create the overall visual aspect of the high school productions. The students create costumes, construct set pieces, apply make-up, design the lighting scheme, and control the sound of the production. Mr. Madruga seems to thoroughly enjoy teaching these subjects; his passion for teaching was evident during his testimony. In July 2011, a complaint was filed against Mr. Madruga regarding communication he had with a student via Facebook. He received a letter of reprimand, which included the following directives: refrain from participating in any kind of communication with students through Facebook, cellular phone, or email unless it was regarding school business; refrain from using inappropriate language in conversation of any type (written or verbal) with students when addressing them; adhere to all School Board rules and regulations at all times; and conduct himself, both in his employment and in the community, in a manner that would reflect credit upon himself and the Miami-Dade public schools. On September 29, 2011, on a teacher planning day, Mr. Madruga and the Band Director were, with the help of student volunteers, building a set for a marching band production. Mr. Madruga was present that day to help the band students build the stage. He recognized most of the band students, but did not know them well. The school had received grant money from the City of Miami-Dade, and the money was being partially used for the construction of the set. The school was responsible for creating a report which documented the use of the grant money. E.P., a student, was assigned the task of photographing the construction of the set for use in the report. E.P.'s mother, C.P., was also helping that day. C.P., the Band Director, and Mr. Madruga went to Home Depot to buy all the materials needed for construction of the stage. During that trip, Mr. Madruga made some comments that C.P. interpreted to be sexual in nature. While the students were building the frame of the stage, they used metal braces at the junctures. Those supports are screwed into the wood frame using approximately 8-10 screws. Two students worked together during this process; one held the metal support piece in place, and the other used a power tool to drill the screws in place. While two students worked on installing one of these metal braces, E.P. photographed them. One photograph captures the two students on the floor with the framing; one is kneeling while using the power drill, the other is sitting on the ground while holding the metal brace in place. Mr. Madruga is standing beside the student who is using the power drill, holding screws in his left hand. His hand is lowered to his knee level, which is also at the level of the kneeling student's head. Mr. Madruga explained that, at the time the photo was taken, he was standing next to the student using the power drill because it is quite easy to get injured using it. As he was holding the screws, the photograph captured him handing a screw to the student using the power drill. C.P. filed a complaint with the school, alleging that Mr. Madruga had extended his middle finger in the photograph intentionally, and then laughed about having done so. She also alleged that while the student using the power drill was kneeling and bending at the waist over the framing, Mr. Madruga commented that he was familiar with that position. C.P. considered the comment to be sexual in nature, and thought that extending his middle finger in the photograph was inappropriate. Students present during this construction event were interviewed during the investigation of C.P.'s complaint, and none, with the exception of C.P.'s son, corroborated C.P.'s allegations. The student kneeling in the photograph refused to provide a statement. The student sitting down holding the metal brace had no knowledge of these allegations, and never heard Mr. Madruga make the alleged comment. The greater weight of the evidence supports Mr. Madruga's testimony; the photograph captures Mr. Madruga handing the student screws as he described, and if Mr. Madruga had made sexually charged comments while in close proximity to students, the undersigned believes the students--in particular the student to whom the comment was allegedly directed--would have heard it. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Madruga is not guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or of violating any School Board policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Madruga. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2012.
