Findings Of Fact On September 9, 1982 Petitioner filed an application with the Teacher Certification Section of the Florida Department of Education to be re-certified as a teacher in the State of Florida. He was previously certified as a teacher in Florida from September 3, 1974 until 1979 in the field of cooperative distributive education. Mr. Hill is a graduate of the University of South Florida with a bachelor's degree in distributive education and he has 20 to 25 hours of credit towards his master's degree in administration Supervision. From 1974 until 1977 he successfully taught school in the Orlando area. In December of 1979 Petitioner had an argument with his father. During the course of that argument Mr. Hill picked up a 12 gauge shotgun and hit his father in the stomach several times. Petitioner was arrested, charged with aggravated assault, and subsequently adjudicated not guilty by a reason of insanity. The court order adjudicating him not guilty found that "At the time of the alleged offense, defendant's psychological condition caused him to function under paranoid delusions and persecutory relations. He not only had such thoughts and beliefs, but they were held so firmly that he was acting upon them." After the entry of that order on March 24, 1980, Petitioner was found to meet the criteria for involuntary commitment to a state mental hospital pursuant to the provisions of the Baker Act. He was treated at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital until June 1980 and then released to the Peace River Center for Personal Development as a resident there. In either October or November 1981 Mr. Hill ceased taking the psychotropic medication which had been prescribed for him. By March 1982 he was again readmitted as an involuntary patient at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and after treatment there he was released in August 1982 back to the Peace River Center. Dr. M. Saleem Jeewa has been his treating psychiatrist since June of 1980. At the present time Dr. Jeewa prescribes Mellaril, a major tranquilizer, and Pamelor, an anti-depressant medication for Petitioner. Mr. Hill now visits Dr. Jeewa on a monthly basis unless something unusual happens in the interim. Additionally Petitioner attends group therapy three times a week and lives in one of the satellite apartments at Peace River Center. The satellite apartments are an arrangement where three or four patients live together to share expenses and help each other as a peer group. The satellite apartments are not part of a residential facility but are leased out in the community by the Peace River Center. In April 1983 Petitioner began working at American Building Maintenance, a Tampa janitorial service. His other employment history subsequent to his arrest, but prior to this hearing, includes janitorial work for Goodwill Industries. This employment was terminated when, due to an automobile accident, Mr. Hill was injured and physically unable to perform his job. Prior to that employment he worked for a CETA program where he assisted in locating jobs for handicapped persons. With respect to Mr. Hill's present psychological state he has no evidence of any thought disorder. His speech is logical, coherent and relevant. He has a fair amount of insight into his own condition and his judgment is adequate. No psychosis is apparent. He continues however to display a mild form of mixed anxiety and depression. At the present time it would be difficult however, for Mr. Hill to handle a job where he is fairly independent, must be flexible with considerable responsibilities and handle a variety of tasks. In order for Mr. Hill to be a successful teacher in a classroom situation with responsibility for 15 to 20 children, he would initially need some additional assistance and support over and above that normally required by a new teacher. It is unlikely that due to Mr. Hill's present condition he would cause any harm or be dangerous to students or other people around him. While it is within the realm of possibility that Petitioner, if certified, could successfully handle the responsibilities of a distributive education teacher, that possibility is not probable in view of Petitioner's present fragile psychological state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State Board of Education as the head of the Department of Education, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a teacher in the field of distributive education. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1983.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which Respondent is charged with violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by reason of failing to complete required continuing education courses prior to renewal of his license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent David L. Lewis is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida having been issued license number 053344 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a salesperson c/o All Keys, Inc., 1720 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, Florida 33040. By renewal notice, Petitioner notified Respondent his real estate salesperson's license would expire September 30, 1996. The renewal notice advised Respondent that "by submitting the appropriate renewal fees to the Department or the agency, a licensee acknowledges compliance with all requirements for renewal." On or about August 1, 1996, Respondent submitted the required fee to renew his real estate salesperson's license for the period commencing October 1, 1996. As of that date, he had not completed the continuing education requirement. Relying upon Respondent's representation that he had completed all requirements, Petitioner renewed Respondent's salesperson's license. Petitioner discovered the Respondent's status in an audit. In response to Petitioner's request for proof of education for the renewal period commencing October 1, 1996, Respondent submitted a certificate of completion of a continuing education classroom course finished October 2, 1996. By letter dated August 14, 1998, addressed to Petitioner's Investigator Barbara A. Kiphart, Respondent informed Petitioner that the Bert Rodgers School of Real Estate received the correspondence course October 1, 1996. According to the course report, Respondent finished the 14-hour continuing education requirement for the 1996 period on October 2, 1996, two days late. Respondent mailed the correspondence course materials to the Bert Rodgers School of Real Estate sometime during the last few days of September of 1996. At the time he mailed those materials, Respondent believed they would arrive in time to be processed prior to the September 30, 1996, deadline. As a result of some unknown vagary of the mail, the materials arrived on October 1, 1996, and were processed the next day.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that Respondent committed the violation charged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing as the only penalty a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether Patrick M. Hill, Respondent, is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office as more specifically alleged in letters of April 6, 1990 and May 18, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Patrick M. Hill held a professional services contract with the Polk County School Board as a remediation teacher at Lakeland High School. He also served as wrestling coach and cross country coach at Lakeland High School. During the spring break of the 1989-90 school year, Respondent told some students they could earn some extra money if they helped him paint his house. Erik Greatens, an 18 1/2 year old senior, agreed to help, and he, with a 25 year old man, John, and Respondent, worked all day painting. Around noon that day when all were hot and thirsty, Respondent told them there was beer in his refrigerator. Both Erik and John accepted the offer. Erik had one beer. When they stopped painting around 5 p.m., Respondent told them he would order pizza if they wanted to return later. Erik accepted and went home to shower and change clothes. He returned around 6:30 p.m. and shared pizza with Respondent. Erik testified that he had only the one beer that day at Respondent's home and that his father permitted him to drink an occasional glass of wine at home. He did not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverage while at Respondent's home that evening. Around 8:30 p.m., Erik left Respondent's residence and went to the Publix parking lot to meet some friends. At the parking lot that evening with his friends, Erik consumed 11 or 12 cans of beer before driving the four or five blocks to his home. When he arrived, his mother was up and considered her son was inebriated and that he had received the beer at Respondent's home. At the time, Erik told her he had only the one beer at Respondent's home, but, from his condition, the mother was sure he had drunk more than one beer. The following day, Mrs. Greatens called the Superintendent's office to complain about Respondent providing Erik with beer. Based upon that complaint, Respondent was suspended from his position as teacher at Lakeland High School. The professional Practices Council of the State Department of Education was notified of the charge so they could institute an investigation to determine if Respondent's state certificate should be disciplined. To date, no charges have been brought by the Department of Education. Subsequently, Petitioner learned that Respondent had pleaded guilty in New Jersey to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1973. A copy of this court record was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. In 1973, Respondent was a tenured teacher in the school district of the Township of Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey. Charges were preferred against Respondent by the Board of Education, and an administrative hearing was held to determine if the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges warranted dismissal of Respondent from his position as a tenured teacher. Following that hearing, the hearing examiner submitted a report recommending the charge and evidence insufficient to warrant a dismissal or reduction in salary. The Commissioner of Education adopted the finding and recommendation of the hearing examiner. In the instant proceedings, Respondent testified to the facts regarding the 1973 incident. That testimony is essentially the same as found by the hearing examiner in 1973 reported in Exhibit 4 as follows: The testimony offered by the Superintendent of Schools and respondent's building principal was that respondent is a good teacher, as evidenced by his past evaluations, and his record has been unblemished since his employ- ment by the Board. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Commissioner solely because of an incident which occurred on March 8, 1972, and that incident alone is the basis for the Board's action. On the evening of March 8, 1972, respondent was returning to his home after working late at his school on some extra curricular project. The record shows that Respondent was very active in the school community, and that he coached sports activities, served on the executive board of the local P.T.A., and served as President of the Pemberton Township Police Athletic League, in addition to his regular teaching duties. Respondent testified that it was a rainy night. On his way home, he picked up a hitchhiker who told him that he had a job in north Jersey and was on his way to visit his father in the Tuckerton area (approxi- mately thirty miles away). Because of the late hour and the poor weather conditions, Respondent offered the hitchhiker a place to spend the night in his home and told him he would drop him off at the inter- section of Routes #9 and #37 the next morning on his way to school. The hitchhiker accepted the offer and spent the night in respondent's home. Respondent testified that he also offered the use of his telephone so the hitchhiker could call his father, but that he refused saying that he was not expected anyway. He testified fur- ther that nothing untoward happened that night and that he dropped the hitchhiker off at the named intersection the follow- ing morning on his way to school. Respon- dent did not know that the hitchhiker was a minor; neither his appearance, nor his conversation about holding a job in north Jersey, nor having a drink and avoiding the police, lead (sic.)Respondent to conclude that the hitchhiker was a minor. (Tr. 19-22) None of this testimony is refuted by the Board, nor were any witnesses pre- sented by the Board to give any other version about what allegedly occurred on the evening of March 8, 1972. The Board, however, grounds its action against Respondent on his subsequent arrest by the police and his later indictment by the Grand Jury of Ocean County. A change of plea to that indictment reads in pertinent part as follows: (P-1) The State moved under Rule 3:74 to amend the third count of the indictment to read `did contribute to the delinquency of a minor by permitting him to remain overnight without parental consent'. The Court so ordered. Patrick Hill sworn. (sic.) As a result of plea bargaining, the Defendant retracted his former plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty to the amended third (3rd) count of [the Indictment). * * * In the hearing examiner's judgment, it would be wrong to speculate why Patrick Hill made the plea (P-1) rather than pursue some other defense of the original charges made against him. He testified that he made the change of plea because he did allow the youth to stay in his home overnight. Suffice it to say that he was represented by counsel and the record must now speak for itself. Respondent entered a plea of guilty (P-1) which the Commissioner must con- sider in making his determination. N.J.S.A. 2A:96-4 reads as follows: A parent, legal guardian or person having the legal custody or control of a child, who by any continued negligence or willful act, encourages, causes or con- tributes to the child's delinquency, or any other person who by any wilful act encourages, causes or contributes to a child's delinquency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The hearing examiner found that the unrefuted testimony of respondent, and the absence of any proof of conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Board, leads to the conclusion that the only fact before the Commissioner is that respondent knowingly permitted a minor to remain in his home overnight without the consent of the minor's parents. Respondent testified without contradiction that he was told by his attorney that the conviction would be expunged and he could forget it. Accordingly, Respondent concluded, albeit erroneously, that he never would need to reveal this record. Respondent moved to Florida and was employed as a junior high school teacher at St. Joseph's School, Lakeland, Florida, from 1979 to 1986 when he was employed by the Polk County School Board to teach at Lakeland High School. While at St. Joseph's, Respondent continued his extracurricular activities similar to those in New Jersey coaching children in wrestling and track, and he was involved in national and statewide wrestling programs for children. When he started teaching at Lakeland High School, Respondent continued his coaching activities and his work with children. He has been involved with helping troubled adolescents at the Polk Correctional Institute, served on the Governor's Council on Health, Physical Education and sports, was awarded man of the year honors for the AAU Wrestling Division, took a group of young wrestlers to Germany two years ago (1988) in a cultural exchange program and coordinated a return visit of German youth wrestlers to Florida in 1989. Respondent has excellent rapport with his students and with the student's parents. The letters admitted into evidence in Exhibit 5 extolling the virtues of Respondent as a teacher, coach and individual are not the pro forma, perfunctory letters of recommendation usually presented, but clearly indicate heartfelt esteem, appreciation and admiration. Respondent has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against him while teaching in Florida schools.
Recommendation Considering the reputation of Respondent, his rapport with students and peers, the time he has devoted to developing children into responsible adults and the conclusions that the acts complained of do not constitute immorality but are minor infractions coming under the definition of misconduct in office, it is recommended that Patrick M. Hill be found guilty of misconduct in office and suspended without pay for four months. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On April 7, 1976, respondent Ola Mae Williams resided with her husband, Fred Williams, at 825 Colonial Drive, Tampa, Florida. The night before, she had gone to bed somewhere around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. At approximately 2:00 a.m. on April 7th, two detectives from the University of South Florida and two or three other uniformed officers came to respondent's apartment to execute a search warrant directed against this apartment and naming respondent's husband as the focal party suspected of engaging in illegal activities on the premises. Upon hearing a knock at the door, she opened the door but left the burglar chain engaged. The police officers identified themselves and advised her that they were there to execute a lawful search warrant. Respondent then left the door to get her robe. While the door was cracked open, the officers heard a flurry of activity within the apartment, saw Fred Williams running around and heard the toilet flushing. When respondent returned to the door, the police again ordered her to open the door. She then closed the door in order to release the burglar chain. At this point, the officers broke in the door with force. "A minute or so" elapsed between the time that respondent first opened the door and the time that the door was opened forcibly. After the officers were inside the apartment, respondent's husband kept yelling commands at her while the officers were telling her to sit down so they could read her rights and the warrant to her. Mr. Williams was physically subdued with handcuffs and respondent feared for his safety. Other than to request permission to get her husband's wallet and clothes, respondent offered no physical or verbal resistance to the officers after they came into the apartment. During the execution of the search warrant, the officers confiscated and seized checks, drivers licenses and other items of male identification bearing names of persons other than respondent and her husband; two sheets of photographs of respondent, lamination sheets, cash, a typewriter, a cassette tape and film strip entitled the "Cashier's Series" and a yellow ceramic planter containing fifteen small plants, ranging in height from five to eleven inches, which the officers suspected to be marijuana. Respondent and her husband were arrested and taken to the police station. Respondent was charged with felony possession of marijuana and counterfeiting activities. These charges against her were subsequently dropped by the state attorney. A newspaper article concerning respondent's arrest and the charges placed against her and her husband appeared on the day of her arrest. The Hillsborough County School Board suspended respondent from her teaching duties on April 7, 1976. On November 7, 1976, she was reinstated to her former position with retroactive pay. The two sheets contained photographs of respondent were annual school photographs. They were of too large a size to be used on a Florida driver's license. Respondent's photograph was not found on any of the seized identification items. The typewriter seized during the search was admitted by the officers not to be the one used in altering the identification cards. Respondent denied that she had any knowledge whatsoever about her husband's alleged counterfeiting activities. The only evidence presented which could lead to a different conclusion is the presence in the respondent's apartment of "The Cashier's Series" cassette and filmstrip. Neither the tape nor the filmstrip were introduced into evidence at the hearing. The two police officers who testified at the hearing could not recall or identify with any specificity what was contained on either the filmstrip or the cassette tape. They did recall that they contained information concerning the detection of bogus checks and improper identification. It was Ms. Williams' testimony that the tape and filmstrip were merely promotional material illustrating other materials available for purchase. She ordered this material because she was teaching a course involving business machines, and there were two cash registers in the classroom. Several students expressed an eagerness to learn about the cash register and she wanted to have some supplementary material thereon. The tape and filmstrip were sent to her school address and she picked them up from her teacher's mailbox on the way home, some one to two weeks before her arrest. Ms. Williams did not listen to the tape or view the filmstrip prior to her arrest. There was no equipment in her apartment with which to do so. Approximately one month prior to her arrest, respondent's husband showed respondent a planter and informed her that the plants contained therein were marijuana plants. Respondent told her husband to get rid of the plants because she did not want marijuana in her apartment. The next time she saw the planter and the plants was on the night of her arrest. The planter in which fifteen plants were growing was found by one of the police officers in the corner of a bedroom windowsill behind closed drapes. The window was located behind a solid headboard of the bed. Ms. Williams testified that she often went for weeks at a time without cleaning that windowsill and that the drapes in the bedroom were usually closed. While the two detectives who appeared at the hearing testified that they believed, from their past experience and training, the plants to be marijuana, neither could recall whether a reagent test was performed or any other laboratory report had been procured which would determine the identity of the plants. As noted above, respondent was suspended from her teaching position at Tampa Bay Vocational-Technical School on April 7, 1976. She was reinstated with retroactive pay on or about November 7, 1976. This was during the second nine week grading period of the first semester. According to respondent, she was called on a Friday and told that, if she wanted her job back, she was to report to school on the following Monday. On Sunday, she went to the home of the teacher who had been substituting for her during her suspension, discussed her procedures and obtained her keys and roll book. Respondent received no assistance or counseling from the school administration prior to her entrance into the classroom on Monday. No one from the administration accompanied her into the classroom or introduced her to the students. She told the students that she had been on leave and was now to be their permanent teacher. The evidence illustrates that some educators and students at the school were aware of respondent's arrest both in April of 1976 and when she returned to school in November, 1976. Respondent denies that she encountered any disrespect from her students after her return. Prior to April, 1976, respondent's teaching record was without blemish. In December of 1976, approximately one month after her return from suspension, Alberta Roberts, the Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Tampa Bay Vo-Tech, received complaints from eight students relating to respondent's grading assignments and methods of instruction. Ms. Roberts informed respondent's department head, Mr. Pat Clyde, of the complaints. Two or three conferences were had between Mr. Clyde, Ms. Roberts and respondent. It was found that respondent had miscalculated some of the grades, had erroneously recorded student absences, and that she had a higher than average failure rate in her classes. The student complaints occurred only during the first nine week period of respondent's return to school. She continued to have a higher than average failure rate in her classes. Since that first nine-week period of her return, no one from the school's administration has attempted to counsel with respondent or review her grades or teaching methods to determine the cause of student failures in her classes. The school's evaluation of respondent for the period ending in April, 1977, contained five areas of unsatisfactory performance and four areas needing improvement. The remaining twelve areas were satisfactory. The January, 1978, evaluation contained all satisfactory markings. In March of 1978, respondent was evaluated as satisfactory in all areas, with two exceptions. The evaluations illustrated that she needed improvement in the areas of "thorough in preparation of lessons, including written plans" and "materials are well organized for effective presentation of the subject matter." The evidence was undisputed at the hearing that no school or county administrator has observed respondent's classroom performance or attended her classes since her return in November, 1976. Her department head has never required respondent to submit her lesson plans to him. The only person ever to observe respondent's performance since her return to the classroom was Ann B. Dolgin, a witness called by respondent. Dr. Dolgin observed respondent's classes on June 8 and 9, 1977, and concluded that respondent's teaching exercises were average and her classroom management procedures were above average. She believed respondent to be an effective teacher, and her observations were consistent with respondent's last two evaluations performed at the school.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is recommended that the petition for suspension of respondent's teaching certificate be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 21st day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh Ingram, Administrator Profession Practices Council 319 West Madison Street - Rm 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert J. Vossler 110 N. Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis G. Diecidue Diecidue, Ferlita and Prieto, P.A. 601 Twiggs Street, St. 203 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The central issue in case no. 88-2368 is whether Respondent should be suspended for thirty workdays due to misconduct in office. The central issue in case no. 88-3315 is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and incompetency.
Findings Of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Marlene Rodriguez 16333 Wood Walk Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: With regard to case no. 88-2368, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to suspend Respondent for a thirty workday period for misconduct in office. With regard to case no. 88-3315, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to dismiss Respondent from employment for misconduct in office, incompetence, and gross insubordination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-2368, 88-3315 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the exception of George C. Clark, Mr. Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraphs 3-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not specific facts adduced by such testimony; some of the recitation being without basis. It is found that Respondent did not follow school policies regarding the discipline administered to students, that Respondent was aware of the correct procedures, and that Respondent continuously had trouble regarding classroom management. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is unnecessary to the conclusions reached in this cause. Paragraph 10 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but as a indication of the student-teacher relationship between Respondent and one of the students she taught. Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above as it relates to the hearsay contents of the letter. Other portions of the paragraph which conclude respondent knew discipline procedures but did not follow them, or knew notice policies but did not follow them are accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. Paragraphs 19,20,21, and 22 are accepted only to the extent addressed in findings of fact, paragraphs 7,8,9, and 10; otherwise, the proposed findings are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by admissible evidence. Paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 26, the first two sentences are accepted, the balance is rejected as hearsay or unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraphs 27, 29, and 30 are accepted. (Petitioner did not submit a paragraph 28) In the future, proposed findings submitted which do not conform to the rules of the Florida Administrative Code will be summarily rejected. Petitioner is cautioned to review applicable rules, and to cite appropriately. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the clarification that Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, according to the evidence in this case, Repodent taught at Miami Gardens Elementary School (Leon was her principal there) and North Carol City Elementary School (Sawyer and Brown were her principals there). Other schools may have been assigned during her periods of "special assignment" but the record is insufficient to establish Respondent's performance while on such assignments. The record is insufficient to make the legal conclusion addressed in paragraph 4, consequently, it is rejected. The Board addressed a recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment; however, the record does not establish final action was taken. The facts alleged in paragraph 5 are too voluminous to address in one paragraph. Petitioner's continued use of a recitation of the testimony does not constitute findings of fact. Pertinent to this case are the following facts adduced from Petitioner's paragraph 5: that Respondent's overall performance was unacceptable, that Respondent failed to direct students who were off task, that Respondent made an excessive number of referrals for discipline, and that the atmosphere in Respondent's class was not conducive to learning. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 6, it is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See finding made regarding paragraph 5, case no. 88-2368. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the specific evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10-14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected with the exception of the last sentence; the time sequence referred to is not specified in the record. The record does establish, however, that Respondent did not make progress in correcting noted areas of deficiency. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have duplicate numbers for the following paragraphs: 15,16, and 17. The second set of these paragraphs are addressed below. Second paragraph 15 accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted but as an indication of the teacher-student relationship between Respondent and her student. Second paragraph 16 is accepted. Second paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraphs 19-22 are accepted.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to make reasonable effort to protect a student's safety, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 646554 in the area of Mentally Handicapped. For the past six or seven years, Respondent has been employed as an ESE teacher at Windy Ridge. The record contains no evidence of prior discipline of Respondent's educator certificate, but the District suspended her for five days without pay for the three incidents that are described below. For the 2012-13 school year, Respondent and four paraprofessionals taught a class of seven ESE students. The paraprofessionals performed tasks assigned to them by Respondent. Absences on December 4, 2012, reduced the class to five ESE students, Respondent, and two of the four paraprofessionals regularly assigned to Respondent's classroom. The principal assigned a substitute for one of the two absent paraprofessionals, so four adults were supervising five students on that day. One of the five students present on December 4 was D.R., who was nine and one-half years old and suffered from a "significant cognitive disability." As documented by his Individual Educational Plan (IEP), which is dated November 6, 2012, D.R.'s mother was "very concerned" about the safety of her son, who was tube-fed, "non-verbal," and able to follow only "some simple one-step commands." The IEP warns that D.R. was in a "mouthing stage," meaning that he put "everything" in his mouth for sensory input. As described in his social/developmental history, which is dated November 1, 2012, D.R.'s health was "fragile." The three incidents at issue took place during approximately one hour at midday on December 4. The first incident took place at 11:10 a.m. Serena Perrino, a District behavior trainer, was sitting alone in Ms. Barnabei's classroom, which is next to Respondent's classroom. The two classrooms are joined by the two teachers' offices, so it is possible to walk between the classrooms without entering the hallway. On a break, Ms. Perrino had turned off the lights and was on the computer at the front of Ms. Barnabei's classroom. While facing the computer monitor, Ms. Perrino heard a noise behind her, turned around, and saw D.R., by himself, seated on the floor playing with a toy. Ms. Perrino knew that he belonged in Respondent's classroom. Without delay, Ms. Perrino walked D.R. toward his classroom, but, as they were passing through the teachers' offices, Ms. Perrino and D.R. encountered one of Respondent's paraprofessionals, who said that she was "just coming to get him, thanks." The second incident took place between 11:30 a.m. and noon. Bernadette Banagale, the substitute paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom on that day, was eating lunch in a small outside courtyard that is located at the end of the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. Ms. Banagale saw D.R., by himself, enter the courtyard from the doors at the end of the hallway. Ms. Banagale approached D.R. and, with some difficulty, walked him back to Respondent's classroom where she left him in the custody of the other two paraprofessionals, Susan Brown and Delta Porter, but not Respondent, who was not in the classroom when Ms. Banagale returned the child. The third incident took place shortly after noon. Cathy Zimmerman, a teacher, was sitting in a classroom eating lunch with another teacher. Looking out the window of the classroom, Ms. Zimmerman noticed D.R. in the adjoining breezeway, which divides the building from the school parking lot. Ms. Zimmerman did not know D.R., nor where he belonged, but she saw that he was unescorted. Approaching D.R. in the breezeway, Ms. Zimmerman guided him back through the doors leading to a hallway that, after a short distance, intersects the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. As she was walking the child into the building, Ms. Zimmerman directed the teacher with whom she had been having lunch to enter the nearest classroom to see if anyone could identify the child. As directed, the other teacher entered Ms. Barnabei's classroom, where she found Ms. Perrino, who again took custody of D.R. and immediately returned him to Respondent's classroom where Ms. Perrino found Respondent and one or more paraprofessionals. In an effort to prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R., Petitioner offered two pieces of evidence: during direct examination, the principal prescribed that a classroom teacher is required to know at all times the location of her students, and, during cross-examination, Respondent agreed with the metaphor supplied to her by Petitioner's counsel that a classroom teacher is the "captain of the ship." The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor constitute the entirety of Petitioner's explicit analysis of the reasonableness of Respondent's effort to protect D.R. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the first incident. The principal's testimony is inapt because Petitioner failed to prove that a paraprofessional did not always know D.R.'s location; that Respondent failed to protect D.R. when a paraprofessional knew his location, regardless of whether Respondent knew his location; and that D.R.'s safety was compromised at any time during the few seconds that he was in the adjoining classroom. Respondent's testimony is inapt because Petitioner did not prove that a paraprofessional failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety, which would be a pre-condition to attributing this failure to the captain of the ship, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the second incident. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape or at any time during his ensuing absence from the classroom and failed to prove that Respondent's absence from the classroom was unauthorized. As for the absence of Respondent from the classroom at the time of the escape in the second incident, the strongest evidence is Respondent's written statement to this effect. Other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement that she was not in the classroom at the time of the escape. Ms. Banagale's scheduled lunch was 11:30 a.m. to noon, and nothing in the record suggests that the substitute paraprofessional took her lunch at other than her scheduled time. The distance between the front door of Respondent's classroom and the exterior doors leading to the courtyard is the width of the single classroom that separates Respondent's classroom from these exterior doors, so it would not have taken D.R. long to travel from the front door of the classroom to the exterior doors leading to the courtyard. Respondent's scheduled lunch was 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., but Respondent testified that she was behind schedule when she took her lunch. She also testified that she returned to the classroom "a little after noon." Nothing in the record indicates how long Respondent took for lunch, but, if she took all of her allotted time, she likely left the classroom shortly after Ms. Banagale, leaving a very narrow window for D.R. to escape, if he were to do so after Ms. Banagale's departure, but before Respondent's departure--a fact that Petitioner has not established. The only evidence suggesting that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape comes from Respondent's testimony at the hearing to this effect. Notwithstanding the inculpatory nature of Respondent's testimony, it is impossible to credit it. Provided nearly two years after the incident, Respondent's testimony was, at times, confused and unclear, but her written statement is clear and straightforward. It would appear that, based on the findings below concerning the third incident, Respondent may have confused the second and third incidents. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the third incident. The third incident is more complicated than the first and second incidents because it is more difficult to determine exactly what Petitioner proved and the extent to which the material factual allegations extend to the proof of the third incident.2/ At minimum, Petitioner pleaded3/ and proved that D.R. escaped from the classroom, and Respondent was in the classroom at the time of the escape. Respondent gave a written statement admitting that she was present when D.R. left the classroom and that she was unaware of his departure "because my back was turned by me working with another student on the computer, [as D.R.] left out the rear door." At the hearing, Respondent testified confusingly, possibly suggesting that she was at lunch or in planning when D.R. escaped in connection with the third incident, but any such exculpatory testimony is discredited for the same reason that her inculpatory testimony regarding the second incident was rejected. As was true of the written statement in connection with the second incident, other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement in connection with the third incident. As noted in the discussion of the second incident, Respondent returned to the classroom "a little after noon." At this point, Respondent, Ms. Banagale, and Ms. Brown were in the classroom. Ms. Porter's scheduled lunch was from noon to 12:30 p.m., and nothing in the record suggests that she did not take her lunch as scheduled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of whether Respondent failed to meet a reasonableness standard may be facilitated by consideration of the burden of taking precautions sufficient to prevent an escape, the probability of an escape, and the magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety, if he escaped. The burden of taking additional precautions was not insubstantial. The classroom has three exits, and D.R. used each of them in connection with the three incidents. In the first incident, as noted above, D.R. used a side exit through the teachers' offices to get to the adjoining classroom of Ms. Barnabei. In the second incident, D.R. used the front door to get to the courtyard. In the third incident, D.R. used the rear door to access the adjoining breezeway, where Ms. Zimmerman found him no more than 75 feet from the rear door. Evidence suggests that locking the doors at each of these exits was forbidden, possibly due to fire regulations. Although three adults were supervising only five ESE students at the moment of D.R.'s escape in the third incident, the paraprofessional who normally taught D.R. one-on-one at the time of the escape was absent. It is not entirely clear how long Respondent was in the classroom before D.R. escaped, but Respondent was performing instructional duties at the moment of the escape, so additional attention by Respondent to security would have meant reduced instruction, at least of the child whom she was teaching one-on-one at the time of the escape; this adds to the burden of taking escape precautions.4/ The probability of D.R.'s escape was demonstrably very high, as evidenced by his three escapes in a single hour on December 4. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape is difficult to assess. D.R. was a medically fragile, highly vulnerable child. However, he suffered no injuries in any of the three escapes that are the subject of this case. The magnitude of the threat posed to D.R.'s safety from escaping was thus low. Considering that the burden of taking additional precautions was moderate, the probability of escape was high, and the magnitude of threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape was low, it is impossible to find that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety by preventing the escape in connection with the third incident. The analysis in the preceding paragraphs focuses on Respondent's failure at the moment of D.R.'s escape, not on the duration of his absence from the classroom and any ongoing failure to notice that the child was missing from the classroom. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner did not plead these failures as grounds for disciplining Respondent, but, in an abundance of caution, the following findings address these alternative grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety in connection with the third incident. There is no direct evidence of how long D.R. was out of the classroom in connection with the third incident. There is only one point in time established by direct evidence: Ms. Zimmerman first saw the child at 12:10 p.m. There is no direct evidence of when D.R. escaped from the classroom, nor could there have been such evidence from the known witnesses. Ms. Zimmerman's written statement notes that all of the physical education teachers, which may include her, were in the area of the breezeway from noon to 12:07 p.m., and they never saw D.R. Ms. Zimmerman's statement implies that someone would have seen D.R. if he had been anywhere in the breezeway by himself. Although Ms. Zimmerman could have estimated how long she had the child before turning him over to Ms. Perrino, no one asked her to do so.5/ And there is no other direct evidence of how long Ms. Zimmerman had the child. Based on the evidence cited in the preceding paragraph, D.R. escaped the classroom between 12:08 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. and returned to the classroom between 12:11 p.m. and 12:13 p.m. Limiting inferences to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the earliest that D.R. left the classroom was 12:09 p.m., and the latest that D.R. returned to the classroom was 12:11 p.m. This means that Petitioner has proved that D.R. was absent from the classroom for no more than two minutes: one minute by himself and one minute accompanied by Ms. Zimmerman. The burden of taking adequate precautions to detect the child's absence and return him to the safety of the classroom is lower than the burden of preventing the escape, which can occur in a few seconds, although it is difficult to assess what exactly would have been required of Respondent to conduct a search or, by notifying school administrators, to cause a search to be conducted. The burden of preventing an escape is much greater than the burden of noticing, within two minutes, that a child is missing from a five-student classroom. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety rises the longer that he is out of the classroom, especially unescorted. Presenting a closer case than the pleaded case involving only an escape, the claim that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort, when directed to the length of time that D.R. was out of the classroom, requires consideration of any effort that Respondent made during D.R.'s absence. The duration of D.R.'s absence is thus linked to whether Respondent noticed that D.R. was missing and, if so, what Respondent did upon discovering that he was gone. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, because inferences are limited to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing. There is no direct evidence that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing from the classroom. The record lacks admissions from Respondent and the two paraprofessionals in the classroom during the third incident that they were unaware of D.R.'s absence.6/ Both Ms. Zimmerman and Ms. Perrino testified that they did not see anyone in the vicinity of the classroom looking for D.R., and this testimony is credited, but supports no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom were not looking for the child, and does not support even an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom had failed to notice that D.R. was missing. Ms. Perrino testified that when she returned D.R. to the classroom, none of the adults present seemed to have realized that the child had been missing. This testimony is credited, but, lacks important detail, including on what this testimony is based and whether this observation applied to Respondent, so as to support no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults had not noticed that D.R. was missing. Thus, even if Petitioner has pleaded the duration of D.R.'s absence and a failure to notice the absence of the student as grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect his safety, Petitioner failed to prove these claims by clear and convincing evidence
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2014, 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 1st day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is now, and has been employed as a teacher in the Pinellas County school District since the 1980-81 school year. Since the 1983-84 school year, he has taught biology and earth science at Tarpon Springs High school under continuing contract. In November, 1984, Petitioner applied for Associate Master Teacher Endorsement in the state Master Teacher Program for the 1984-85 school year. His application was approved, and he participated in the Master Teacher Program for the 1984-85 school year, receiving the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. In October, 1985 Petitioner applied for continued participation in the Master Teacher Program for the 1985-86 school year. His application was again approved, and he participated in the program for the 1985-86 school year, receiving the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. The 1986-87 school year was the third and final year of the State Master Teacher Program. The application deadline for continued participation by teachers previously endorsed as Master Teachers was November 1, 1986. According to Virginia Sasser, Petitioner meets all substantive requirements and criteria for continued participation in the program for the 1986-87 school year. However, it is the position of the Respondents that Petitioner failed to timely file his application by November 1, 1986, and therefore he was not eligible to receive a Master Teacher salary incentive award for the 1986-87 school year. The first notice that Petitioner received that he had not been approved for participation in the program for the 1986-87 school year was in August, 1987 when other Master Teachers at Tarpon Springs High School received their salary incentive awards of $3000, and he did not. Petitioner contacted the Department of Education and spoke with Virginia Sasser who told him that the Department had no record of his 1986-87 application for continued participation. No specific advice was offered by Sasser about what he should do. Subsequently, Sasser learned that the Pinellas County School District also had no record of ever receiving Petitioner's application for 1986-87. The 1986-87 application procedure required individual teachers to complete Form MT-5, and submit it to their principal for his certification and signature. The Form requires the principal to certify that he has returned a completed copy of the application to the teacher after the principal affixed his signature. Thereafter, the Form was to be forwarded by the principal to the School District Office for transmittal to the Department of Education. In January, 1987, acknowledgments were sent to teachers whose applications had been received by the Department of Education. Based upon the testimony of Petitioner, Chalmers Coe, Petitioner's principal, John Katsaris, fellow Master Teacher, and Patricia Burdette, Coe's secretary, it is specifically found that Petitioner did properly complete and submit Form MT-5 to Coe in mid-October, 1986. However, the Form was thereafter lost either in Coe's office or in transit from Tarpon Springs High School to the School District Office in Clearwater via courier. Petitioner was not responsible for, and was not aware of this loss. Although he was on the School District's list of Master Teachers from whom an application for continued participation would be expected to be received, no one from the School District Office ever contacted Coe or the Petitioner to inquire why his Form MT-5 had not been received. Petitioner reasonably assumed that Coe had properly processed the application he gave him, and that the intradistrict mail courier would deliver it to the School District personnel officer. Patricia Burdette testified that on occasion items she placed in the courier mail, or which were placed in the mail for her, were lost and never received. The testimony of Chalmers Coe, principal of Tarpon Springs High school is found to be credible and persuasive in that he clearly confirmed the following statements contained in a letter he sent to Virginia Sasser in September, 1987, after Petitioner had been informed by Sasser that his application had not been received by the Department: This is to notify you that Peter Lelekis, a teacher on our staff, did submit a completed application for the Master Teacher Program for 1986-87. This application was submitted before the deadline of November 1, 1986. I, as well as my secretary, Patricia Burdette can verify that Mr. Lelekis did comply with the instructions from the Master Teacher Division of the Department of Education. I personally signed and forwarded forms to Superintendent. The testimony of John Katsaris supports the testimony of Petitioner and Coe in that Katsaris testified he saw Petitioner take his Form MT-5 to Coe's office in mid-October, 1986, and spoke with Petitioner about the application. According to Larry Hutcheson, who administered the Master Teacher Program for the Department of Education from approximately June, 1985 to July, 1986, the Department followed a "hold-harmless philosophy" in administering the program whereby if an applicant did his part to comply with all application procedures, as verified by his principal or superintendent, an applicant whose application was not timely filed would be held-harmless for this omission and the substantive merits of his application would be evaluated. This philosophy was applied "not infrequently" according to Hutcheson. Virginia Sasser, who has continuing responsibilities for the program, confirmed this "philosophy," and stated that if the principal or superintendent conceded their error, a teacher's application would be accepted and evaluated. She further acknowledged that if an application was lost in the mail, the teacher should similarly be held- harmless for the courier's error. In this case, an error was made either by the intra-district mail courier, or by Coe in not insuring that Petitioner and the District Personnel Office received a copy and the original Form MT-5, respectively, after he signed this form. In either event, the error that was made was not made by Petitioner, and he should therefore be held-harmless in accordance with the Department's applicable "philosophy" for administering this program. Coe and Petitioner both testified that he meets all substantive requirements and criteria for continued participation for the 1986-87 school year, a fact not disputed by Respondents. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Respondents' decision, as set forth by letter dated September 17, 1987, to deny his continued participation in the State Master Teacher Program for the 1986-87 school year solely for the following reason: According to our records, a 1986-7 application was never received by our office for you. In addition, the Pinellas school district office records further confirmed that your application was not processed through their office. I regret that we cannot accept Mr. Coe's statement as evidence of your filing an application for continued participation in the program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondents enter a Final Order approving Petitioner for continued participation in the State Master Teacher Program for the 1986-87 school year, and providing him with the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected and Accepted, in part, in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7, 10, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 10. Rulings of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, and as a conclusion of law. 5-6. Rejected as unnecessary. The only issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to the third year salary incentive award. Thus, the general application and renewal process is irrelevant. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 8-9. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4, 11. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as a conclusion of law. Generalized discussion of the Master Teacher Program does not pertain to the issue in this case. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6, 7. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8. The primary testimony was offered by Coe and Was confirmed and supported by Katsaris, Petitioner and Burdette. 16-18. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10 and otherwise Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rejected as irrelevant. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 12. Rejected as irrelevant. This is a de novo hearing to determine if Petitioner did submit his application. 30-31. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. Petitioner's request for hearing was timely. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire MEYER, BROOKS & COOPER, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
