The Issue The issues in this case involve whether the Respondent has engaged in acts of misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, whether the Respondent's Florida educator's certificate should be revoked or other disciplinary sanction imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with regulating the standards for entry into practice as a teacher, including licensure and the regulation of practice of teachers once they are licensed. The Respondent is a licensed Florida Educator (teacher) holding certificate 795510, covering the area of mathematics. That license is valid through June 30, 2003. During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years the Respondent was employed with the Washington County School District as a teacher at Vernon Middle School. From September 1999 through December 2000 the Respondent was assigned to teach low-functioning exceptional student education (ESE) students. ESE students are those who have learning disabilities or physical impairments which adversely affect the ability to learn. In January 2001, the Respondent sought and obtained a transfer from her ESE assignment to a position teaching mathematics classes, which was within the scope of her certificate. She continued to teach mathematics until her suspension with pay in April 2001. During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years the Respondent also taught adult night school courses. When the Respondent became employed as an ESE teacher the Washington County School District issued her a laptop computer for the purpose of preparing individual education plans (IEP) and other paperwork required in the ESE program. The Vernon Middle School guidance counselor and its other ESE teacher were also issued laptop computers for ESE paperwork purposes. Witness Heather Miller, testifying for the Petitioner, stated that all ESE teachers received a letter limiting the use of the laptop to ESE purposes. The Respondent testified that she did not receive any letter or other instructions limiting her use of the computer. Ms. Miller admitted on cross-examination that she was not present when any such instructions may have been delivered to the Respondent. Be that as it may, the gravaman of the charges in the administrative complaint do not involve use of the ESE laptop computer for personal purposes versus employment-related purposes. The Respondent may have been instructed not to use the computer for anything other than ESE instructional-related purposes or may not have been given such instructions, or may simply not recall getting such instructions. Whether or not she received such instructions is immaterial to the charges in the administrative complaint, however. The Respondent had the laptop computer in her classroom when it was first issued to her, while she was learning how to use it. Sometime early in her use of it she installed a program called "Clue Finder" which is a software program for children for the third to fifth grade. She allowed the students to use this software in class. The laptop had never been connected to the internet at the time she permitted students to use it in her classroom and her classroom did not have internet access at that time. She ceased permitting students to use the laptop after she had a discussion with the other ESE teacher, Julie Johnson, about her not permitting her students to use her laptop. The Respondent's students were not permitted to use the laptop from that point forward, which was sometime in the month of February 2000. Each laptop was equipped with a "zip drive" and "zip disc" in order to download the "GibCo Dynamo Program," the program used for ESE paperwork purposes. Therefore, it was unnecessary for ESE employees to access the internet using their school board-issued laptop. ESE employees were permitted to remove and transport their laptops away from school premises so that they could work on IEP and other ESE paperwork at other locations, including their homes. The Respondent took her laptop home sometime during or after February 2000 and began becoming acquainted with the GibCo Dynamo Program, which helps ESE teachers correctly complete IEP's and other paperwork. It was necessary to periodically update the GibCO Program to reflect changes in the ESE forms. The Respondent already had the laptop at home and did her IEP work there because she did not have time to do it in class. Therefore, she asked Brenda Miller, the ESE resource person from the county office, if she could use her laptop to update her GibCo program through her home internet service provider. She received permission and did so in late February or early March 2000. On one occasion prior to the end of the spring 2000 school term, the Respondent permitted one of her adult alternative education students to use her laptop to complete a paper he was writing. She assisted him in using the laptop and was present the entire time he was using it. This incident occurred before she had begun any personal use of the laptop or put any of her programs on it. Therefore, the use occurred before the material contained in Petitioner's Exhibit one was received or stored on the laptop. The Respondent did not teach during the summer of 2000 and spent more time accessing the internet through the school laptop for personal purposes. Although they were still living in the same home, the Respondent and her husband had become estranged and were ultimately divorced. During the summer of 2000 the Respondent used the ICQ program to communicate with and strike-up non-sexual relationships with other people, including males. The ICQ program is a forum or "chat room," with the exchange of ideas and information on virtually any subject. Users fill out a personal profile which informs other users about the person's interests or subjects the person is interested in receiving or sending communications about. The Respondent contends that her ICQ profile only contained her name, age and gender. When such a user starts his or her computer other users are alerted to that user's presence and availability for communication. The user may send or receive communications to or from others, which communications can contain attachments, such as documents or pictures. During the time she was using the laptop to access the ICQ program, the Respondent's husband, her baby-sitter and her baby-sitter's mother also had access to the laptop at various times in her home. The Respondent's laptop was connected to the internet at her home for approximately three and one-half to four months. Sometime during the summer of 2000 lightening struck her modem and destroyed it. The laptop was never connected to the internet after that event. During the time the laptop was connected to the internet in the Respondent's home the documents contained in Petitioner's exhibit one were received on the laptop and placed on the hard drive in fifty-eight program folders. The Respondent maintains that she did not realize that the materials contained in Petitioner's Exhibit One, which were on her computer, had been recorded on her hard drive. She admits to seeing some of those documents in Petitioner's exhibit one but maintains that she had not seen all of them. She maintains that she did not see many of the items in Petitioner's Exhibit One, especially items which indicate the ICQ identification name "Hotrod," which was that of her husband. The Respondent claimed that she never knowingly or intentionally accessed or "downloaded" any pornographic materials on her school laptop, nor did she solicit such material from anyone else. During the time her laptop was operating on the internet, through the ICQ program, she would sometime receive messages with documents attached. On some occasions she states that she would discover sexually explicit material when she opened the document and that when she did so would immediately close the file and assumed that it had been deleted. She claims that she had no idea the information was being saved on the computer's hard drive. If the Respondent received unsolicited, sexually explicit material from someone she had wanted to chat with she states that she would inform them not to send that type of information if they wanted to continue to communicate with her. During the time period in question the Respondent also received unsolicited e-mail of a sexually explicit nature which indicated that she had subscribed to it, although she states she never had. The fact that an e-mail indicates that the recipient is a subscriber does not mean that the recipient actually solicited or subscribed to the e-mail. Rather, the recipient's name could have been obtained from another source merely upon the receiver's profile having been provided to a particular site. It is unclear how the material contained in Petitioner's Exhibit One was saved on the hard drive of the Respondent's laptop. It can not be precisely determined who saved a particular file or who if anyone opened and viewed a particular file, primarily because the Respondent did not have sole access to the computer while it was in her home. It is probable that the Respondent did obtain some of the material that was present on her laptop hard drive, as she did acknowledge having seen some of the material in the past, when confronted with the presence of it by her employer. It cannot be determined from a review of the laptop hard drive that the Respondent named or saved any specific file contained in the Petitioner's exhibit one. After the laptop's modem was destroyed by lighting, the Respondent continued to use the laptop for her IEP's until she returned the computer to the school in September 2000, at the request of Ms. Harrell. The Respondent specifically requested permission to lock the computer up and Ms. Harrell told her she could keep it in a locked storage room, which she did. The storage room was in the administration building, which was next to the building in which her classroom was located. The laptop remained in the locked storage room until October 2000, when the Respondent was assigned a new ESE student. She brought the laptop to the classroom for a short time on that one occasion to work on the new student's IEP, but the students never had access to the computer nor were they ever in a position to see what she was doing on the computer. In January 2001, the Respondent was re-assigned, at her request, from the ESE position to the position of math teacher, which was within her area of certification. She had no further use for the laptop and believed she had removed from it all programs, games and other information she had put on the computer as a result of her personnel use. The Respondent removed her internet service program, Digital Express, and the ICQ Program, believing that this action removed anything associated with these programs from the computer. She was unaware that there were separate program files for the ICQ Program saved to the hard drive. If she had known of this she would have deleted them. Gerald Fender, the Washington County School District Computer Technician indeed saw evidence that an attempt had been made to remove information from the Respondent's laptop when he inspected it. The Respondent's laptop was turned over to her successor, Aubrey Herndon, the new ESE teacher, who placed it into a locked closet in his classroom. The computer remained there until approximately April 10, 2001, when Mr. Herndon removed it to learn how to use it to prepare his IEP. On April 10, 2001, Heather Miller was assisting Mr. Herndon with transferring information from a zip disc to the laptop when she noticed two sites listed on the "favorites" screen, "ALT.Sex Stories" and "Asclepius Himself." Upon seeing these items, Ms. Miller took the laptop and reported what she had found to the principal, Ms. Harrell and the School Resource Officer, Deputy Mark Collins. Ms. Miller and Officer Collins searched the computer for other suspicious files but were unable to locate any. The next day, Gerald Fender, the school board computer technician was called in and asked to search the computer. After an extensive search, Mr. Fender located the ICQ Program in the program files. In the afternoon of April 11, 2001, the Respondent was called to Ms. Harrell's office and confronted with some of the information contained in Petitioner's Exhibit One. The first document the Respondent was shown was page eighteen of Petitioner's Exhibit One from a program called "pal talk" which was supposed to be a program which enables a person to speak to another person over the internet. The Respondent was shocked when she was shown this document because she had thought she had deleted the entire pal talk program and the file containing this document, after she had received the document when she first accessed the pal talk program. She was shocked when this sexually explicit document appeared through a program she had understood to be a voice program and which she thought she had immediately taken off the computer. The Respondent was also shown a copy of page twenty- nine of Petitioner's Exhibit One, which was a sexually explicit picture of a man standing in a shower. She recognized that picture as also coming from her computer. She acknowledged that the two pictures she was shown were from her computer and then she told "them" that they did not have to show her anymore. There was some conflict in the testimony regarding the precise number of pictures from Exhibit One which were shown to the Respondent. It is unnecessary to resolve this discrepancy because all of the testimony of all witnesses present is consistent that the Respondent acknowledged that the pictures were from her laptop computer after being shown a few of them and no more were therefore shown. The Respondent was asked whether the students had ever used the computer and she said that they had, but that the students were allowed to play games on the computer only during the time before she had taken the computer to her home and before the information contained in Petitioner's Exhibit One had ever been received. The Respondent also stated in that initial meeting on April 11, 2001, that she had thought that she had deleted all the information which she had been shown from the computer. During this meeting the Respondent also made a statement to the effect that she had used the laptop at night to access her ICQ file when she "would get bored" while working on class work. She was referring to working at home and not in the classroom. Also, during this meeting she told Officer Collins that the students had never seen the objectionable information, and he indicated that he would interview her students, which she encouraged him to do. No student interviewed indicated that he or she had seen any of the information contained in the Petitioner's Exhibit One. Officer Collins also consulted with Captain Strickland the Chief of Investigations of the Washington County Sheriff's Department Capt. Strickland advised that there was no basis for any criminal charges. The Respondent met with Superintendent Jerry Tyre in his office on May 3, 2001, and submitted her resignation effective May 14, 2001. The Respondent had already been informed by Ms. Harrell before this incident that she was not going to be recommended for renewal as an annual contract teacher for the next year. By resigning rather than contesting the superintendent's suspension, the Respondent believed that she could resolve the situation quickly without any further publicity or notoriety. In June 2001, the Respondent applied for employment as a teacher in Bay County, Florida. She submitted written references from three former colleagues, Paul Parker, her supervisor and director of the Washington County Technician Center; Mary Davis, Adult Education Coordinator and Genevelyn Brown, EAS Assistant. Each of the individuals was informed of the circumstances surrounding the Respondent's resignation and each was still willing to give her a positive reference. The Respondent also solicited support from several parents of students she had taught or tutored while employed in Washington County, during the investigation of this matter by the Department of Education. She informed each of these individuals of the nature of the allegations against her and the circumstances surrounding her resignation. Each of these individuals, Rhonda Duren, Julie Bielinski, Brenda Richards and Victor Marshall, submitted written statements supporting her ability and their belief she should continue as a teacher in Washington County or elsewhere. The Respondent obtained employment as a teacher with the School Board of Bay County at Mosely High for the 2001-2002 school year. She was still employed as a teacher in Bay County at the time of this hearing. She has had no disciplinary problems of a similar nature to that to which occurred in Washington County. It is not clear whether the authorities who hired her in Bay County were aware of the circumstances surrounding her resignation from her position in Washington County. Both prior and subsequent to the events at issue in this case, the Respondent has never had any accusations of any similar misconduct and has no disciplinary record. It has not been established that either the intentional or inadvertent accessing of sexually explicit materials in the privacy of the Respondent's home (even though on a school-issued computer), was immoral or grossly immoral. The downloading of the materials and the presence of them on the computer never became accessible to any students and no student was ever aware that such information was on the computer. It has not been established that the Respondent's failure to delete the sexually explicit material from the computer prior to taking it back to her place of employment constitutes immorality or gross immorality. It has not been shown that the conduct involved in this proceeding was a matter of any notoriety so that her position in the education profession could be the subject of any public disgrace or disrespect or that her service to the community in that profession could be impaired. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in personal conduct which is seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the school board. The Petitioner elicited opinion testimony from witnesses which was conclusary and failed to specify precisely how the conduct could seriously reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. The opinion testimony was based on a factual assumption which was not established by the evidence, namely that the Respondent's students used her laptop after the sexually explicit material had been received and thus had reasonable access to the laptop with that material on it. In fact, the evidence of record supports the opposite conclusion; that the students had no such access to the laptop after the sexually explicit material had been received on it, so the opinions to the effect that her effectiveness has been seriously reduced cannot be accepted since they are based upon an invalid assumption. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from harmful conditions concerning learning or their mental health or physical safety. The Respondent tried to delete the material from her laptop, albeit unsuccessfully, prior to returning it to school, based upon what she knew at that time. She returned it to school thinking it was deleted when it was not. Nevertheless, her conduct after the computer was returned to her school prevented the students from gaining access to it since the computer was maintained in a locked storeroom, one building removed from the building where her classroom was located. Thus it was highly unlikely that the students would have access to the sexually explicit material on the computer. There is no evidence in the record that they did.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Commissioner of Education dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331 South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Meyer & Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educators Specialist Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue May Petitioner, Polk County School Board (Board), terminate the employment of Respondent, Stephen Brown, as an instructional employee based upon the conduct alleged in the letter from Assistant Superintendent Dennis F. Dunn, dated January 24, 2013, asserting that Mr. Brown engaged in serious misconduct, providing just cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Board employed Mr. Brown as a classroom teacher through a Professional Services Contract. By letter dated January 24, 2013, Assistant Superintendent Dennis Dunn advised Mr. Brown that Polk County School Superintendent John Stewart intended to recommend his termination to the Board for improper use of the "Board issued laptop computer due to pornography and sexually inappropriate images" found on the computer. Mr. Brown has been a teacher for 18 years. Ten of those years, including 2012, Mr. Brown taught at the Board's Inwood Elementary School (Inwood). This was not the first time the school took action against Mr. Brown. On March 31, 2011, Inwood Principal Amy Heiser-Meyers gave Mr. Brown a letter confirming a verbal warning that she gave him during a conference that day. The letter stated: When redirecting or addressing a student's behavior, refrain from getting into their face and also refrain from making inappropriate comments and actions that are disparaging and harmful to the student's mental health. As the authority figure in the classroom, it is not appropriate to use your body and physical proximity to intimidate the student. Your actions towards the student violated the Code of Ethics and The Principles of Professional Conduct of The Education Profession in Florida: State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 FAC (a)(e)[sic]. The letter also advised that the conference was a first step of the progressive discipline outlined in the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement and cautioned that further discipline, up to and including termination, might be imposed for additional "unacceptable behaviors." On April 23, 2012, Principal Heiser-Meyers delivered Mr. Brown a letter confirming a discussion during a conference that day. This letter was "not to be construed as disciplinary in nature, but rather as a letter of concern." It addressed the importance of meeting deadlines and processing paperwork, specifically not having student award certificates ready in time for a scheduled lunch awards presentation. In a June 6, 2012, letter, Ms. Heiser-Meyers confirmed a verbal warning that Mr. Brown violated "The Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida [sic] (a) Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. AND (e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." Principal Heiser-Meyers' letter stated that she conducted the conference "pursuant to Section 4.4-1 of the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement" and that it was the first step of progressive discipline outlined in that section. It also cautioned that continued "unacceptable behaviors" could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. On June 4, 2012, and on August 31, 2012, Mr. Brown signed the Board's Employee Equipment Use Contract for a laptop computer assigned to him. The contract included these conditions: I AGREE TO RETURN THE ABOVE EQUIPMENT IN THE SAME CONDITION IT WAS IN UPON CHECKOUT AND AGREE TO PAY FOR REPLACEMENT DUE TO LOSS OR DAMAGE BEYOND REPAIR THAT MAY OCCUR WHILE IT IS ASSIGNED TO ME. REPLACEMENT COST IS CONSIDERED THE COST TO PURCHASE NEW EQUIPMENT. I AGREE TO USE THE EQUIPMENT FOR SCHOOL BOARD PURPOSES ONLY, AND UNDERSTAND THAT I WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY OR DAMAGES CAUSED BY ANY INAPPROPRIATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THIS EQUIPMENT. I WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY REPAIRS RESULTING FROM NORMAL AND ORDINARY USE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT. Mr. Brown took his school-issued laptop computer home around November 30, 2012. He used it to search for information about cash advance loans he could obtain to repair his automobile. While Mr. Brown was searching for loan information, a red screen displaying the title "FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation" appeared. The screen advised that the computer had been locked and stated that Mr. Brown was subject to several federal criminal charges, including possession of child pornography and gambling, unless he paid $200.00 within 48 hours to a designated account. Mr. Brown shut down his computer. He tried restarting and shutting down the computer a few times to see if the message would go away and the computer would operate. Mr. Brown then called the FBI office to report the incident. The individual to whom Mr. Brown spoke told Mr. Brown that he was describing a frequently reported virus and that he would need professional help removing it. Mr. Brown took the laptop to the office supply store, Staples, the following day to obtain its virus removal service. He paid for the service and purchased an extended warranty for $199.00. Mr. Brown took the computer to Staples, instead of to the school's information technology office, because he thought that, since the virus appeared while he was using the computer for personal purposes, the terms of equipment-use contract made him responsible for repairs. Mr. Brown did not report the problem to the school's technology office. Staples was unable to service the computer for three days. When Staples did service the computer, it removed the virus. But the Staples technicians could not repair damage to the hard drive and replaced it. The technicians also re- configured the laptop's original hard drive as an external hard drive with Mr. Brown's documents and other files on it. While Mr. Brown's laptop awaited service at Staples, he tried to use the school computer of his colleague, Penny Humphrey. Ms. Humphrey reported his efforts to the school's computer network manager, Marilyn Layton. Ms. Layton reported the issue to the principal, who advised school board investigator Barry Marbutt that he was concerned Mr. Brown might have inappropriate material on his laptop. Mr. Marbutt interviewed Mr. Brown, who told him of the FBI virus and the repairs by Staples. Mr. Marbutt took