The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold a Florida educator’s certificate and who are alleged to have violated one or more provisions in section 1012.795 and implementing rules. Respondent holds Florida educator’s certificate 777352, covering the area of social science, which is valid through June 30, 2020. Prior to becoming a teacher, Respondent was in the military for 21 years, serving as a soldier and non-commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. Respondent describes himself as a “great leader,” a skill he believes he developed in the Army. Respondent was employed as a teacher for the Lee County School District (School District) beginning in 1998 or 1999.6/ He taught social science classes at Bonita Springs Middle School until 2009. A former student who attended that school between 2002 and 2004 spoke highly of Respondent as her teacher. That student has not been in a classroom with Respondent since 2004. Beginning in early 2005, Respondent’s record as a teacher at Bonita Springs Middle School became spotted with disciplinary measures being regularly taken against him. The matters for which Respondent was disciplined were similar, evidencing a pattern of inappropriate physical contact with students, angry outbursts, conflicts with principals, and inappropriate classroom conduct, including ridiculing, embarrassing, and yelling at students. In February 2005, at the request of the Bonita Springs Middle School principal, Respondent attended an in-service training on Anger Management and De-Escalation Training. Despite that training, between 2005 and 2009, Respondent received six letters of reprimand from three different principals and two different directors of the School District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (DPSE). The letters of reprimand were for incidents described as: pushing a student (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2005); inappropriate physical contact--putting his hands in the pants of a female student (letter of reprimand, September 27, 2005); shoving two students out of the classroom (letter of reprimand, March 2, 2006); shouting at students in the hallway in a very harsh and loud tone (letter of reprimand, September 22, 2006); exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement (letter of reprimand, August 6, 2009); and kicking three students out of class, and yelling at the remaining students in the classroom, “You all are a bunch of idiots” (letter of reprimand, October 26, 2009). On December 8, 2009, Respondent was involved in another incident with a student, E.C., who was a seventh-grade female. Respondent had sent E.C. to a neighboring classroom, connected to his classroom by a vacant office. When E.C. tried to return to Respondent’s classroom through the vacant office to retrieve her things, Respondent stopped her and told her to return to the other classroom. E.C. was determined to get her things and disobeyed Respondent. When she tried to go around him to go back into his classroom, Respondent put his hand on her shoulder in an attempt to stop her. E.C. told him: “Don’t touch me.” She retrieved her things from Respondent’s classroom and then returned to the other classroom where Respondent had sent her. At that point, Respondent called the office for assistance. The District’s DPSE immediately began an investigation. Respondent was suspended from teaching with pay and benefits as of December 9, 2009, pending completion of the investigation. Following the investigation and a predetermination conference, the School District’s superintendent filed a Petition for Termination, alleging that Respondent was guilty of misconduct and other violations in connection with the incident on December 8, 2009. Respondent, represented by counsel, requested an administrative hearing to contest the proposed termination. Beginning March 9, 2010, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay pending resolution of the administrative proceeding. A DOAH evidentiary hearing was held on July 14, 2010. The resulting Recommended Order found Respondent guilty of misconduct and some of the other charged violations. The recommended penalty was suspension without pay from March 9, 2010, through January 1, 2011. The Recommended Order’s findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommended penalty were adopted in a Lee County School Board Final Order rendered November 2, 2010. Lee County School Board v. Joseph Cofield, Case No. 10-1654 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2010; Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd. Nov. 2, 2010) (2010 Suspension Order). Detailed findings of fact were made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding the history of disciplinary action taken against Respondent from 2005 through 2009, which went uncontested by Respondent through the grievance process available to dispute disciplinary action. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 3-7. The findings also describe the repeated warnings given to Respondent in the numerous letters of reprimand, which went unheeded; Respondent continued to engage in the same types of inappropriate behavior, despite the discipline and the warnings. Findings were also made in the 2010 Suspension Order regarding Respondent’s positive contributions as a teacher during the same time span as his patterned inappropriate behavior. These included: being honored in 2005 as Wal-Mart Teacher of the Year; being honored by Florida Gulf Coast University as College Reachout Program Coordinator of the Year; participating in a conference in January 2009 to discuss the Troops to Teachers Program; coordinating a computer give-away program in conjunction with a community organization that presented computers to Bonita Spring Middle School; and achieving success in Cadet and College Reachout Programs. See 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 11-12. The 2010 Suspension Order concluded as follows: The School Board did establish that Mr. Cofield placed his hand on a student’s shoulder without the permission of the student. Mr. Cofield has been warned and disciplined in the past for placing his hands on students without the student’s permission. Mr. Cofield chose not to heed those warnings. Mr. Cofield argues that placing his hand on E.C. was reasonable force needed to control his classroom. This argument is without merit. Mr. Cofield did not need to put his hand on E.C.; he could call the office for assistance. The School Board has established that Mr. Cofield’s conduct constitutes misconduct[.] * * * Mr. Cofield has performed outstanding work with the various programs designed to assist students, such as the computer give-away program, the Cadet program, and the College Reachout Program. This work mitigates against termination. However, placing a hand on a student without justification warrants a serious disciplinary action. 2010 Suspension Order, RO at 14-15. Respondent did not appeal the 2010 Suspension Order. Its findings, officially recognized herein, establish the backdrop of Respondent’s significant track record of discipline, and of the repeated warnings given in connection with disciplinary measures, from 2005 through 2009. No contrary evidence was offered. In October 2010, just before the School Board rendered the 2010 Suspension Order, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent (2010 Complaint), seeking to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s educator’s certificate. The 2010 Complaint set forth Respondent’s “history of discipline related to conduct with students,” listing in summary fashion much of the same disciplinary history detailed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s disciplinary history set forth in the 2010 Complaint was as follows: On or about March 2, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal related to pushing [a] student. On or about September 27, 2005, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal resulting from allegations that Respondent put [his] hand into [a] student’s front pocket. On or about September 25, 2006, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for yelling at Cadets in a loud and harsh manner. On or about October 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal for, among other things, Respondent’s confrontational behavior towards [the] principal. On or about October 28, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Reprimand from [the] principal relating to conduct with students. On or about December 9, 2009, Respondent received a Letter of Suspension from [the] principal related to allegations of [a] physical assault on a student. 2010 Complaint at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1). The 2010 Complaint added allegations of other incidents of inappropriate conduct by Respondent during the 2008-2009 school year, including the following: Respondent called students embarrassing names such as “knucklehead” and “fruitcake.” Respondent looked at female students in a manner that made the students feel uncomfortable and self conscious. Respondent threatened students telling them, “I will cut your fingers off,” or “I’ll smash your head into a wall,” or words to that effect. 2010 Complaint at 2 (Pet. Exh. 1). Respondent, represented by counsel, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the charges in the 2010 Complaint, rather than contest them in an administrative hearing. Respondent signed the agreement on April 28, 2011. Pertinent terms of the settlement agreement were: Respondent neither admits nor denies, but elects not to contest the allegations set forth in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. Respondent agrees to accept a letter of reprimand, a copy of which shall be placed in his certificate file with the Department of Education and a copy of which shall be placed in his personnel file with the employing school district. Respondent agrees that he shall be placed on probation for a period of two (2) employment years. . . . As conditions of probation, Respondent: * * * shall, within the first year of probation, take a 3-credit hour college level course in the area of Classroom Management. . . . shall violate no law and fully comply with all district school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 [transferred to rule 10A-1.081 in January 2013; see endnote 2]; and shall satisfactorily perform his duties in a competent, professional manner. * * * In the event Respondent fails to comply with each condition set forth herein, he agrees that the Petitioner shall be authorized to file an Administrative Complaint based upon the violation of the terms of this Settlement Agreement. Settlement Agreement at 1-2 (Pet. Exh. 1). By Final Order rendered on August 9, 2011, attaching and incorporating the 2010 Complaint and settlement agreement, the EPC accepted the settlement agreement and ordered Respondent to comply with its terms. Respondent did not appeal. Respondent was on probation, and subject to the specific probation conditions imposed by the EPC Final Order, for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. Meanwhile, Respondent completed the term of his suspension from teaching without pay imposed by the School Board’s 2010 Suspension Order on January 1, 2011; he was allowed to return to work on January 3, 2011. Respondent was not asked to return to teach at his former school, