Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, John R. Tenbroeck, held teaching certificate number 228148 issued by petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education. The certificate covers the areas of administration, bookkeeping, mathematics, physical education and biology and is valid through June 30, 1996. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as assistant principal at Westside Skills Center (Westside) in school year 1989- 1990 and as assistant principal at Raines Senior High School in school year 1990-1991. The schools are a part of the Duval County School District. In school year 1989-90, Angela McKenzie, who was born on May 15, 1974, was a tenth-grade student during the morning hours at Westside and attended Edward White High School during the afternoon session. Angela's schedule called for her to arrive by bus each day at the Westside campus around 7:45 a.m. She remained on that campus until 11:00 a.m. when she rode a school bus to the other campus. During the same school year, respondent held the position of assistant principal at Westside and occupied an office in an area designated as the office of student services. Angela first met respondent during school orientation in January 1990. Because of an impending divorce by her mother and stepfather, which ultimately became final in May 1990, Angela had occasion to speak with respondent, whose duties included counseling with students. Although Angela denied that their teacher-student relationship grew into a personal relationship, it is found that the two began seeing each other on a personal basis sometime during the spring of 1990. This finding is based on the findings below. She was then fifteen years old while respondent was forty-eight years of age. During the spring of 1990, respondent and Angela were observed on numerous occasions talking with each other at the bus stop from around 7:45 a.m., when she first arrived on campus, until 7:55 a.m., when respondent's duty of monitoring buses ended. On several occasions during the same time period, she was observed visiting respondent's office and speaking with him behind closed doors. In addition, the two were seen leaving campus together in respondent's car several times either at mid-morning or during lunch hour, and several times they were seen arriving together by car early in the morning. Further, on several occasions Angela telephoned respondent at his office after she had left campus. Finally, one member of the Westside faculty recalled periodically seeing the two riding in respondent's automobile off-campus during the evening hours while another faculty member described seeing the two spending an "unusual" amount of time together. While some of the observations of the two being seen together may have been occasioned by respondent giving Angela a ride to the Edward White campus at lunch hour (if she missed her ride on the school bus), or giving her rides to karate practice in the evenings where he served as her trainer or coach, collectively these observations, coupled with the fact that the two were later married, support a finding that their relationship was more than that of a teacher-student. However, there is no competent, credible evidence that the two engaged in sexual activities prior to marriage or otherwise acted in a romantic or otherwise inappropriate fashion while on the campus or in the presence of other students and faculty. After rumors concerning the two surfaced at Westside that spring, respondent met with the Westside vice-principal and principal on three occasions and was told that he must not engage in a personal relationship with a student. At those meetings, respondent steadfastly denied that such a relationship existed. Because school administrators had no evidence of wrongdoing, no action was taken against respondent. In school year 1990-91, respondent was transferred to Raines High School where he served as assistant principal until he was suspended in January 1991. It should be noted that after the last warning was given by the principal at the close of school year 1989-90, there is no evidence that the two were seen together in public until after their marriage. On December 18, 1990, respondent and Angela were married in Nassau County, Florida. Because of Angela's age (she was then sixteen), it was necessary for her natural father to give his permission for her to marry. Following the marriage, Angela withdrew from school. However, at the time of hearing, Angela had resumed her education. The two are still married and Angela now uses respondent's last name. Although Angela simply said they got married because "it was the appropriate thing to do", and denied that they were involved in a personal relationship before that time, this assertion is not deemed to be credible. On January 15, 1991, or after the marriage became publicly known, respondent resigned his position with the School Board. The resignation was subsequently rescinded by the School Board and he was then placed on administrative leave. Testimony by a school administrator accepted as an expert in school administration established that by having a personal relationship with a minor student, which culminated in marriage and thereafter gained some notoriety in the community, respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously impaired. However, the same administrator pointed out that there is no policy or rule which prohibits a teacher from marrying a student, and that by itself would not serve as the basis for taking disciplinary action against the teacher. Rather, the loss of effectiveness here arises as a result of respondent's personal relationship with a student. In terms of respondent's performance as an administrator-teacher, his most recent evaluation reflects that he was "an excellent dean", he displayed "significant skills" in management competencies, and was "a perfect example of team work."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner enter a Final Order finding respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes, that his teaching certificate be suspended for two years, such suspension to begin on January 15, 1991, that respondent receive a letter of reprimand from the Education Practices Commission, and that he be placed on three years probation after the suspension is completed with quarterly reports given to the Commission by his immediate supervisor. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1992.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes1/, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a),(e),(h) and (5)(a), and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 940141, covering the area of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, which was valid through June 30, 2013. At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint in this case, Respondent was employed as a Mathematics Teacher at Citrus High School (“CHS”) in the Citrus County School District ("District"). Respondent worked as a teacher at CHS from approximately 2005 until his resignation in 2009. The allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint revolve around Respondent's relationship with Jillian Messer ("Ms. Messer”), who graduated from CHS in June 2009. Respondent was Ms. Messer’s math teacher in her freshman year, but did not teach her in any subsequent years. Ms. Messer turned 18 years old on April 17, 2009, approximately six weeks prior to her graduation. Beginning in March 2009, Respondent, who has custody of his two young sons, needed an occasional babysitter to accommodate his out-of-town football coaching duties. He sought a recommendation from a co-worker, Shannon Justice ("Ms. Justice"), a guidance clerk at CHS at the time, about a babysitter he might use. Ms. Justice, who used Ms. Messer as a babysitter for her daughter, checked with Ms. Messer to see if she would be amenable to sitting for Respondent’s children from time to time. Ms. Messer informed Ms. Justice that Respondent could contact her to set up sitting arrangements. Between March, 2009 and May, 2009, Ms. Messer babysat Respondent’s two boys on approximately five occasions. Ms. Messer continued to provide babysitting services to Ms. Justice during the spring of 2009 as well. Ms. Messer’s last day of testing as a CHS senior was on Friday, May 29, 2009, and her last day of classes was June 1, 2009. However, notwithstanding the completion of exams and classes, Ms. Messer remained a CHS student until she received her diploma from the District superintendent of schools and was declared a graduate on the evening of June 2, 2009. Genesis of the Complaint Tammy Everhart ("Ms. Everhart") was a guidance office colleague of Ms. Justice’s during the 2008-2009 school year. The two women were cordial in the workplace, but were not close friends. Ms. Justice became wary of Ms. Everhart during the 2008-2009 school year because she often found her too interested in the personal lives of her colleagues. In May, 2009, a week before the CHS graduation ceremony, Ms. Justice allegedly told Ms. Everhart that Respondent and Ms. Messer were “seeing each other” and “dating outside the county.” According to Ms. Everhart, Ms. Justice also told her that the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Messer was "O.K." because Ms. Messer was 18 years old and “she (Ms. Messer) planned on remaining a virgin.” Ms. Everhart asked Ms. Justice to report this information to the school administration. There is no indication that Ms. Justice did so. About two weeks later, Ms. Everhart told her husband about her conversation with Ms. Justice regarding Respondent and Ms. Messer. Ms. Everhart’s husband is a District school administrator and was aware that any inappropriate relationship between a teacher and a student must be reported to a school district administrator. On the following school day, Ms. Everhart reported her concerns to Assistant Principal Linda Connors, who then reported it to the school principal, Leigh Ann Bradshaw. Principal Bradshaw contacted the District office and an investigation was then initiated by the Superintendent. At hearing, Ms. Justice denied having spoken to Ms. Everhart about Respondent’s dating or planning to date Ms. Messer. Ms. Justice and Respondent had spoken at times during the spring of 2009 about his dating relationship with a woman from the Clearwater area, and it is possible Ms. Everhart overheard some parts of those conversations and mistakenly assumed it was Ms. Messer whom Respondent was dating away from Inverness. The District's Investigation At a preliminary interview conducted in the early afternoon of June 17, 2009, Respondent was questioned by the District’s Director of Human Resources, David Roland, and Policy Compliance Officer, Teresa Royal. The interview concerned whether or not Respondent was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Messer, and whether he had communicated with others about such a relationship. There was no record of the precise questions asked during the interview, or of Respondent’s precise answers. During this interview, Respondent told the investigators that he had spoken with Ms. Messer five or six times, and that those conversations related to Ms. Messer babysitting his children. During the course of this interview Respondent acknowledged that Ms. Justice had sent him some pictures of her daughter's birthday party, and that Ms. Messer may have been in one of the pictures. He added that the pictures were of kids in the pool and other group pictures. Toward the end of the June 17th interview, Respondent confirmed the existence of e-mails between him and Ms. Justice that included references to the possibility of Respondent developing a dating relationship with Ms. Messer after she graduated. Respondent was not presented or confronted with those e-mails during the June 17th meeting. Although there is some evidence that Respondent did not initially acknowledge the existence of the e-mails when asked about them, it does not appear that he attempted to hide the existence of the e-mails between him and Ms. Justice. During the initial interview of June 17, 2009, and again in written form during a second interview held later that same afternoon, Mr. Roland and/or Ms. Royal cautioned Respondent against communicating with others about the subject matter of the investigation; however, he was not prohibited from speaking with Ms. Messer or Ms. Justice about unrelated matters. The "Notice of Investigation" memorandum Respondent signed during the second interview that afternoon specifically prohibits only discussions “regarding the matter under investigation.” Ms. Royal also interviewed Ms. Messer on June 17, 2009. During that interview Ms. Messer denied that there was an inappropriate relationship with Respondent. The Pool Party and Photograph of Messer On Sunday, May 31, 2009, Ms. Justice invited 45-50 people to her home for a pool party to celebrate her daughter’s birthday. Respondent, his children, several other children, Ms. Messer, and many adult friends and CHS work colleagues attended this afternoon party. Ms. Messer was invited both because Ms. Justice’s daughter adored her babysitter, and to assist Ms. Justice before and after the party. Ms. Messer arrived at, and left, the party alone. Most of the guests wore swimsuits during the pool party and Ms. Justice took pictures of children, including Respondent’s sons, and some of the adult guests, including Ms. Messer, who was wearing a bikini. On June 2, 2009, Ms. Justice forwarded several party pictures, mostly of his sons, to Respondent’s school e-mail address as attachments to an e-mail with the subject line “Pictures from Party.” One of these photographs was of Ms. Messer in the bikini she wore during the pool party. Although Ms. Messer is clad in a bikini, the photograph itself is unremarkable, and portrays a young female appropriately attired for a pool party. Other children are visible in the background of the photo. The E-Mails between Respondent and Justice Between June 1, 2009, and June 5, 2009, Respondent and Ms. Justice exchanged a series of e-mails that included subject matter related to the possibility that he and Ms. Messer might consider starting a dating relationship in the future. In an e- mail dated June 2, 2009, Ms. Justice specifically noted that Respondent and Ms. Messer had not yet had enough time to spend together to have discussed the possibility of future dating: Sent= Tues. 6/2/09 @ 1:00pm To: Randall Worley From: Shannon Justice Ok. I am back you sound so negative about yourself. I know that we are always so hard on ourselves but you are not destined for singlehood you will find someone someday and don't think JM is out of the question you haven't ever had enough time to be with her or even discuss dating. Two days later, on June 4, 2009, a series of e-mails between Respondent and Ms. Justice indicate that Respondent and Ms. Messer had recently discussed the possibility of a future dating relationship. This is the first time Respondent mentioned to Ms. Justice having spoken to Ms. Messer at all about dating, and the first time Respondent and Ms. Messer discussed the possibility of dating in the future. The full text of those June 4, 2009, e-mails follows: Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 8:44 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley So yeah I have been talking to JM lately. She is not sure what parents would say. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 8:48 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice Have you been texting or talking. So she is definitely interested??? I don’t think her parents would actually mind I think maybe you all should date a while then find out where that leads before talking about parents. That is just from experience. We dated almost 4 months before my parents ever knew. Then they never met Kevin’s parents till our rehearsal dinner. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 8:55 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley As far as she goes, yes she is interested. But I don’t think she wants to not tell them. It would be hard for us to date without them knowing wouldn’t it? And funny story, I apparently had her mom in my car graduation night and didn’t know it. Well yesterday her mom was talking to the family about how this nice sweet guy was her driver and that I was pretty cute. So she was like that’s coach Worley. That’s funny. And we have been doing both texting and talking. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 9:26 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice As far as JM my opinion is go for it. You guys have similar thing in common and plenty to talk about with regards to her parents you can play it off. It isn’t that hard you guys can really do it if you want. That is funny about her mom thinking you were cute buy (but?) cuteness only goes so far right??? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 9:32 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley Ain’t that the truth. And yes we never have enough to talk about. We are always talking and laughing and all that. We have fun together. I talked to my mom and uncle about it last night. They were totally cool with it too. I think JM just need some reassurance about it. That where maybe you come into play right. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 9:43 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice Of course I have always talked good about you to her. I will keep it up. I think she may babysit sometime next week she is suppose to call me tonight about watching sissy next week. I will help the most I can so do you still have her on your mind all the time? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 9:46 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley As a matter of fact I do. It is crazy. It has been 2 years since I have been with anyone and even the few girls that I have dated I didn’t think about like this. I don’t know if this is good or not?? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 10:44 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice Well maybe she is special to you and you may have feelings for her that you didn’t know you did. It may be a really great thing for the both of you. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 10:51 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley Seriously. I can’t get her out of my head. I don’t think that I have really felt like this in a very very very very long time. It is scary because of the feeling itself but also because of the circumstance. I don’t really know if I should feel this way? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 11:49 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice You are crazy for her. That is good. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 2:26 pm To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley No kidding. This is soooooooo not good. I don’t like this feeling at all. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 2:29 pm To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice Have you talked to her today? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 2:43 pm To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley Yes I have. We should probably talk when you get a chance. So call me sometime.When you leaving work? Telephone Records of Calls between Respondent and Messer Telephone records received in evidence (over the hearsay objection of Respondent)2/ indicate that there were 89 telephonic communications between Respondent and Ms. Messer between March 3, 2009 and June 18, 2009. The records also reflect that phone conversations did take place between Respondent and Ms. Messer on June 17, 2009. However, there is no evidence as to the subject matter of those communications, nor credible evidence that they spoke about anything related to the investigation. Another interview with Respondent was conducted by Ms. Royal on July 8, 2009. At that time Respondent again acknowledged having received the e-mailed photograph of Ms. Messer in a bikini. Publicity Regarding the Investigation The only area newspaper article written about the allegations against Respondent appeared on August 19, 2009, in the Citrus County Chronicle. The impetus for the article appears to be the filing of the formal complaint against Respondent, and his subsequent resignation. The article did not name Ms. Messer as an involved party, but included her anonymous statement to the effect that nothing unprofessional happened between her and Respondent, and quoted District officials to the effect that there was no evidence of sexual harassment or of Respondent expressing his feelings to the student. At hearing, Superintendent Himmel testified about the generic impact of negative teacher articles upon some in the community. On cross- examination, Ms. Himmel did not rule out re-hiring Respondent as a teacher if he is cleared of wrongdoing in this matter. Lack of Direct Evidence of a Relationship During the District’s interviews with him, to the extent Respondent’s recollection of the number, duration, and subject matter of every phone conversation he had with Ms. Messer between March and June 2009, was limited or inaccurate, such limitations reasonably appear to be the result of the passage of time, and not purposeful deception. There is no evidence that Respondent and Ms. Messer ever discussed dating, or any inappropriate subject, during any telephone, text, or in-person communications between them while she was a student. Although Respondent and Ms. Messer spoke on the phone from time to time about babysitting concerns and logistics, and apparently on other occasions about Ms. Messer’s college aspirations, scholarship opportunities, college selection, and related matters, there is no direct evidence of what they specifically spoke about. At hearing, no witness testified to having personal knowledge of such conversations, and both Respondent and Ms. Messer denied to District officials that they ever engaged in any discussions about dating or about any inappropriate matters prior to her June 2, 2009, graduation date. Although Ms. Messer and Respondent occasionally saw each other outside the school setting through babysitting- related interactions, the record lacks any credible evidence that they ever dated or engaged in any inappropriate physical contact. Further, Respondent, Ms. Messer, and Shannon Justice, all have specifically and consistently denied that there was any physical, romantic, dating, or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Messer at any time. Although the telephone records introduced by Petitioner establish that Respondent and Ms. Messer spoke frequently, there is insufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that the subject matter of the conversations was inappropriate, or that the two were involved in a prohibited teacher/student relationship prior to Ms. Messer's graduation on June 2, 2009.3/ By letter dated July 28, 2009, Respondent was informed of his suspension from employment with the District, and that his termination would be recommended to the school board. Respondent resigned his teaching position with the District effective August 11, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), and 6B-1.006(3)(h), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Reopel holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 973284, covering the area of social science. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2008. At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Reopel was employed as a social studies teacher and an assistant softball coach at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge) in the Orange County School District (School District). In April 2007, Ms. Reopel was 25 years old. In the 2006-2007 school year, Tiffany Pagan was a senior at Oak Ridge. She turned 18 years of age on April 6, 2007. She was not a student in one of Ms. Reopel’s academic classes. At Oak Ridge, a student was not to assist a teacher unless the student had been assigned to the teacher as a student assistant. Ms. Pagan was not a student assistant assigned to Ms. Reopel. However, Ms. Pagan was a member of the girls’ softball team for which Ms. Reopel coached. Ms. Pagan was part of a work-study program at Oak Ridge, in which she took some academic classes and then left the school campus to work. Once a student who was participating in the work-study program completed classes, the student was to leave the campus. Ms. Pagan has engaged in a sexual relationship with more than one girl while she was a student at Oak Ridge. Ms. Pagan did not make it a secret that she liked girls, and Ms. Reopel was aware that Ms. Pagan was a lesbian. In April 2007, Ms. Reopel’s classroom was a portable classroom with windows facing a covered hallway located outside the classroom. In order to see into the classroom from the outside, one would have to lean toward the window and press one’s face to the glass. Based on Ms. Reopel’s and Ms. Pagan’s independent drawings of the configuration of the classroom, Ms. Reopel’s desk was located in a corner area of the classroom where no windows were located and near an area in which three- drawer file cabinets were placed in front of the windows. Based on their description of the location of the room’s furnishings, it would be difficult at best to see the desk from outside the classroom while walking past the classroom. On April 12, 2007, Edward Smith, a technology support representative at Oak Ridge, was inventorying the computer equipment at the school. At mid-day, he went to Ms. Reopel’s classroom and found it locked.2 Using his master key, he entered the classroom. The lights were off, but there was sufficient light coming from the windows so that he could see clearly. He walked into the classroom, thinking that there was no one in the room because the lights were out. He heard a movement and looked up. Mr. Smith saw Ms. Reopel sitting in a chair behind and slightly to the right side of her desk. There was a female student on the floor on her knees facing Ms. Reopel. The student had her left arm propped on the desk. Mr. Smith does not recall seeing any papers on the floor near Ms. Reopel and the student. Mr. Smith observed Ms. Reopel make two downward and upward motions as if she were pulling her clothes up. Ms. Reopel asked Mr. Smith if she could help him, and he told her that he was counting computers. He counted the computers in the room and left. Neither Ms. Reopel nor the student got up. The student never turned around. After Mr. Smith exited the classroom, he went past the windows and looked toward the classroom. He could not see inside the classroom. After making sure that he was past the classroom windows, he used his radio to call the assistant principal at Oak Ridge, Michael Scott Hanson, to let the assistant principal know what he had just seen. Mr. Hanson and Mr. Smith advised Maxine Risper, the principal at Oak Ridge, of what Mr. Smith had seen. Ms. Risper advised Orange County School District Employee Relations (Employee Relations) of the situation. The following day Ms. Reopel was relieved of her classroom duties and told to report to Employee Relations. After some investigation, it was revealed that Ms. Pagan was the student that Mr. Smith had seen in Ms. Reopel’s classroom. Ms. Pagan was called into Ms. Risper’s office to discuss the incident with Ms. Reopel. At first, Ms. Pagan denied any relationship with Ms. Reopel, but later admitted that she did have a relationship with Ms. Reopel. Ms. Pagan said that the relationship had not begun until she turned 18 years old. Ms. Pagan’s mother was called to come to the school. When Mrs. Pagan learned of the allegations, she became angry with her daughter. Ms. Pagan wanted to know whether the incident would affect Ms. Pagan’s graduation. The day after the incident, April 13, 2007, Melissa Moser, the head softball coach and Ms. Reopel’s friend and colleague, became concerned that Ms. Reopel was not at school. That evening, she went to Ms. Reopel’s apartment to learn why Ms. Reopel had not been at school. Ms. Reopel told Ms. Moser that the day before she and her boyfriend had been caught in her classroom while involved in sexual activity, and that was why she had been relieved of her teaching duties. On Monday, April 16, 2007, Ms. Moser had heard students talking about Ms. Reopel not returning to the classroom. That evening Ms. Moser sent a text message to Ms. Reopel asking Ms. Reopel whether Ms. Reopel’s having been relieved of teaching duties had anything to do with Ms. Pagan. At first, Ms. Reopel replied that it did not, but, after further questioning, Ms. Reopel told Ms. Moser that nothing physical had happened with Ms. Pagan until Ms. Pagan was 18 years old. By letter dated April 17, 2008, Employee Relations requested Ms. Reopel to attend a meeting to discuss the allegations. By letter dated April 18, 2008, Ms. Reopel submitted her resignation to the School District. Both Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan deny that any romantic relationship existed between them until after Ms. Pagan graduated from high school. However, Ms. Pagan made statements to numerous witnesses concerning her romantic involvement with Ms. Reopel prior to April 12, 2007. During the 2006-2007 school year, Nestor Velazquez was a classmate and close friend of Ms. Pagan. In February 2007, Ms. Pagan told Mr. Velazquez that she was having sexual relations with another female. At the time, Ms. Pagan did not reveal the identity of her lover. During this time, Ms. Pagan was also having romantic relationships with another female, Marianne Pena, and a male. Sometime between March 13 and April 12, 2007, Ms. Pagan confided to Mr. Velazquez that she had been having a sexual relationship with Ms. Reopel. Ms. Pagan described sexual acts that had occurred with Ms. Reopel, including the use of sexual aids. While at the Oak Ridge school library, Ms. Pagan and her friend, Liz Ortiz, told Mr. Velazquez about an incident in which Ms. Reopel, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Pagan, and Cindy Rivera had gone to Ms. Reopel’s apartment where Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan had sex in the bedroom and the other couple had sex in the living room. Ms. Pagan told Mr. Velazquez that Ms. Reopel’s cat had scratched one of the females in the living room on the female’s buttock, while she was engaged in sexual activity. Mr. Velazquez’s mother, Rosa Cruz Flores, became good friends with Ms. Pagan, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Rivera. All three students came to Ms. Flores’ home at various times. Ms. Pagan and Ms. Flores had worked at the same movie theater. Ms. Pagan would tell Ms. Flores personal things. Ms. Flores knew that Ms. Pagan dated both males and females. Ms. Pagan had told Ms. Flores about her relationship with a person, Ms. Pagan referred to as “baby.” In March 2007, Ms. Flores, had a birthday party for Mr. Velazquez. Ms. Pagan arrived at the party late. As she was talking to Ms. Flores, Ms. Pagan began texting a message on her telephone. Ms. Flores asked Ms. Pagan to whom she was texting, and Ms. Pagan replied that it was “baby.” Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Rivera, who were also at the party, urged Ms. Pagan to tell Ms. Flores the identity of “baby.” Ms. Pagan told Ms. Flores that she was dating her softball coach, Ms. Reopel. Ms. Pagan had sent a text message to Ms. Reopel to come to the party to pick her up. Ms. Reopel did go to Ms. Flores’ home to get Ms. Pagan. Ms. Reopel did not get out of her vehicle, and Ms. Flores did not see Ms. Reopel. Ms. Flores candidly admitted that during the birthday party, she served alcoholic beverages to underage students, including Ms. Pagan. Ms. Flores claims that she had 12 Smirnoff beverages, which were served to the party attendees. Ms. Pagan claimed that she drank “a whole six-pack . . . maybe a little less.” Ms. Pagan claims that she called Ms. Reopel to come and get her because she was intoxicated and that there was no one else to take her home because Ms. Flores was the only adult at the party, and the rest of the attendees did not have cars. Ms. Pagan further contends that she called Ms. Reopel as an emergency measure because she could not let her father know that she had been drinking and that Ms. Reopel had told her softball team that they could call her in an emergency. Ms. Pagan’s testimony is not credible. Ms. Pagan had been texting messages to Ms. Reopel while Ms. Pagan was at the party and prior to texting a request for a ride home from the party. Such action indicates that Ms. Pagan was not making an emergency call for help to Ms. Reopel in the context of a student calling a teacher for help. The request was made in the context of a relationship that went beyond teacher and student. Additionally, it is not credible that Ms. Flores would have allowed Ms. Pagan to consume a six-pack of alcoholic beverages. Sometime in the spring of 2007, Ms. Flores went to Oak Ridge to pick up Mr. Velazquez. While she was there, Ms. Flores saw Ms. Pagan, who began to tell Ms. Flores about the cat scratching one of the girls at Ms. Reopel’s apartment. During the conversation, Ms. Pagan confided that she and Ms. Reopel had been having sex in another room when the scratching incident took place. On April 17, 2007, Ms. Pagan wrote a letter to Ms. Ortiz concerning the incident with Ms. Reopel on April 12. Ms. Pagan wrote: I feel like my whole life is slowly coming to an end. I don’t know what I will do if this all ends really badly. My life as I know it will be nothing. I just don’t know what to do! I don’t think I will be able to handle this. I have dealt with something like this before but its different this time because I didn’t love the other person. I love her so much and what have I done, I have ruined her life. I don’t deserve to have her love me. I don’t even deserve to have her in my life at all. I don’t deserve to have anything good in my life. But then I can’t be without her because then I feel like nothing. Ms. Pagan now claims that the love for Ms. Reopel to which she was referring was just the love that a friend has for another friend and not a romantic love. Given statements that Ms. Pagan made to others concerning her relationship with Ms. Reopel, Ms. Pagan’s assertion that she was not talking about a romantic love is not credible. After the April 12, 2007, incident between Ms. Pagan and Ms. Reopel, Ms. Flores got a telephone call from a friend who told her about the incident. Ms. Flores tried to contact a local television station concerning the incident, but was put on hold. Ms. Flores contacted Mr. Velazquez’s father and told him what she had heard. Mr. Velazquez contacted another television station about what Ms. Flores had told him. A reporter from the television station contacted Ms. Flores for an interview, but Ms. Flores refused to give an interview. Mr. Velazquez did talk to the reporter and gave his views on the matter. Ms. Flores went to see Ms. Risper. At that point, Ms. Risper was still investigating the allegations against Ms. Reopel. Ms. Flores told Ms. Risper that Ms. Pagan was probably the student who was involved in the incident. As a result of the incident of April 12 and the attention that resulted from the media and students at Oak Ridge, Ms. Pagan was not allowed to walk with her classmates at Oak Ridge for graduation. Ms. Pagan did walk with students from Freedom High School at graduation and did receive a diploma from Oak Ridge. Additionally, as a result of the situation created by the relationship between Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan, Ms. Pagan’s brother, who had been attending Oak Ridge, was transferred to another high school. As of the date of the final hearing, Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan were engaged in a romantic lesbian relationship and were living together in the home of Ms. Pagan’s parents. Both Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan claim that their romantic relationship did not begin until after Ms. Pagan graduated from high school. Their contention is not credited. Based on the clear and convincing evidence presented, Ms. Reopel and Ms. Pagan had begun an inappropriate personal relationship prior to Ms. Pagan turning 18 years old and prior to Ms. Pagan’s graduation from high school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Reopel violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes; finding that Ms. Reopel violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), and 6B-1.006(3)(h); and permanently revoking her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 September, 2009.
The Issue Should Respondent be terminated from his employment as a member of Petitioner's instructional staff for his alleged relationship with Kristie Lynn Smith, who at the time of the alleged misconduct was a minor student and member of Respondent's household? In particular, Petitioner accuses Respondent of a romantic involvement with Ms. Smith, to include sexual intercourse.
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has been employed as a classroom teacher, part of instructional staff with the Putnam County School Board. His employment has been at Interlachen High School in Interlachen, Putnam County, Florida. Respondent has taught Driver Education and Health and Life Management Skills. Respondent has also served as coach for the girls' varsity basketball team. Kristie Lynn Smith was born November 24, 1980. At the times relevant to the inquiry she was a student in the Putnam County School District. Ms. Smith met Respondent as a student in Respondent's Health and Life Management Skills class, in the second semester of her ninth grade year. In January 1997, Ms. Smith was placed in foster care in the custody of Respondent and his wife, Teresa Dorsey. Ms. Smith lived with the Dorseys in their home from January 1997 through August 1997. Other children residing in the Dorsey home were Respondent's children Mikey, Jeanny, and Raymond. Another foster child, K.W., lived in the home during Ms. Smith's residency. The expectation of foster parenting for the benefit of Ms. Smith and K.W. was that Respondent and his wife would exercise parental authority over the foster children. After Ms. Smith was placed with the Dorseys for foster care, she began to ride to her school with Respondent in his automobile. On these occasions Respondent and Ms. Smith would engage in conversation that was not unexpected. In latter May 1997, Respondent began to discuss his marital problems with Ms. Smith. In these discussions Respondent confided that Respondent's marriage with his wife, Teresa, was over and that Respondent was contemplating the formal dissolution of his marriage. Respondent's discussions with Ms. Smith extended to expressing Respondent's feelings towards Ms. Smith by telling her he cared for her. This was followed by Respondent's statement to Ms. Smith that he was in love with her. Ms. Smith replied that she had similar feelings for Respondent. Respondent and Ms. Smith in their discussions talked about having sexual relations with each other. Expression was given to their affection by flirting, hugging, and kissing each other with open mouths. The relationship between Respondent and Ms. Smith progressed to the point where Ms. Smith agreed to have sexual intercourse with Respondent. Within a few days beyond reaching the agreement to have sexual intercourse, Respondent, in their home, took Ms. Smith from the room she shared with K.W. into the bedroom shared by Mikey and Jeanny, placed a mattress on the floor, removed his and Ms. Smith's clothing and engaged in sexual intercourse with Ms. Smith. This same activity took place three or four more times in the home in the month of May 1997. While on a vacation in West Virginia that began the last week of May 1997, Ms. Smith confided in K.W. that Ms. Smith and Respondent had an ongoing romantic relationship. K.W. observed some of the contacts between Respondent and Ms. Smith that involved hand holding, hugging, and what K.W. described as "French kissing," meaning that the tongues of Respondent and Ms. Smith were in each other's mouth. Upon the return from West Virginia, in the first part of June 1997, Respondent and Ms. Smith continued their liaison, to include sexual intercourse that took place on numerous occasions either in Jeanny and Mikey's bedroom, Ms. Smith's bedroom, or Respondent's bedroom. The sexual encounters that have been described took place at night when other persons had retired to sleep. The numerous occasions of sexual relations between Respondent and Ms. Smith took place over the period from the end of May 1997 into August 1997. Those encounters were such that in June 1997, Ms. Smith believed that she had become pregnant by Respondent. To confirm her suspicion Ms. Smith went with a friend, Lisa Comeau, and purchased a pregnancy test kit. At that time Ms. Comeau was also a student at Interlachen High School. Ms. Comeau was mindful of the relationship between Ms. Smith and Respondent to the extent that Ms. Comeau had been told by Ms. Smith that Respondent and Ms. Smith were having sexual relations. Respondent had taught Ms. Comeau as a Driver's Education and Health class teacher. The results of the pregnancy test as administered at Ms. Comeau's home revealed that Ms. Smith was not pregnant. In June 1997, Ms. Smith enrolled in a Driver's Education Course that was being taught at Palatka High School, part of the Putnam County School District. Respondent taught Ms. Smith in that class and was responsible for assigning Ms. Smith's final grade. During this time period Respondent and Ms. Smith were having sexual relations. During the period May 1997 through August 1997, Respondent and Ms. Smith exchanged letters describing their affection. Those letters were passed directly from Respondent to Ms. Smith and from Ms. Smith to Respondent or on other occasions letters were being indirectly transmitted through K.W. Respondent would also leave letters for Ms. Smith in a dresser drawer in the home. The letters were being written and exchanged sometime between May 1997 and August 1997. K.W. and Lisa Comeau were aware of the contents of some of this correspondence. Through the letters which Respondent wrote to Ms. Smith he expressed his love and devotion, the anticipation of having children with Ms. Smith, the desire to be Ms. Smith's husband, and the specific statement of wanting to make love to Ms. Smith and to hold her in his arms and to lay there for hours. The contents of some of the letters are more completely described in the Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 4-13. Although Respondent expressed some reservation in testimony concerning their relationship, about first receiving letters from Ms. Smith which expressed her feelings towards Respondent, his manner of addressing his concerns was to begin writing letters back to Ms. Smith of the nature that has been described previously. While Respondent in his testimony concerning the relationship with Ms. Smith has denied the finding made here that he had engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Smith, he does not deny discussion of their intention to have sexual relations at a time in the future. Neither does Respondent deny having written the letters that have been discussed which describe lovemaking and fathering Ms. Smith's children. The July 24, 1998, edition of the Palatka Daily News reported some of the contents of correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith that have been described, in particular, the reference "I want to make love to you . . . and hold you in my arms and lay there for hours." The article also referred to Respondent's admission that he loved Ms. Smith at the time of their relationship and hoped the two of them would be married and have a family. As reported in the newspaper article Respondent had testified in the trial that he had "fallen" for Ms. Smith. The account of Respondent's statement that he loved Ms. Smith, as found in the newspaper was consistent with his trial testimony. Respondent's trial testimony constituted testimony for the present proceeding. Mr. David Buckles, District School Superintendent for Putnam County School District, testified concerning his opinion on Respondent's loss of effectiveness as a teacher. Before offering that testimony Mr. Buckles had been accepted as an expert to provide opinion testimony concerning loss of effectiveness in the community to teach. Upon reviewing the contents of correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith, Mr. Buckles opined that the authorship of that item, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4 and its delivery to Ms. Smith, then a 16-year- old student, followed by public admission of such contact between Respondent and Ms. Smith would cause Respondent to be less than effective in teaching. Respondent in his testimony at trial, had acknowledged writing the correspondence found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. Additionally, Mr. Buckles offered the opinion that a teacher would lose effectiveness in the instance where the teacher stated a desire to father a child by one of his students, as published in the community. Respondent in his trial testimony acknowledged that in one of the letters written to Ms. Smith, he had stated that he wanted to father Ms. Smith's children. Moreover, Mr. Buckles offered the opinion that a teacher would lose effectiveness in the community to serve as a teacher if the teacher admitted in a public forum that the teacher was in love with a 16-year-old student. Respondent in his trial testimony acknowledged that he loved Ms. Smith at the time of their relationship. Respondent in his trial testimony also acknowledged writing letters to Ms. Smith which expressed his love for her. Mr. Buckles expressed the opinion that a teacher, who in a public forum acknowledges having discussed having sexual intercourse with a student on a future date, had lost effectiveness. In the trial testimony Respondent indicated that he had talked with Ms. Smith about having sex after they were going to be married, and that it was something Respondent and Ms. Smith knew would take place as part of the marriage. Additionally, Mr. Buckles' opinion countenances the previously mentioned discussion in correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith, reported in the newspaper and testified about in hearing, in which Respondent acknowledged authoring the correspondence which includes the phrase "I want to make love to you . . . and hold you in my arms and lay there for hours." Eventually, the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Smith was found out. Although Ms. Smith denied their relationship initially, upon its discovery, out of fear of losing her attachment to Respondent and getting in trouble, eventually, Ms. Smith admitted to the relationship. Ms. Smith and K.W. were removed from Respondent's home. Respondent did not carry forward his stated intentions to divorce his wife and marry Ms. Smith. Respondent continues to be married to Teresa Dorsey.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Putnam County School Board dismissing Respondent from his employment with the Putnam County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 7th day of May, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment as an educational paraprofessional, based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the facts stipulated by the parties, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. The School Board is located at 2055 Central Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida 33901. The School Board's Florida Administrative Code identification code is 6GX-36. The School Board has the authority to terminate and/or suspend educational support personnel without pay and benefits pursuant to Subsections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.40(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005).1 Respondent has been employed by the School Board since August 27, 1998, with the exception of a break in service during the period from February 24, 1999, through September 27, 2000. Currently, Respondent is employed as an educational paraprofessional at Alternative Learning Center ("ALC") High School. He was previously employed as a bus attendant. Respondent has always received satisfactory performance assessments and has never before been the subject of discipline by the School Board. Respondent's current home address is 3971 Wheaton Court, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. Respondent is an "educational support employee," as defined by Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and is a member of the support personnel bargaining unit ("SPALC") that is covered by a collective bargaining agreement between SPALC and the School Board. The standard for discipline of support personnel is "just cause" pursuant to Article 7 of the SPALC Agreement. On or about August 12, 2005, David LaRosa, the principal of ALC High School, contacted Gregory Adkins, executive director of Human Resources and Employee Relations, to report two recent conversations regarding Respondent. Both conversations concerned alleged inappropriate interaction by Respondent with two female students. On the basis of the information reported to Mr. LaRosa, an investigation into the matter was conducted. During the course of the investigation, the District became aware that Respondent had fathered a child and that the child's mother was a senior at Cypress Lake High School at the time the child was conceived. The child was born on December 10, 2002. Respondent denied knowing that the mother was a student when they met at a Dr. Martin Luther King celebration in January 2002, or when they met again on February 14, 2002. The mother of the child turned 18 on February 14, 2002. Respondent was 23 years old at the time.2 On September 7, 2005, the School Board determined that probable cause existed to impose disciplinary action against Respondent for engaging in a sexual relationship with a student. Also, on September 7, 2005, a certified letter was sent to Respondent, advising him of the probable cause determination and that a recommendation would be made to the superintendent that Respondent be terminated. The School Board did not, during the time in question, have a policy or regulation specifically prohibiting a sexual relationship between an employee and a student. The School Board provided no notice to employees that a sexual relationship with a student could result in disciplinary action. No evidence was presented that Respondent's alleged misconduct had any adverse impact on the School Board or on Respondent's work performance. Respondent continued to work for the School Board for more than two and a half years after his child's birth without incident and with satisfactory performance evaluations. Respondent's child was born ten months after the mother's eighteenth birthday, meaning there is no evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual relations with the mother when she was a minor. No evidence was presented to contradict Respondent's claim that he was unaware that the woman was a high school student at the time they had sexual relations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding him back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Pinellas County School Board policies related to sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual conduct with students, and inappropriate relationships with students, and if so, whether the violations constitute just cause for her dismissal as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dorothy Simon (Respondent), has been employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School Board (School Board) since 1980. Her entire teaching career in the Pinellas County School District has been spent at the Pinellas Technical Education Center (PTEC). Pursuant to her employment, Respondent was issued a professional services contract. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent taught an electronics technology course at PTEC in which approximately twenty-six (26) to thirty (30) students were enrolled. The course lasted one year, and upon completion of the course work, the students received a certificate. Except for one seventeen year old who was enrolled in the course, all of the students in Respondent's class were between the ages of twenty (20) and forty-eight (48) years old. On or about March 1996, a male student named Thomas Mitchell, who was approximately forty (40) years of age, enrolled in the electronics technology course taught by Respondent. Mitchell, who was not married, held himself out as an ordained minister and told Respondent that he wanted to be called "Reverend Mitchell". Consequently, Respondent as well as students in the class referred to and addressed Thomas Mitchell as Reverend Mitchell. On or about July 15, 1996, Mr. Mitchell gave the Respondent a letter in which Mr. Mitchell expressed a physical and emotional attraction to her and discussed starting a relationship with the Respondent. Prior to July 19, 1996, while on school premises, Respondent approached Mr. Mitchell and asked him if he would accompany her and her thirteen year old daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, and act as their bodyguard during their stay. On or about July 19, 20 and 21, 1996, Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent's car to Atlanta. While in Atlanta, Mr. Mitchell stayed with Respondent and her daughter in a hotel room which Respondent had reserved and paid for a year in advance. Respondent paid for Mr. Mitchell's meals and gave him $50.00 spending money. Mitchell later return the $50.00 to Respondent. After class, on or about July 22, 1996, Respondent drove several students to a nearby bus stop and Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, a center near PTEC where he tutored children. While Respondent was driving Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, she asked him if he would house-sit for her while she and her daughter were on vacation for two weeks. The Respondent offered to pay Mr. Mitchell $100.00 each week, and in return he was to feed her pets, clean her pool and live in her house while she was vacationing. Mr. Mitchell accepted the Respondent's offer. After class, on July 25, 1996, the last day of school before the summer break, Respondent drove several students to the bus stop and gave Mr. Mitchell a ride to his mother's apartment where he lived. Both the bus stop and Mr. Mitchell's mother's apartment were in the vicinity of PTEC. Respondent had given Mitchell a ride home on one other occasion and often gave other students rides to various places when they so requested. Shortly after Respondent dropped Mr. Mitchell off at his mother's apartment, while driving home, Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in which Respondent's vehicle struck a teen-age girl. After police and paramedics arrived at the scene of the accident, Respondent remained on the scene. However, about one hour after their arrival, the police who were investigating the accident advised Respondent to go home. Respondent was quite shaken, and did not feel that she was in any condition to drive herself home. Rather than driving herself home, Respondent went to Mr. Mitchell's residence, which was nearby, and asked him to drive her home. Mr. Mitchell complied with Respondent's request. On the way to Respondent's house, Mitchell and Respondent made two stops. The first stop was at a bank where the Respondent made a cash withdrawal for the $200.00 that she was going to give Mr. Mitchell for house-sitting. The second stop was at a liquor store where Mr. Mitchell, at the Respondent's request, went inside and purchased a bottle of vodka. Mr. Mitchell then drove Respondent home and when they arrived, Respondent had one drink of orange juice and vodka. Respondent then went into her swimming pool to calm herself and was shortly thereafter joined by Mr. Mitchell. While both were in the pool, Respondent asked Mr. Mitchell to hug her because she wanted to be comforted. Mr. Mitchell then hugged Respondent and the two engaged in sexual intercourse. On or about July 27, 1996, Respondent and her daughter drove to Mr. Mitchell's residence and picked him up. Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to a swim meet in which the daughter was participating. After the swim meet, Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent and her daughter to the airport for their departure on a two-week vacation. Mr. Mitchell returned to Respondent's home and house- sat for Respondent for two weeks while she was away on vacation, pursuant to their previously made agreement. As promised, Respondent paid Mr. Mitchell $100.00 per week for house-sitting. While on vacation, Respondent received one phone call from Mr. Mitchell in which he requested an additional $100.00. Respondent wired Mr. Mitchell the $100.00. When Respondent returned from vacation, she found that Mr. Mitchell had trashed and vandalized her house. She later determined that Mitchell had run up an exorbitant phone bill and had stolen approximately $2,300 from her by making unauthorized cash withdrawals on a credit card that had been mailed to her home while she was away. When school began at PTEC in August 1996, Mr. Mitchell was still enrolled as a student in Respondent's electronics technology course. At that time Mr. Mitchell had approximately two weeks of course work remaining to be completed in order to receive a certificate of completion. Upon returning to PTEC after the summer break, Respondent went to see Dr. Warren Laux, Director at PTEC, concerning Mr. Mitchell. Respondent was afraid of Mr. Mitchell, and requested that he be removed from her class because she did not want to come in contact with him. Respondent explained that Mr. Mitchell house-sat for her during a two-week vacation and left the house a mess, stole money from her and ran up an exorbitant phone bill during his stay. Because she had notified police of these incidents involving Mr. Mitchell, the Respondent told Dr. Laux that the situation created a conflict for her if Mr. Mitchell remained in her class. During their discussion, Dr. Laux asked Respondent if there had been any sexual relationship between herself and Mr. Mitchell. The Respondent stated that she had sex with Mr. Mitchell on one occasion. However, Respondent did not give details of the time, place, or circumstances surrounding that encounter. Dr. Laux explained to Respondent that for the moment it appeared that Mr. Mitchell had done nothing which violated the Student Code of Conduct and, accordingly, there was no valid reason to remove him from her class. During August 1996, Respondent told some students in her class that the person who had house-sat for her when she was away on vacation had trashed her house. However, Respondent did not identify Mr. Mitchell as that person. During August 1996, while in her classroom, Respondent told Mr. Mitchell that she would rather scratch his eyes out than have him in her class. At the time this comment was made by Respondent, there were students in the classroom, but on the other side of the room. Respondent's comments to Mr. Mitchell were not made loudly enough for other students to hear. The School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted an investigation regarding the allegations that the Respondent had been involved with a student. As a part of this investigation, Respondent was interviewed on three occasions: August 28, 1996; September 3, 1996; and mid-September 1996. During each interview, Respondent admitted that on one occasion she had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of her students, Thomas Mitchell. Respondent's conduct impaired her effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent failed to maintain a professional relationship with her student Thomas Mitchell and used her position to enter into a personal relationship with him. Once that relationship deteriorated, as admitted by Respondent, it was impossible for her to work with that student, and her effectiveness was significantly impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be dismissed from her position as a teacher with the Pinellas County School Board.DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin Assistant School Board Attorney Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Ms. Dorothy Simon 6315 Eight Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission may revoke or suspend John T. Guzalak's Florida teaching certificate, or otherwise discipline Mr. Guzalak, for violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint entered September 21, 1992?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the EPC, is authorized to discipline individuals holding Florida teaching certificates. The Respondent is John T. Guzalak. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Guzalak held Florida teaching certificate number 615516. Mr. Guzalak is certified to teach English and Speech. Mr. Guzalak's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. From approximately August of 1987, until June of 1992, Mr. Guzalak served as a teacher for the Okaloosa County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Mr. Guzalak's Attendance at Choctawhatchee Senior High School. Mr. Guzalak attended, and graduated from, Choctawhatchee Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Choctaw"). Mr. Guzalak graduated from Choctaw in 1981. Choctaw is a high school located in Okaloosa County, Florida. Choctaw has approximately 2,000 students, 117 to 120 teachers and a total of approximately 160 employees. While a student at Choctaw, Mr. Guzalak was active in debate and drama. His drama teacher was Mary Jo Yeager. Ms. Yeager was so impressed with Mr. Guzalak's acting ability that she cast him in the male leading role of essentially every play produced at Choctaw while Mr. Guzalak was a student there. Ms. Yeager and Mr. Guzalak developed a friendship and still remain friends. Mr. Guzalak's Employment by the School Board. After Mr. Guzalak had graduated from Choctaw and was attending college, Mr. Guzalak informed Ms. Yeager that he was interested in becoming a teacher. Ms. Yeager, who was planning to retire in a few years, talked to Richard G. Bounds, the Principal at Choctaw, about the possibility of Mr. Guzalak replacing her when she retired. Prior to August, 1987, Mr. Guzalak applied for a teaching position with the School Board as a teacher at Meigs Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Meigs"). Ms. Yeager recommended that Mr. Guzalak be hired. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Meigs and began his employment with the School Board in August, 1987. Mr. Guzalak taught speech/drama and English during the 1987-1988 school year at Meigs. The Stage Crafters' Party. In January, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a local theatre group known as Stage Crafters. The group presented a play in which Mr. Guzalak participated during that month. Mr. Guzalak organized and gave a party for the cast of Stage Crafters after the presentation of the play. The party was held at the home of Mr. Guzalak's parents, where Mr. Guzalak lived until approximately August, 1991. Mr. Guzalak invited all students in his speech/drama classes at Meigs to attend the Stage Crafters' party. Mr. Guzalak invited his students because he thought it would be beneficial for his students to meet and talk to individuals who were involved in drama and who had more experience with acting. Mr. Guzalak had alcoholic beverages available for his guests during the Stage Crafters' party. A table was set up where guests were able to obtain alcoholic drinks. Adults drank alcoholic beverage in front of Mr. Guzalak's students during the party. Alcohol was consumed in the presence of students who were under the legal age required to consume alcoholic beverages. The evidence failed to prove that students who were not legally old enough to drink alcohol who were at the Stage Crafters' party were encouraged or allowed to drink alcoholic beverages. The evidence also failed to prove that underage students were in fact drinking in the presence of Mr. Guzalak or that Mr. Guzalak drank alcoholic beverages in front of any underage students. The testimony of Chris Hutcherson, a student at Meigs at the time of the party, concerning the party was contradicted by the testimony of Aaron Utley, another student at Meigs at the time, and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak testified that the underage students who attended the Stage Crafters' party were mainly relegated to half of the house and the adults and alcohol were located, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages took place, in the other half of the house. Mr. Guzalak testified that this separation of his underage students from the adults consuming alcohol was deliberate and intended to mitigate the extent to which alcohol would be consumed in front of his underage students. This testimony contradicts the purpose for which Mr. Guzalak indicated the students were invited to the Stage Crafters' party and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak simply failed to exercise good judgement when he allowed his underage students to attend a party without also inviting their parents when he knew that alcoholic beverages would be consumed. Mr. Guzalak was counseled by Bobby Smith, Principal at Meigs and Mr. Guzalak's supervisor, after Mr. Smith learned of the party. Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Smith that he had not consumed alcohol in the presence of his students at the party. Mr. Guzalak did admit that alcoholic beverages had been consumed in front of his students, although he minimized the extent to which alcohol had been consumed. Mr. Smith counseled Mr. Guzalak about his lack of judgement in allowing his underage students to attend a party where alcohol was being consumed. Meigs Student-Cast Dinner. In May, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a play presented at Meigs. The cast of the play consisted of Meigs students. After the play, Mr. Guzalak took the cast of the play to dinner at a restaurant. Some parents also attended the dinner. Mr. Guzalak failed to inform Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Meigs administration about the dinner. During the dinner Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of the students, who were too young to legally consume alcoholic beverages, and the parents who attended the dinner. After the dinner about five students stayed to talk to Mr. Guzalak after everyone else had departed. When Mr. Guzalak was ready to take the students home who had stayed, he let one of the students drive his automobile. The student driver was 15 years of age at the time. The student driver had a learners' driving permit which allowed her to drive with an adult in the automobile. The student driver took the other students home and then drove to her own home. Mr. Guzalak then drove himself home from the home of the student that had driven his automobile. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had allowed the student driver to drive his automobile because he was concerned about the fact that he had consumed a glass of wine. This testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not give the drinking of the glass of wine with dinner in the presence of the students any thought, one way or the other, and is not credible. Mr. Guzalak allowed the student to drive his automobile that evening because Mr. Guzalak wanted to be accepted by students as a friend and not just a teacher. Consuming alcoholic beverages in front of students is against the policies of the School Board. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guzalak had previously discussed the inappropriateness of a teacher consuming alcohol in front of students as a result of the Stage Crafters' party. Despite this prior warning, Mr. Guzalak again exercised poor judgement and failed to adhere to School Board policy. Mr. Smith was informed of the dinner and spoke to Mr. Guzalak about it. Mr. Smith admonished Mr. Guzalak for drinking alcohol in front of his students. A few days after their discussion, Mr. Guzalak was given a formal, written reprimand by Mr. Smith. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Guzalak was specifically reprimanded for drinking alcohol in front of his students. He was also informed that he was required "to discuss any and all school sponsored activities with [Mr. Smith] before they occur." See Petitioners' Exhibit 2. During Mr. Smith's conference with Mr. Guzalak, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Smith about why it was improper for him to consume alcohol in front of students under the circumstances of the cast dinner. Mr. Guzalak found it difficult to understand why the drinking of a glass of wine with dinner in the presence of students by a teacher was inappropriate. Mr. Guzalak's Employment at Choctaw. Ms. Yeager decided to retire from Choctaw after the 1988-1989 school year. She recommended that Mr. Bounds hire Mr. Guzalak to be her replacement. Mr. Bounds questioned Mr. Smith about Mr. Guzalak's performance at Meigs. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Bounds of the dinner incident when Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of students and provided Mr. Bounds with a copy of the written reprimand, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, that Mr. Smith had given to Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Bounds, Mr. Guzalak's supervisor at Choctaw, discussed Mr. Smith's written reprimand with Mr. Guzalak prior to, or soon after, Mr. Guzalak's employment at Choctaw. Mr. Bounds cautioned Mr. Guzalak about consuming alcohol in front of underage students. This was the third time that Mr. Guzalak had been cautioned about the inappropriateness of consuming alcohol in front of underage students. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak began his employment at Choctaw in August of 1989. Mr. Guzalak taught at Choctaw during the 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 school years. Part of his duties included coaching the forensic teams. The 1990-1991 School Year--Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak developed and maintained relationships with several Choctaw students which went beyond the appropriate and acceptable teacher- student relationship. Those relationships were more typical of the relationships that students develop among themselves. During the 1990-1991 school year students would go to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit. Students who went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year included Sarah Stimac, David Barron, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul, Kevin Mock, Richard "Matt" Schoditsch, David Hodges, Thomas Ignas and Ross Foster. Sarah Stimac, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were seniors at Choctaw during the 1990-1991 school year. David Barron was a sophomore at Choctaw. David Hodges and Thomas Ignas were juniors at Choctaw. Matt Schoditsch and Ross Foster were also students at Choctaw. Initially, students began going to Mr. Guzalak's home for school- related purposes. They went for assistance from Mr. Guzalak with school subjects, to practice for plays and to practice for forensic team competitions. Students eventually began visiting Mr. Guzalak's home primarily for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak allowed students to come to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit without invitation, without informing Mr. Guzalak they were coming and without asking for Mr. Guzalak's permission. While at Mr. Guzalak's home, students would watch movies, listen to music, play music, play chess, talk and "just hang out." Mr. Guzalak's characterization of student visits as tending to be "academic in nature" is rejected. At some time during the Fall of 1990, Mr. Guzalak invited a group of students who had formed a rock band to come to his home to practice for an upcoming pep rally. Bobby Arnold was one of the first students to be invited to practice at Mr. Guzalak's home. Eventually, the students included Steve Bucci, Kevin Foster and John Randall. A few other students would join in on occasion. At some point, students, including those mentioned in the foregoing finding of fact, would go to Mr. Guzalak's home and just play music as opposed to practicing for some upcoming event. Other students, including Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock would listen. The music sessions were social in nature and were not school related. Bobby Arnold's suggestion that the students and Mr. Guzalak, in addition to playing music, would talk about books is rejected to the extent that Bobby Arnold was suggesting an academic purpose for his visits. As Steve Bucci described the visits, they were "jam sessions." Bobby Arnold went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least five to seven times during the 1990-1991 school year. Steve Bucci indicated that the music sessions at Mr. Guzalak's home took place two times a month and more often if he was getting ready for a talent show. Matt Schoditsch went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least six times. Matt Schoditsch's testimony that he only went to Mr. Guzalak's home for academic purposes and not for social reasons was contradicted by many of the other witnesses in this proceeding, including Mr. Guzalak, and is rejected. Mr. Schoditsch's suggestion that students would "be sitting there reading a book or something . . . Magazines" is rejected. Even Mr. Guzalak admitted that students came for social reasons. David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home more than twelve times and less than twenty times. During three to five of those visits by David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home, beer was consumed by underage students in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Matt Schoditsch, Kevin Foster, Patrick Peavy and others were at Mr. Guzalak's home at times that David Barron saw beer consumed by underage students in front of Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak also consumed beer in David Barron's presence and the presence of other underage students. The beer consumed by David Barron was either provided by Mr. Guzalak or Mr. Barron brought his own beer. On one of the occasions where Mr. Guzalak provided beer to David Barron at Mr. Guzalak's home, it was a type of beer that David Barron had not seen before. Mr. Guzalak said that he got the beer when he had gone north to visit his parents. On one occasion Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in front of Kevin Mock. This took place despite the fact that Mr. Guzalak had previously been counselled by Mr. Smith (twice) and Mr. Bounds about the impropriety of drinking alcohol in front of students. Mr. Guzalak offered Kevin Mock a drink of the wine and Mr. Mock took it. Sarah Stimac also went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year. Patrick Peavy started taking Ms. Stimac to Mr. Guzalak's. Mr. Peavy was Ms. Stimac's boy friend during the 1990-1991 school year. Mr. Peavy and Ms. Stimac had started doing things with a group of their friends during the summer of 1989 and by the end of the summer they had developed a relationship. Sarah Stimac began going to Mr. Guzalak's home because Patrick Peavy and his friends, primarily Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock, liked to go there and they went there often. On one occasion during the 1990-1991 school year, Sarah Stimac saw Mr. Guzalak and Eric Gaul smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home in the guest rest room. They used a "bong", a pipe-like device used for smoking marijuana. Ms. Stimac also witnessed Patrick Peavy and Kevin Mock smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Mock admitted to Martha Clemons, his girl friend during part of the 1990-1991 school year, that he had smoked marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Sarah Stimac also saw marijuana smoked and alcoholic beverages consumed on at least one other occasion at Mr. Guzalak's home. Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock visited Mr. Guzalak's home more frequently than other students. By their own admissions, they went to Mr. Guzalak's home, on average, from two to three times a week. Contrary to Mr. Guzalak's testimony that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock were rarely at his home at the same time, Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's together or were at Mr. Guzalak's home at the same time often based upon their own admissions. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis. Sarah Stimac substantiated the fact that Patrick Peavy went to Mr. Guzalak's home frequently. She went with him approximately six times. She also picked him up at Mr. Guzalak's and she telephoned Mr. Peavy at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Peavy told Ms. Stimac and his parents that he was going to Mr. Guzalak's home more often than he actually went. Mr. Peavy lied to Ms. Stimac and his parents so that he could do other things without Ms. Stimac or so that he could do things that his parents would not let him do if he told them the truth. This gave Ms. Stimac the impression that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home more often then he actually was. Despite this fact, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis for non-academic purposes. The 1990-1991 School Year Initiation Night. At some time during the Fall of 1990, an annual event, referred to as "Initiation Night," took place at Choctaw. Groups of students at Choctaw traditionally go out together on Initiation Night. On Initiation Night during the Fall of 1990, Sarah Stimac drove Angie Smallwood to Mr. Guzalak's home at approximately 9:00 p.m. to pick up Patrick Peavy. Mr. Peavy had told Ms. Stimac that he would be there. Mr. Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were at Mr. Guzalak's home and were picked up by Ms. Stimac. After Sarah Stimac picked up Patrick Peavy, he told Ms. Stimac that he had been drinking and that he had smoked marijuana and taken LSD. The evidence, however, failed to prove where these events took place. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was present when these events took place or that he was aware of what had happened. After leaving Mr. Guzalak's home, Ms. Stimac and the students she picked up went to a local pizza restaurant and met other students, including Matt Schoditsch. The students then went to a bayou where they built a fire. Eric Gaul had a bottle of spiced rum. At some point during the evening Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies appeared. When they did, despite the cold evening, Patrick Peavy, who had been swinging on a rope swing over the water, fell into the water. Whether Mr. Peavy did so because he was startled (as he testified) or because he was trying to get rid of the marijuana and LSD he had in his pocket (as Ms. Stimac testified) need not be decided. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was directly involved in this incident. It is also not necessary to decide whether Mr. Peavy had drugs in his pocket because the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak had anything to do with any such drugs. After Eric Gaul admitted that the bottle of spiced rum he had, and which the deputies had found, was his and he had convinced the deputies that he had a stranger buy the rum for him at a liquor store, the students were allowed to leave. Although Mr. Gaul, after getting into Ms. Stimac's automobile, stated that he had been given the rum by Mr. Guzalak, the evidence failed to prove the truth of this hearsay statement. After the incident at the bayou the students went back to Mr. Guzalak's home. The 1990-1991 School Year Senior Prom. The day of the 1990-1991 school year senior prom, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy had a fight and broke off their relationship. They did, however, go to the prom together that night. The prom was held at a local motel. Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy rented a room at the motel. At some time before the prom was over, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy went to the room they had rented. Mr. Guzalak came to the room to visit. Mr. Peavy had invited Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak left after Ms. Stimac gave Mr. Peavy an ultimatum that either Mr. Guzalak leave or she would, and Mr. Peavy asked Mr. Guzalak to leave. Mr. Guzalak stayed approximately five to fifteen minutes. Although there was alcohol in Ms. Stimac's and Mr. Peavy's room, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was aware of the alcohol or that anyone was drinking while Mr. Guzalak was there. The 1990-1991 Spring Break Canoe Trip. During the spring break of April, 1991, a student party was organized. The party consisted of a canoe trip down a local river. The party was not a school-sponsored event. Mr. Guzalak was invited to come on the 1991 canoe trip. Although Mr. Guzalak remembered that he was invited by one or more students, Mr. Guzalak, who had an excellent memory for most details, could not remember the names of any student that invited him. Mr. Guzalak spent most of the trip with Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock. There were about 120 students who participated in the canoe trip. They met at the Choctaw parking lot the morning of the trip. During the canoe trip, underage students were drinking beer. They did so openly and in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Mr. Guzalak was offered beer at least ten times by underage students. Kevin Mock admitted that he drank beer in front of Mr. Guzalak during the trip. Mr. Guzalak did not make any effort to stop any of the underage students from drinking alcoholic beverages. Mr. Guzalak's testimony that there was nothing he could do about students drink beer on the trip is not credible. Mr. Guzalak had a duty and responsibility to attempt to stop underage students from drinking beer. Even if Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not attempt to stop the drinking because of the number of students involved was credible (which it is not), his testimony did not explain why he did not say something to those students who were bold enough to offer him a beer and then students who he came into contact with that were drinking beer By allowing the consumption of alcohol in his presence by students who were under the legal drinking age, Mr. Guzalak condoned their illegal behavior. When a teacher allows the violation of one law, it becomes difficult for the teacher to enforce other laws and rules governing student conduct. Mr. Guzalak failed to report the incident to Mr. Bounds or any other administrative employees at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak should not have just ignored the fact that students, some of whom were his students, had blatantly violated the law in his presence. The 1991-1992 School Year--Mr. Bounds Second Warning. In approximately August of 1991, Patrick Peavy's father spoke to Mr. Bounds about his belief that his son was drinking alcohol and using drugs at Mr. Guzalak's home. The evidence failed to prove what basis, if any, Mr. Peavy had for his suspicions at the time he made his complaint. As a result of the concerns raised by Patrick Peavy's father, Mr. Bounds spoke to Mr. Guzalak. The conversation took place on approximately September 19, 1991. Among other things, Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that a parent had reported that students were frequenting Mr. Guzalak's home and that alcohol and drugs were being used there. Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that the parent had followed his child to Mr. Guzalak's home. While Mr. Guzalak admitted to Mr. Bounds that students were frequenting his home, he denied that alcohol was being consumed or that drugs were being used. Mr. Bounds explained to Mr. Guzalak why it was not a good idea to allow students to come to his home. Mr. Guzalak, however, did not agree with Mr. Bounds' concerns over the possible pitfalls of forming personal, social relationships with his students. On September 24, 1991, Mr. Bounds wrote a memorandum to Mr. Guzalak "to reiterate my position regarding our conversation in my office on Thursday, September 19, 1991." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also stated the following in the memorandum: During our conversation you related to me that students from our school were invited and allowed to visit your home for non-academic reasons. Furthermore, you related to me that students from our school are not discouraged by you to establish a personal friendship with you. These personal friendships are encouraged by your participating in non-school related activities. You are hereby notified that all future contact with students from our school should be exclusively of a professional and academic nature. Moreover, meetings with our students should be held on our school property exclusively unless express permission is obtained from me. Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also arranged for Mr. Guzalak to meet with Annette Lee (formerly, Annette Francis), Personnel Director of the School Board. Ms. Lee, who was Assistant Superintendent, Human Resource Division, at the time, met with Mr. Guzalak. On October 9, 1991, Ms. Lee wrote Mr. Guzalak a letter memorializing this meeting and provided him with a copy of a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching," a form containing some School Board expectations for teacher conduct. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Ms. Lee also discussed the inappropriateness of Mr. Guzalak's behavior and stressed to him the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with students. Mr. Guzalak again admitted that he had developed friendships with some of his students and that he had seen them on occasion socially. Among other things, Ms. Lee stressed the following portions of the "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching" form she had provided to Mr. Guzalak: Interaction with Students: Maintain a professional barrier between you and students. You are the adult, teacher and the professional; act like the expert not like another one of the "kids." . . . . 3. Refer students to the appropriate resource person for counseling and/or discussions about personal matters. . . . . 5. Do NOT discuss your personal life or personal matters with students. Do NOT discuss your husband, boyfriend, dates or controversial issues with students. . . . . 10. Chaperone only school sponsored functions. Do NOT socialize with students. If you chaperone a field trip, put in writing what your responsibilities will be. Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages in front of students. Do NOT take children home with you. . . . . C. Reputation in the Community. . . . . Communicate with parents and document your communications. Dress and act appropriately but professionally. You are a role model in the community as well as in the school; be a good example for students. Use common sense and good judgement. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain, or justify your behavior or actions. Avoid putting yourself in a position where it's your word against another person's word. . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Continued Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak was very concerned about what Mr. Bounds had told him about students coming to his home. Mr. Guzalak thought that he was being watched (by a parent) and he was concerned because some of the allegations about alcohol and drug use were true. Initially, Mr. Guzalak told students who dropped by or who asked if they could come by, not to come or that they could not stay. For example, Mr. Guzalak told Thomas Ignas and David Hodgson they should not come to his home. On at least one occasion, however, Mr. Guzalak allowed students to visit him at his home during the 1991-1992 school year after Mr. Bounds had instructed Mr. Guzalak to stop such visits. The incident took place during the first three months of 1992. Aaron Utley was told to come to Mr. Guzalak's home by either David Hodges or Thomas Ignas. When Mr. Utley arrived at Mr. Guzalak's home, Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ignas were there with Mr. Guzalak. There were empty beer cans on the coffee table. Mr. Hodges was drunk. Mr. Guzalak did not request that any of the students leave. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that alcohol was consumed by Mr. Guzalak in front of the students or that the students consumed alcohol in front of Mr. Guzalak. The Florida State University Trip--September, 1991. At some time after Mr. Guzalak spoke to Mr. Bounds in September 1991, Mr. Guzalak took a group of students who were participating in the forensic program to Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, for a forensic competition. Among others on the trip were Chris Hutcherson, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey. These Choctaw students stayed in the same motel room while on the trip. One evening, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey came into the motel room where they were staying and smelled marijuana smoke. Mr. Hutcherson was in the room. Mr. Hutcherson had smoked marijuana just before the other students came into the room. Mr. Guzalak came into the motel room shortly after the students arrived and he smelled the marijuana smoke also. Mr. Guzalak asked what was going on, but no one admitted anything at that time. At some point during the trip, Chris Hutcherson admitted to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana in the motel room. At no time did Mr. Guzalak report Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Hutcherson's family, Mr. Bounds or any other administrative official. Nor did Mr. Guzalak take any disciplinary action against Mr. Hutcherson. Failing to report the use of illicit drugs was against school policy. Mr. Guzalak did not even explain to Chris Hutcherson why he should not have been using marijuana. Instead, Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Hutcherson that he had put Mr. Guzalak in an untenable position by his actions. Because Mr. Bounds had spoken to Mr. Guzalak only a few days before this incident, Mr. Guzalak's concern was not for Mr. Hutcherson or even the forensic team--"[i]t was for myself." See line 11, page 595, Transcript of the Final Hearing. Mr. Guzalak, by his use of marijuana and alcohol with students prior to this incidental, had placed himself in a position of action in a manner similar to that of Mr. Hutcherson. Therefore, it became difficult for Mr. Guzalak to carry out his responsibility as a teacher to report Mr. Hutcherson's admission. The Pensacola Trip--November, 1991. In November, 1991, the Choctaw forensic team went to Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, to participate in a competition. Since the competition was out of Okaloosa County, students were prohibited by School Board policy from driving their own vehicles. Students who participated in the competition were required to have their parents sign a form granting permission for their child to travel on the trip. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. On the permission form it indicated that "students' may not drive themselves to out of county school-sponsored activities . . . ." The students who were going on the Pensacola trip were told to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. They were scheduled to leave at 6:30 a.m. Chris Hutcherson, who was to participate in the Pensacola competition, did not want to get up as early as he would have to arise to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. Therefore, Mr. Hutcherson asked his mother, Sharon Philbrook, if he could drive his automobile to Pensacola. She told him no. She also spoke to Mr. Guzalak who confirmed the School Board policy that students were not allowed to drive their own vehicles on the trip and that transportation would be provided for students for the trip. The morning of the Pensacola trip, Ms. Philbrook found a note from Chris Hutcherson indicating he had taken his stepbrother's automobile despite her instructions to the contrary. Ms. Philbrook reported the incident to Mr. Bounds who suggested that she go to Pensacola and get Mr. Hutcherson. She did so. Upon arriving at the competition site, Ms. Philbrook introduced herself to Mr. Guzalak and explained what had happened. She also told him that she had reported the incident to Mr. Bounds and that Mr. Bounds wanted Mr. Guzalak to telephone him. Mr. Guzalak was very upset about what Ms. Philbrook told him and told her he wished she had not telephoned Mr. Bounds. In light of Mr. Bounds' admonishment of Mr. Guzalak in September and Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana on the Florida State University trip (which Mr. Guzalak had not reported), Mr. Guzalak's reaction is understandable. Mr. Guzalak's reaction and the other evidence presented by the EPC concerning this incident, however, failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was responsible for Chris Hutcherson's violation of School Board policy against students driving their own vehicles out of the county. As a result of Mr. Hutcherson's actions, Mr. Guzalak informed Mr. Hutcherson that he could no longer travel with the forensic team. Mr. Hutcherson's testimony concerning whether Mr. Guzalak told him that it was okay to drive his own automobile to Pensacola was not credible and is rejected. The Rush Concert--February, 1992. In February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak was responsible for the production of a play at Choctaw. During the week before the play was to begin, Mr. Guzalak cancelled a rehearsal. The rehearsal was cancelled because Mr. Guzalak and several students involved in the play wanted to attend a concert by a musical group, Rush, in Pensacola. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak went to the concert with any students from Choctaw, although he did see and speak to at least one student at the concert. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak acted improperly or violated School Board policy in cancelling the rehearsal. Matt Schoditsch's Party--February, 1992. On a Friday evening in February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak spoke to Matt Schoditsch on the telephone. Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak to come to his home. Mr. Schoditsch told Mr. Guzalak that there would be other students at his home, students that Mr. Guzalak knew, and that they would be grilling food. Mr. Guzalak knew that Mr. Schoditsch was having a student get-together. Mr. Guzalak's and Mr. Schoditsch's testimony that Mr. Guzalak was invited and came to Mr. Schoditsch's home only to discuss his participation in a play is not credible. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak for social reasons, and that Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation and went to a student's house contrary to Mr. Bounds' directive to him and contrary to Ms. Lee's advice. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had assumed that Mr. Schoditsch's parents would be there. Mr. Guzalak also testified that it was not until after students starting showing up with beer that he realized that Mr. Schoditsch's parents were not there. This testimony is not credible. In light of Mr. Bounds' directive, which Mr. Guzalak indicated he was very concerned about, a reasonable person would have inquired. Additionally, a reasonable person, especially a teacher and one who had previously been accused of being too friendly with students, would seek out a student's parents soon after arriving at their home to introduce himself or to say hello if the teacher thought the parents were home. Even if Mr. Guzalak did not know that Mr. Schoditsch's parent would not be home before he arrived, he should have realized soon after arriving that they were not there and left. Shortly after arriving at Mr. Schoditsch's home, Mr. Guzalak saw students start to arrive with beer which they began drinking. According to Mr. Guzalak and Mr. Schoditsch, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Schoditsch about students drinking in front of him. They also testified that Mr. Schoditsch attempted to stop the drinking, but too many students started coming, and there was too much beer. This testimony is not credible. According to Mr. Barron, who also attended the party, there were only fifteen to twenty people at the party. If Mr. Schoditsch had really wanted to, he could have stopped the drinking. Mr. Schoditsch had no intention of stopping the beer drinking. And Mr. Guzalak did not expect him to. Even after Mr. Guzalak saw students drinking beer he did not leave immediately. According to his own testimony, he stayed another twenty-five to thirty minutes after he saw students drinking and even took time to go speak to a student, Jodie Brooks, before leaving. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether Mr. Guzalak drank alcohol while at Mr. Schoditsch's home. Although Mr. Barron thought Mr. Guzalak was drinking a mixed drink because he was drinking out of Mr. Schoditsch's cup or glass, Mr. Barron did not testify about how he knew that Mr. Schoditsch was drinking a mixed drink. Use of Profanity. It is against the policy of the School Board for a teacher to use profanity in the presence of students. Mr. Guzalak used the term "fucking" in front of several students when he became angry about their use of squirt guns on a forensic competition trip. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak used profanity in the classroom. Supervision of Students on Trips. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak failed to provide adequate or required supervision of students while on school trips. Mr. Guzalak's Resignation from the School Board. Ultimately, several teachers became aware of various rumors about Mr. Guzalak and some of his inappropriate behavior with students. Those comments were reported to Mr. Bounds, who spoke to a few students and then reported the problem to Ms. Lee. The Superintendent of Okaloosa County Schools met with Mr. Guzalak in March 1992, and discussed the various allegations against him. Mr. Guzalak subsequently resigned, effective at the end of the 1991-1992 school year. Credibility of the Witnesses. Mr. Guzalak and the students who were most involved in the incidents at issue in this proceeding denied that most of the more serious accusations against Mr. Guzalak are true. In addition to denying the accusations against him, Mr. Guzalak also suggested that he is the victim of unfounded rumors. Finally, Mr. Guzalak questioned the credibility and motives of some of the witnesses who testified in this proceeding. The denials of Mr. Guzalak and those students who supported his version of events have been rejected. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Guzalak's testimony was not convincing. The denial of the accusations by several (but not all) of the witnesses called by Mr. Guzalak was also not credible and has been rejected. Many of those witnesses are young men who have developed a close relationship to Mr. Guzalak. They consider Mr. Guzalak to be their "friend." Their testimony reflected their desire not to betray their "friend" and has been rejected in large part based upon the weight of all of the evidence. The efforts to suggest that Mr. Guzalak is merely a victim of rumors also failed. Rumors were caused, in part, because of the perception that Mr. Guzalak was different or eccentric, and, in part, because of the incidents described in this Recommended Order. While there were no doubt rumors concerning this matter and Mr. Guzalak, the incidents which have been found to have occurred in this Recommended Order are based upon the specific knowledge of those witnesses found to be credible. Many of those incidents were confirmed or substantiated by more than one witness. Finally, the efforts of Mr. Guzalak to discredit some of the witnesses also failed. Most of those efforts were directed at Sarah Stimac, Chris Hutcherson and Aaron Utley. The testimony of Ms. Stimac, Mr. Utley and most of the other witnesses called by the Petitioner was credible. It is true, however, that Mr. Hutcherson's testimony contained inconsistencies and that Mr. Hutcherson evidenced an extremely bitter and judgemental attitude against Mr. Guzalak. Consequently, Mr. Hutcherson's testimony has not been accepted except to the extent that it has been corroborated by other evidence. Attacks on Ms. Stimac's credibility are rejected. The suggestion that Sarah Stimac was not credible fails to consider, among other things, the fact that Ms. Stimac's actions in this matter were taken at some personal expense and aggravation. Mr. Guzalak, during the investigation of this matter by the EPC, allowed several students to read confidential statements that Ms. Stimac and other students had given during the investigation. He did so without regard to the consequences to Ms. Stimac or the other students. As a result, Ms. Stimac has faced hostility and ridicule from those misguided students who believe that not telling, or "ratting," on a friend is admirable. Despite such hostility, Ms. Stimac refused to compromise her integrity. The weight of the evidence proved that other students, such as Aaron Utley and David Barron made the same choice that Sarah Stimac made. Rather than lacking credibility, Ms. Stimac's testimony, Mr. Barron's testimony, and the testimony of most of the other students who spoke out about Mr. Guzalak's inappropriate conduct is admirable. The Impact of Mr. Guzalak's Actions on His Ability to Perform His Duties Effectively. There was no direct evidence to prove that Mr. Guzalak was not effective in the classroom. Most of the witnesses agreed that Mr. Guzalak was very effective in the classroom. Several of the witnesses spoke of Mr. Guzalak's intelligence and ability with some admiration. Unfortunately, Mr. Guzalak, by his own admission and based upon the facts presented in this case, has evidenced a lack of the judgement necessary for him to be entrusted with the education of young people. This fact is based upon the nature of the improper acts which Mr. Guzalak has been found to have committed in this case and by his attitude about the warnings he received from Mr. Smith, Mr. Bounds, Ms. Lee and even Mr. Guzalak's coworkers. A teacher that drinks alcohol in the presence of students and provides alcohol to, or condones the use of, alcoholic beverages by students has lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher because of the high standard of conduct expected of teachers. A teacher that uses marijuana in the presence of students or allows students to use marijuana in his or her presence has also lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's conduct was, therefore, contrary to the conduct expected of him by the School Board and the community. Mr. Guzalak's conduct is sufficiently notorious in the community that he has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's inability to follow the directions of his supervisors has also reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak probably has begun to take too much stock in the praise he has received concerning his intelligence and abilities. He has begun to believe his "reviews." As a result, Mr. Guzalak believes that he knows more about how to be an effective teacher than his supervisors and fellow teachers. Mr. Guzalak was asked during the hearing why he had a problem with Mr. Bounds' directive concerning his student friendships. Mr. Guzalak's response, which evidences his attitude about the appropriate role of a teacher with his or her students, was as follows: Because I was used to the idea at that point of having some social contact with students. It was important to me. I was, basically, disturbed because I felt that Richard Bounds was asking me to suddenly make some sort of major capitulation, not in my life-style, but in my mode of thought, in the way I viewed my relationship with students. He wanted me to be an authoritarian clone, if I must. Lines 18-25, Page 627 and Lines 1-2, Page 628, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Additionally, Mr. Guzalak answered the following questions: Q. [Mr. Bounds is] your principal. Shouldn't he be allowed to tell you how you should behave with your students? A. No. Q. He shouldn't be able to tell you how you conduct yourself with your students? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I'm an adult and because I'm a professional. And I'm capable of making those decisions on my own. . . . . Lines 17-25, Page 628 and Lines 1-2, Page 629, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Rather than being an "authoritarian clone," Mr. Guzalak attempted to reach some of his students by being their friend on their level. To some extent, he was influenced by Ms. Yeager, who developed friendships with her students. Ms. Yeager, however, was more mature, married, had a family and had been teaching for some time. As Ms. Yeager put it: . . . . Of course, I have an advantage, being an old, married woman. I mean, I had a husband. I had a family. I had a track record when I came here, Ms. O'Sullivan. I taught seven years junior high and two more years in high school. So I think age -- Not all people are respected because they're older, as you know. But, I'm saying I sort of had an edge there on John [Guzalak], plus experience. Lines 19-25, Page 375 and Lines 1-2, Page 376, Vol. III of Transcript. More importantly, Ms. Yeager, by her actions, her character and her good judgement, was able to develop a certain level of friendship with her students while maintaining her distance and her professionalism. Mr. Guzalak has not evidenced the ability to do the same because of his lack of judgement and his inability to heed the advice and experience of his supervisors and peers.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the district school board has just cause to dismiss the Respondent from employment, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first hired Respondent in January 1990 as a substitute teacher. In 1992, Petitioner changed Respondent's status to a permanent teacher. Respondent began teaching at Miami Coral Park Senior High School in January 1996, but left from 2000 to 2004 to teach in Collier County. Upon return to Petitioner's school system for the 2004-05 school year, Respondent was assigned to a different high school, but later transferred to Coral Park when this school needed a basketball coach. In addition to coaching basketball during the 2008-09 school year, Respondent co-taught a math class. One of Respondent's math students was J. V., who was born on April 10, 1991. She started attending Coral Park Senior High School mid-way through her sophomore year in 2008 after moving to Miami in August 2007. She turned 18 in the spring of her junior year and graduated from Coral Park on June 10, 2010. After graduating, J. V. enrolled in a local community college and published a novel that is sold by Barnes & Noble bookstores. During the 2008-09 school year, J. V.'s contact with Respondent involved typical student-teacher interactions in the classroom, hallways, and other school settings. They had exchanged cell phone numbers and spoke on the phone once or twice per month and texted each other with the same frequency. The record does not describe the nature of these communications, but the record fails to suggest any impropriety in the relationship during J. V.'s junior year. During the 2009-10 school year, J. V. was not assigned to any of Respondent's classes, but she began to visit him in his classroom in the morning before school started. The frequency of these visits varied from zero to three times per week. During these visits, J. V. and Respondent talked about her family, her social life, and some of her medical issues, including the fact that she was being treated for depression. J. V. also told Respondent that she might have ovarian cancer, although she later learned that she merely had a cyst. While attending Coral Park, J. V. was living with her aunt, who had become her legal guardian. J. V.'s relationship with her aunt was strained at times. J. V.'s mother was living in the Dominican Republic, and her father, with whom her mother did not wish her to live, resided in New York. During the 2009-10 school year, J. V. and Respondent exchanged numerous cell phone calls and texts, at nearly all hours of the day and night. Although J. V. initiated most of the calls and texts and Respondent did not respond to all of her calls and texts, Respondent never asked her to stop calling and texting him. Their relationship intensified in October or November of J. V.'s senior year. J. V. has testified that she and Respondent had sexual intercourse. Respondent testified that they did not. Neither witness is a model of veracity. J. V. embellished her story with dates that did not occur and was not perfectly clear in her recollection of the details of Respondent's condominium and tattoo. As noted below, Respondent repeatedly encouraged J. V. not to testify, to avoid being served with a subpoena, and, if served, to ignore the subpoena. Regardless whether sexual intercourse took place, the relationship between J. V. and Respondent, by the end of 2009, became excessively intimate for what is appropriate between a teacher and a student and included some form of sexual activity. A series of texts from Respondent to J. V. in late March or early April 2010 reveal the intimacy that had arisen between them: "I wanted 2 jump u," "2 many eyes!," "Muah," "Im in da gym if u can pass by," "It would have been hard," and “I'l b here." The time devoted to remote communications between Respondent and J. V. provides some basis for assessing the nature of their relationship: from October 2009 through November 2010, Respondent and J. V. exchanged over 1600 texts and consumed over ten hours in phone conversations. Without success, Respondent tried to explain the more incriminating of the texts sent in March or April 2010 from his cell phone. Respondent testified that these texts were sent by an unauthorized user of his phone, probably a member of his basketball team. It is difficult to understand why a player would risk the wrath of his coach, but the absence of any response from J. V.