Mr. Brown's laptop. Mr. Marbutt later learned from a Staples representative about the old hard drive being reconfigured as an external drive. He then obtained the external drive from Mr. Brown. Sid Lee, senior manager of the Board's electronic equipment repair and support department, examined Mr. Brown's laptop and software to determine if the computer held any inappropriate material. Mr. Lee did not conduct any tests or analyses to determine if Mr. Brown's report of a virus was accurate. The computer and associated external hard drive contained over 200 pornographic images, admitted as Exhibit 6. They were located at the address “D/Documents and Settings\stephen.brown\Local Settings/Temporary Internet Files\content.IE5," which is also referred to as the browser cache. The parties stipulate that the images are pornographic. Many of the images depict sexual violence. Many depict scenes with several participants, bound females, or hooded or masked participants. None of the images, or the identifiable sources for them, match data sets of known or suspected child pornography, including the DHS-ICE Child Exploitation Hash set and data sets obtained from the FBI, state, and local law enforcement agencies. All of the images are generated by small files. The size of the files is consistent with the images being either "popup" or "thumbnail" images. A "pop-up" is a pop-up window on a computer screen.1/ A "thumbnail" is "a miniature computer graphic sometimes hyperlinked to a full-size version" of an image.2/ The files occur in a few clusters in the Internet browser cache of the laptop. On July 19, 2012, approximately 113 of the pornographic images were among 171 images downloaded into the laptop's browser cache between 1:54:06 p.m. and 1:57:11 p.m., a period of three minutes and five seconds. This means that they downloaded extremely quickly. For instance, Exhibit 6 shows that at 1:56:23 p.m., four images downloaded. At 1:56:24 p.m., six images downloaded. The average download rate for the time period was 1.08 seconds per image. This rate is not consistent with a person manually browsing the Internet. Seven of the images are plainly advertisements for pornographic websites or DVDs. Twenty have watermarks on them depicting several different website addresses. During the July 19, 2012, time period, when the files were downloaded, there were no contemporaneous log-ins to other websites, such as to an email service, Facebook, bank accounts, or news sites. During the July 19, 2012, time period one or more pop-ups attempted unsuccessfully to download malicious software. The analysis of the computer, however, showed frequent log-ins to Facebook at other times and days. The typical pattern of computer users is to perform more than one function or go to more than one website when logging on to the internet. On August 20, 2013, a single pornographic video was downloaded. There were no contemporaneous log-ins to other websites, such as to an email service, Facebook, bank accounts, or news sites at the same time. On November 29, 2012, 225 image files were downloaded between 3:59:44 p.m. and 4:12:26 p.m., a period of 12 minutes and 42 seconds. This indicates that the images downloaded quickly, at an average rate of one image per 3.4 seconds. This rate is not consistent with a person manually browsing the internet. At least 101 of the images were pornographic. As with the July 19, 2012, time period, there were no contemporaneous log-ins to other websites at the same time. The images included 12 advertisements for penis enlargement techniques or substances and 14 advertisements for services facilitating sexual encounters with local females. There were also images with website address watermarks; but the watermarks are not legible. Staples technicians determined the laptop was infected with the malware virus, “Reveton," also known as the "FBI virus." The virus has the ability to start a computer, access the Internet, visit websites, and download images without the computer owner's knowledge or participation. Using these abilities, the virus's masters can and do remotely operate enterprises that include "click jacking" and "ransoms." In "click jacking," the virus causes the host computer to activate, log on to the Internet and quickly visit websites to click on advertisements, including pop-ups. This generates revenue for the site hosting the advertisement or pop-up, since compensation is by "click." In "ransoms" the virus locks up the computer and displays a message like the one Mr. Brown's laptop received demanding payment and threatening law enforcement action, unless the computer operator sends a payment in a manner and to a recipient described in the "ransom note." Several indicators make it as likely as not that the pornographic images found in the laptop's cache were downloaded as the result of the FBI virus, rather than any action by Mr. Brown. Those indicators are: (a) there were no contemporaneous log-ons to any other websites; (b) the rapid speed at which the images downloaded; c) the fact that all of the images were small "thumbnail" or "popup" sized files; (d) there was no evidence of full-sized image files; and (e) Mr. Brown in his testimony and during the investigation has consistently denied using the computer to access pornographic images. In addition, the fact that Mr. Brown contacted the FBI indicates lack of apprehension about the consequences of contacting law enforcement authorities. Mr. Brown's decision to seek assistance from Staples was reasonable in light of the District's strict equipment use policies and the fact that the problem occurred when Mr. Brown was using the computer for personal reasons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Polk County School Board, rescind the termination of Respondent, Stephen Brown, and award him back pay and full benefits for the period during which he was suspended, which began January 20, 2013, when Mr. Brown requested a hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 August, 2013.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's employment as a teacher with the Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla Stat (2004). At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Epstein was employed by the School Board as a music teacher at Twin Lakes Elementary, under a continuing contract with the School Board. Mr. Epstein was first employed by the School Board in a part-time position in February 1978. Mr. Epstein took a full- time teaching position at Twin Lakes Elementary in 1980, where he taught continuously until he was given an alternate work assignment in June 2003. Mr. Epstein has not previously been the subject of disciplinary action by the School Board. Mr. Epstein consistently received satisfactory annual evaluations during his employment at Twin Lakes Elementary. Although he did not receive an annual evaluation for the 2002- 2003 school year, he received a satisfactory observation during that year. In addition, Mr. Epstein was named Teacher-of-the- Year at Twin Lakes Elementary during the 1988-1989 school year.3 Mr. Epstein had daily access to a computer that was owned by the Miami-Dade County public school district and placed in his classroom. The classroom computers were to be used to develop instructional programs and to gather lesson materials from the Internet. Mr. Epstein and all of the teachers at Twin Lakes Elementary were required to read and adhere to the school district's Acceptable Use Policy for the Internet. Late in the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Epstein asked Jesus Vigo, a microsystems technician, to check his computer because Mr. Epstein could not access the Internet. Mr. Vigo checked the Internet history file to find out when Mr. Epstein had last accessed the Internet. In the history file on Mr. Epstein's classroom computer, Mr. Vigo found several addresses for pornography web sites. After he made certain that Mr. Epstein's computer was operating properly, Mr. Vigo reported to Michele Lam, the computer coordinator and media specialist at Twin Lakes Elementary, that he had found "questionable" web sites on Mr. Epstein's computer. Ms. Lam believed that Mr. Epstein had most likely visited these web sites accidentally, and she told Mr. Vigo not to tell anyone that he had found the addresses on Mr. Epstein's computer. Instead, Ms. Lam told Mr. Vigo that he should regularly monitor Mr. Epstein's computer. Mr. Vigo monitored Mr. Epstein's computer once a week, at random, for approximately four months, until he left his job at Twin Lakes Elementary. During this time, Mr. Vigo found no questionable web-site addresses in the Internet history on Mr. Epstein's computer. No one regularly monitored Mr. Epstein's computer after Mr. Vigo left Twin Lakes Elementary. A new microsystems technician, Pedro Valdes, began work at Twin Lakes Elementary in September 2002, and, in January 2003, new computers were installed in all the classrooms. These computers operated through the Miami-Dade County public school district's mainframe computer, and the software loaded onto the computers was approved by and licensed to the school district. The mainframe also had a filter that prohibited access to certain web sites from the school district's computers. In February 2003, Mr. Epstein complained to Ms. Lam that he was having problems with his computer. When Mr. Valdes tried to fix the computer, he found that several software programs had been loaded onto the computer. Mr. Epstein admitted that he had loaded Netscape, an Internet browser, so that he could access music sites that he could not access using the school district's Internet browser. Although he tried, Mr. Valdes was not able to fix Mr. Epstein's computer completely, and he moved on to other work. Finally, in April 2003, Mr. Valdes fixed Mr. Epstein's computer and made certain that all of the school district's software was working properly. In early May 2003, however, Mr. Epstein told Mr. Valdes that he could not get into his computer. Mr. Valdes examined the computer and, when he saw that the computer's recycle bin was full, he decided to empty it. When Mr. Valdes opened the recycle bin, he saw that there were several addresses for pornography web sites, as well as addresses for other types of web sites. When Mr. Valdes discovered these web-site addresses, Mr. Epstein admitted to Mr. Valdes that he had downloaded and viewed pornographic videos on the school district computer, in addition to using the computer's Internet access to locate and download information from music and instructional web sites. Mr. Epstein also admitted to Mr. Valdes that he had deliberately by-passed the school district's Internet filter in order to gain access to the pornographic material. Mr. Valdes told Mr. Epstein that he should not view such web sites on the school district's computer, but he agreed not to tell anyone about his discovery. Nonetheless, after he thought about it, Mr. Valdes felt obligated to report his discovery to Ms. Lam because he considered the matter so serious. Mr. Valdes was visibly upset when he told Ms. Lam about the pornography web site addresses. Ms. Lam and Mr. Valdes went to the office of Maria de Leon, the principal of Twin Lakes Elementary, and told her what Mr. Valdes had discovered on Mr. Epstein's computer. Ms. de Leon called Mr. Epstein to her office and, among other things, told him to cease using his classroom computer for any purpose. Mr. Epstein had been downloading pornography from the Internet and viewing pornographic videos in his classroom on the computer provided by the school district for approximately seven months prior to Mr. Valdes's discovery of the pornography web site addresses. Mr. Epstein knew that access to these pornography web sites was blocked by the filter on the school district's mainframe computer, which is the reason he devised a strategy for circumventing the filter. Mr. Epstein downloaded pornographic videos onto the school district's computer at night, during the workday when students were in his classroom, and during the workday when no students were in the classroom. Mr. Epstein always turned the computer monitor off when he was downloading pornography during class time, so that the students could not glance at his computer and see the material he was downloading. Mr. Epstein also hid the downloaded pornographic videos in folders hidden within other folders, so that it would not be obvious to a substitute teacher who logged onto his classroom computer that pornographic videos were stored in the computer. Mr. Epstein never viewed pornographic videos when students were in his classroom. He did, however, view the videos during the times of the school day when he was expected to plan and prepare lessons, and he also viewed these videos after the students had left school for the day, generally between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.4 Mr. Epstein viewed pornographic videos and masturbated in his classroom approximately 15 to 20 times during the spring of 2003, after the students had left school for the day but during the time he was expected to work on lesson plans. When he viewed pornographic videos and masturbated in his classroom, Mr. Epstein was careful to lock the classroom door.5 Mr. Epstein took precautions to conceal his activities because he knew that his activities violated School Board rules, and he also did not want the materials to be discovered by a student, a substitute teacher, or anyone else. Even though Mr. Epstein took care to see that his classroom door was locked when he viewed pornographic videos and masturbated in his classroom, there was a risk that he would be interrupted. The Twin Lakes Elementary custodial and administrative staff, including secretaries, had keys to all of the classrooms. Occasionally, a parent would return to school with a student who had left something in a classroom, and a school employee would escort the parent and student to the classroom and use his or her key to enter the classroom. The pornographic material that Mr. Epstein downloaded and viewed on his classroom computer did not involve children. It was, however, obscene, as defined by the School Board in its Acceptable Use Policy for the Internet.6 Ms. de Leon decided to try to keep information about Mr. Epstein's activities confidential because she was very concerned about the reaction of the parents of the children attending Twin Lakes Elementary and of the community as a whole. Ms. de Leon knew that many of the parents of the children attending Twin Lakes Elementary were conservative Catholics who were very protective of their children.7 Ms. de Leon believed that if news of Mr. Epstein's activities became known in the community, Twin Lakes Elementary "would have been in the first page of the [Miami] Herald for quite a long time."8 On May 6, 2003, the day Mr. Valdes discovered the pornography web-site addresses on Mr. Epstein's computer, Mr. Epstein went to Linda Van Leer, the assistant principal at Twin Lakes Elementary, and asked that she put him on the agenda for the faculty meeting scheduled for that afternoon. Ms. de Leon had, by this time, notified Ms. Van Leer of the situation involving Mr. Epstein and of her decision to limit knowledge of the matter to as few people as possible. Mr. Epstein told Ms. Van Leer that he intended to make a statement to the faculty to assure the faculty members that the pornography he downloaded and viewed did not involve children and that he never viewed pornography when students were in the classroom. Ms. Van Leer was as concerned as Ms. de Leon about the disruption at Twin Lakes Elementary if information about Mr. Epstein's activities became known in the community, and she also believed that Mr. Epstein did not appreciate the ramifications of his announcing his activities to the faculty. Ms. Van Leer denied Mr. Epstein's request to speak to the faculty and told him not to speak of the matter to anyone except Ms. de Leon. Ms. de Leon reported Mr. Epstein's activities to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools police on May 6, 2003, and the investigation was assigned to Bradley Rosh on May 13, 2003. Sergeant Rosh found Mr. Epstein very cooperative during the investigation, and Mr. Epstein prepared a statement in which he described the nature and extent of his activities. Sergeant Rosh submitted his preliminary investigation report on July 16, 2003, in which he concluded that the allegations that Mr. Epstein had violated the School Board's Acceptable Use Policy for the Internet and the responsibilities and duties of School Board employees were substantiated. The investigative report was sent to the Office of Professional Standards for final disposition. Reinaldo Benitez, a district director of the Miami- Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards, convened a Conference-for-the-Record on August 11, 2003, to discuss the investigative report and the charges against Mr. Epstein, to review his record, and to discuss his future employment status with the School Board. Mr. Benitez, Mr. Epstein, Ms. de Leon, and Marie Harrison, Business Director of ACCESS Center 1, participated in the Conference-for-the- Record. As reflected in the Summary of the Conference-for-the- Record dated August 22, 2003, the findings in the investigative report were discussed with Mr. Epstein, who admitted that he was guilty of the charge that he had downloaded pornographic videos into the school district's computer located in his classroom, that he was aware when he did so that he was violating School Board rules, and that he had used very poor judgment. Mr. Epstein apologized for his actions, and he requested that, if he were allowed to resume teaching, he be provided a computer without access to the Internet. According to the Summary of the Conference-for-the- Record, Mr. Epstein was assigned to an alternative work location at his home at the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year.9 As reflected in the Summary of the Conference-for-the- Record, Mr. Epstein was offered the option of submitting his resignation, which he refused. Directives were issued to Mr. Epstein at the Conference-for-the-Record, including a directive that he not visit Twin Lakes Elementary at any time. Mr. Epstein was also advised to "keep the information presented in this conference confidential and not to discuss this with any students or staff. Finally, Mr. Epstein was advised that, following a review by the School Board's attorneys, he would be notified of the recommended disciplinary action, which could include dismissal. On August 13, 2003, Ms. de Leon submitted her recommendation to Margarita Alemany-Moreno, Assistant Superintendent in ACCESS Center 1, that Mr. Epstein be terminated from his employment with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Ms. Alemany-Moreno sent this recommendation to Virginia Bradford, Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, with the concurrence of the staff of ACCESS Center 1. Mr. Benitez convened a meeting with Mr. Epstein on September 26, 2003, to address his pending dismissal by the School Board at its meeting on October 22, 2003. Ms. de Leon and Ms. Harrison were also in attendance. Mr. Benitez informed Mr. Epstein that the recommendation for his dismissal was based on charges of immorality, misconduct in office, and incompetency. Mr. Epstein was offered the option of resigning his position or pursuing disability retirement, which he declined. Mr. Epstein submitted a statement dated September 29, 2003, in response to the August 22, 2003, Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record. In this statement, Mr. Epstein did not withdraw his admission that he had downloaded and viewed pornographic videos on the school district's computer located in his classroom. The Superintendent of Schools notified Mr. Epstein in a letter dated October 8, 2003, that he was recommending to the School Board that Mr. Epstein be dismissed from his employment. The School Board suspended Mr. Epstein and initiated dismissal proceedings at its October 22, 2003, meeting. Mr. Epstein believes that he has had a sexual problem since he was a teenager, when he first became attracted to pornography. He began using the computer in his classroom to download and view pornography after his wife discovered pornography on their home computer. She became angry, and he decided to move his activities to his classroom computer in order to avoid further family conflict. Approximately three years ago, Mr. Epstein was diagnosed with a "sexual addiction," and he began sessions with a sexual therapist. Mr. Epstein attended four individual therapy sessions, but was released in December 2002. Mr. Epstein attended small group therapy sessions for approximately 12 weeks during the time he was seeing Mr. Gray, and he also attended weekly sessions of an "accountability recovery group" from March 2001 until December 2003, when he began working at the Sam Ashe music store. On September 15, 2003, Carlos Plasencia, a mental health counselor, examined Mr. Epstein and initially diagnosed Mr. Epstein with "sexual disorder not otherwise specified." Dr. Plasencia's diagnosis has evolved, and he now believes that Mr. Epstein's diagnosis is "impulse control disorder," with a sexual component.10 Mr. Epstein is in therapy with Dr. Plasencia, and, at the time of the final hearing, he had been taking Zoloft, an anti-depressant prescribed by a psychiatrist, for approximately two months.11 In Dr. Plasencia's opinion, Mr. Epstein's addiction to pornography began approximately 27 years ago, developed slowly over the course of 24 years, and progressed faster than usual over the course of the last two to three years." According to Dr. Plasencia, Mr. Epstein feels powerless to overcome the compulsion to view pornography; he has tried to stop this behavior and has been unable to do so, even though it has disrupted his family and, now, poses a threat to his job.12 In Dr. Plasencia's opinion, "[c]hances are very likely Mr. Epstein was preoccupied with the attainment of pornography while he was in school. I agree with that because he was viewing it in school and downloading it in school."13 Although Dr. Plasencia acknowledged that Mr. Epstein's addiction to pornography is a preoccupation that has significantly interfered with his life and the life of his wife and son, Dr. Plasencia does not consider Mr. Epstein emotionally unstable, in the sense that he does not have extremes in mood or behavior. Mr. Epstein has always been open during his therapy with Dr. Plasencia and has demonstrated a genuine desire to fix his problem. He has been motivated and has followed Dr. Plasencia's suggestions. Dr. Plasencia believes that Mr. Epstein's prognosis for recovery is good. Mr. Epstein considers himself a "recovering" sexual addict and explains his behavior at Twin Lakes Elementary in the spring of 2003 as a "relapse."14 Summary The evidence presented by the School Board establishes that Mr. Epstein has committed misconduct in office. Mr. Epstein admitted that he deliberately by-passed the Internet filter in the school district's mainframe computer and accessed pornography web sites on his classroom computer; that he downloaded pornographic videos onto his classroom computer while students were in the classroom, during planning periods when the students were in school but not in his classroom, and after the students were dismissed from school; that he viewed pornographic videos on the classroom computer during planning periods when the students were in school but not in his classroom and after the students were dismissed from school; and that he frequently masturbated in his classroom while he watched pornographic videos. Mr. Epstein admitted that he engaged in the activities described above for approximately seven months prior to May 2003, although the evidence presented by the School Board establishes that addresses for pornography web sites were found in Mr. Epstein's classroom computer as early as June 2002. The evidence establishes that Mr. Epstein took precautions such as turning off the computer monitor when downloading pornographic videos while children were in his classroom, hiding the computer folders containing the pornographic videos in other folders, and locking his classroom door when he viewed pornographic videos and masturbated. It may reasonably be inferred, however, that he took these precautions to keep his activities hidden from students and school personnel and not primarily to protect his students from harm. At the time he was committing these acts, Mr. Epstein knew his behavior violated School Board rules; he knew that he was exercising poor judgment; and he knew that, if he were discovered downloading and viewing pornographic videos and masturbating in his classroom, his job could be in jeopardy. By downloading and viewing pornographic videos on his classroom computer, Mr. Epstein violated the School Board's rule prohibiting the transmission of obscene material, and downloading and viewing pornographic videos on his classroom computer and masturbating in his classroom constitute conduct unacceptable in a School Board employee. Mr. Epstein viewed pornographic videos and masturbated during his workday rather than planning lessons and engaging in other pursuits that would enhance his abilities as a teacher. The School Board, therefore, paid Mr. Epstein for time during which he did not work. Mr. Epstein could not use his home computer to download and view pornography videos because he feared discovery and disruption of his family life, so he used the classroom computer provided by the school district to satisfy his compulsion to view pornographic videos. Downloading and viewing pornographic videos and masturbating may not be considered objectionable when done in the privacy of one's home; these acts are, however, not consistent with the public conscience and good morals when, as here, they are done in the public space of an elementary school classroom. Nonetheless, the evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Epstein's activities have become public knowledge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that Daniel J. Epstein committed misconduct in office and that he should be dismissed from his employment as a teacher pursuant to Section 1012.33(4)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 26th day of May, 2004.