--either to the principal or Respondent-- following receipt of the first of these texts suggests that the relationship of Respondent and J. V. had already involved some form of sexual contact. One also finds indirect proof of an intimate relationship in the conduct of Respondent following Petitioner's decision to initiate dismissal proceedings against him. To credit Respondent's version of events, for the sake of discussion, he was confronted by a student's accusations of sexual intimacy that were a total fabrication. His response was to encourage her to engage in more dishonesty, rather than merely to tell the truth. Even if Respondent's version of events concerning the lack of intimacy were credited--and it is not--his subsequent conduct, as amply documented by numerous texts discussed in detail below, constitutes a startling lack of honesty in professional dealings and disregard for the mental health of a former student. Shortly after receiving an allegation that Respondent was engaged in a sexual relationship with J. V., on April 9, 2010, Petitioner removed Respondent from Coral Park and placed him on alternative assignment in a district office. By letter dated April 9, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent of the nature of the charges, including the initials of the student, and ordered Respondent not to have any contact with the complainant or witnesses with an intent to interfere with the investigation. On April 10, 2010, Respondent and J. V. met at a club known as Mama Juana's; according to both of them, the meeting was by chance and little was said. However, ignoring the directive not to speak with witnesses, Respondent told J. V. that he was being investigated for having a relationship with her and showed her a letter from Petitioner that, supposedly, Respondent happened to have with him at the time of this chance meeting. There is insufficient evidence to find that Respondent and J. V. are lying about the circumstances leading up to the meeting or what was said during it. By letter dated June 4, 2010, which was delivered to Respondent during a conference-for-the-record held on that date, Petitioner again ordered Respondent not to contact any of the parties involved in the investigation. By letter dated August 25, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board, during its meeting of September 7, 2010, that it suspend Respondent without pay and initiate dismissal proceedings against him. By letter dated September 8, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent that the School Board had taken these actions. Upon receipt of the September 8 letter, Respondent testified that he resumed communicating with J. V. who, by this time, had graduated from high school. In fact, Respondent had received a call from J. V. on September 5 and had spoken with her for 70 minutes until nearly midnight that night. On October 5, J. V. again called him, and they talked for 41 minutes. Other lengthy calls--each about 15 minutes--were initiated by J. V. on October 16, 2010, and January 6, 2011. However, there were few, if any, communications between Respondent and J. V. for five months following their meeting at Mama Juana's on April 10. On September 11, 2010, Respondent texted J. V.: "I got suspended w/o pay. Basically fired!" J. V. replied, "Whoa! Wait, now what?! Hon?" After a couple of more exchanges, in which Respondent stated that he would have to go to trial, J. V. asked, "Is there anything that I can actually do to help you out?" Respondent's reply: "Of course. No matter what happens dont show up if they talk 2 u. Not even if they suebpena [sic] u. They cant do anything if [sic] 2 u dont go." J. V. replied, "Anything there is to do, I suppose, i'll do to help you out. I dont want you to stay in this mess. . . . I still care about you tons, I just wanted you to know that :p." This is a remarkable exchange of texts. Respondent baldly asked J. V. to ignore a subpoena. J. V. scrupulously conditioned her willingness to help with "I suppose." Here, Respondent was asking J. V. to behave dishonorably, and J. V., his former student, displayed some misgivings, as she apparently was wrestling with her loyalty to Respondent and her desire to behave honorably. This is a repulsive perversion of the role of the educator. Although J. V. was no longer a student in Respondent's school, Respondent was still a member of the education profession, and, in his dealings with J. V. and Petitioner, he was continuing to deal with a matter that involved the discharge of his professional duties. On September 18, 2010, Respondent initiated another series of texts, but these involved unremarkable matters, such as how J. V. liked college and a job that she had recently started. On September 24, 2010, J. V. initiated a series of texts with "Hello lost :p." Respondent answered, "Hey, me? Cabrona since now u have a bf [boyfriend] u dont have time 4 me!" When J. V. texted that she was "not afraid of the dark, im just afraid of staying alone, period," Respondent responded, "I m not offering any services any more." Respondent testified that he was referring to math services, but, given the circumstances, this explanation is impossible to credit. On the other hand, the services were as likely those of a trusted counselor as of a sexual partner. The text of J. V., however, displays the vulnerability of Respondent's former student, even though nearly one year had passed since the intensification of their relationship to inappropriate levels. The next day, Respondent renewed the texting exchange. J. V. texted that a certain singer "literally places you in my head." Respondent answered, "Thats a good place 2 b. I thought u didnt anymore." J. V. declaimed that she thinks too much, and Respondent answered, "Then why havent u let me c u [see you]?" J. V. replied, "Because i know that is all I am gonna be allowed to do, just see you. And I don't know if that's okay with you." Respondent responded, "It be nice 2 cu though. Even 4 a short while." J. V. agreed, and Respondent replied, "Since now u r da complicated 1 u let me know when." J. V. promised she would and quickly asked what Respondent was up to. Respondent texted, "Let me know if they try 2 get in cotact [sic] w/u? They should b setting a date 4 da hearing soon." Injecting the same element of doubt that she had raised when she offered, on September 11, to help Respondent, J. V. texted, "I seriously doubt that [they will get in contact with me]. But i'll let you know in case they do, i suppose (emphasis supplied)." These texts lend support to the finding that the relationship between Respondent and J. V. was inappropriately intimate during her senior year. It appears that one of them broke if off, possibly over the objection of the other. J. V.'s second use of "I suppose" revealed again her ambivalence about the situation in which Respondent had placed her in asking her not to cooperate with Petitioner's prosecution of its case against him. As J. V. continued to wrestle with her loyalty toward Respondent and unwillingness to behave dishonorably, Respondent steadfastly toyed with her emotions, such as by saying that it felt good to be in her thoughts, and he did not think she thought of him anymore. The next day, after midnight, Respondent renewed the text exchange again by texting, "143." He explained that this was beeper code for "i love you." J. V. replied with a beeper code consisting of the less-intense message, "thinking of you." Except for a congratulatory text, probably for the publication of J. V.'s novel, the next text exchange took place on October 13, 2010, in which J. V. apologized for calling so late, but wanted to know if Respondent could meet her the following night. They agreed to meet instead after lunch on the following day. The following day, they agreed to postpone the meeting until the following week. On October 15, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the final hearing for January 26, 2011. As noted above, a lengthy telephone conversation between Respondent and J. V. took place the next day. On October 26, 2010, Respondent texted J. V.: "My lawyer friend said that 4 da subpoena they have 2 give it in ur hand. So if y dont answer the door if they show up, they cant leave it there. Nd if someone asks y if y r [J. V.] simply say no." As they exchanged texts about a basketball game that was being played, J. V. texted that she preferred baseball, and Respondent replied, "Bat nd balls huh?" J. V. answered "Lol [laughing out loud] :p silly!" She accused him, in Spanish, of a bad thought, and Respondent disingenuously asked, "What did i say?" Then he texted, "Lol." This series of texts represent a remarkable confluence of Respondent's inducing J. V. to dishonesty and engaging in sexual teasing. The remark about a bat and ball was a reference to male genitalia. Surprisingly, Respondent did not deny the sexual connotation of this text, but somehow tried to dismiss it merely as a joking "sexual innuendo." The freedom that Respondent felt to engage in sexual innuendo with a former student betrayed the inappropriate intimacy of the relationship that they once shared--while she was still a student. J. V. initiated a text exchange of Halloween greetings on October 31. On November 8, 2010, J. V. initiated another text exchange by asking how Respondent was doing. He asked how school, work, and her boyfriend were. J. V. typed that all were fine, and Respondent replied, "I m happy 4 u!" However, J. V. texted that there "are certain things that i have to deal with." Respondent texted her to call him. On November 17, 2010, Respondent initiated another text exchange in which he again asked about work, school, and her boyfriend. J. V. replied that all was fine, but her father was in the hospital. The next day, J. V. texted Respondent: "I really have to speak to you but i'll do it after i get out of class:( im so sorry." When Respondent texted her to explain, J. V. responded, "Because im really placed against the wall." Respondent answered: "What do u mean. I m the 1 that has lost everything. Nothing could happen 2 u if u say nothing happened! What r u thinking about doing? Destroying my [rest of message lost]." J. V. replied, "Omg [Oh, my God]! Screw you for saying that as if you'd know me that little to ever think that's something i'd consider doing to you!" She added, "I'll call you once i get home, at 9." Respondent added that he was watching a football game in a bar and "This is killme though. Please let me know!" J. V. responded that, when Respondent had some time to call, he should do so. With this text of apology, J. V. was informing Respondent that she had resolved the dilemma in which Respondent had placed her, and she had decided to tell the truth, rather than behave dishonorably. Casting his professional obligations aside, Respondent tried to dissuade her from telling the truth by turning the focus to himself and his need for her to lie and cover up. Obviously, Respondent's plea for J. V. to say that nothing happened implies that something happened. And the something had to be substantial--i.e., sexual contact, rather than merely excessive texting between a teacher and student--for Respondent to have felt the need to have J. V. conceal the truth. The next day, Respondent initiated a text exchange by stating: "Sorry 4 my reaction but please put urself in my shoes 4 da past 7 mos. I've lost everything that i valued nr u r worried about ur fam finding out. Idk wh [sic]." J. V. did not respond to this text. Obviously, this text was not an apology for asking J. V. to behave dishonorably. Instead, Respondent asked J. V. to identify with his situation. He was sorry merely for having lost his composure and possibly alienating J. V. On November 26, 2010, J. V. initiated a text exchange about holiday shopping. The next day, evidently in response to a telephone call, Respondent texted: "I cant get mad at u. I m just scared out of my mind about what the outcome could be! Thank you 4 assuring me." Three days later, Respondent texted birthday wishes to J. V. On November 30, 2010, J. V. suggested that they get together and have lunch "one of these days." Respondent agreed, but no date was set. On December 1, 2010, J. V. texted Respondent, as well as a number of others, that her book was available for purchase, and he texted congratulations. On December 14, 2010, J. V. texted a friend: "I'm alright most of the times lol. Having a bf has helped me a lot. I'm not alone anymore missing the teacher :(" What this text lacks in detail it makes up for in candor. It is the most direct evidence of the emotionally vulnerable condition of J. V. immediately after Respondent insisted that they stopped seeing each other in April 2010. J. V. initiated the next text exchange on January 4, 2011, when she sent new year's greetings to Respondent. When she asked how he was doing, Respondent replied, "I m ok but getting very anxious over the hearing coming up soon!!" J. V. texted that no one had been in touch with her, but Respondent assured her that she would get something soon. He asked her, "Do you have any idea what you are going to do for the hearing?" J. V. answered, "I'm not gonna do anything." Respondent replied, "We'll talk before then." On January 5, J. V. called or texted Respondent, who replied for her to call him that night. She texted that she would, and he responded, evidently in reference to a phone message, "What are you fuzzy about?" J. V. answered: "The lawyer that always calls from the school board called me not too long ago, that's all." When it became apparent that J. V. could talk then on the phone, the texts ended, evidently so Respondent and J. V. could talk on the phone. As noted above, a lengthy telephone conversation took place between Respondent and J. V. the next day. Sometime during January 2011, J. V. and Respondent spoke by telephone, and Respondent warned her that the authorities would be able to retrieve her text messages. One may safely infer that Respondent was unaware previously of the availability of such data or the ability of Petitioner to supplement its pleadings to add as grounds for dismissal acts and omissions taking place after the initiation of the case against him.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment on the ground of misconduct in office. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850)488-9675 Fax Filing (850)921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Christopher La Piano, Esquire School Board Attorney’s Office School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
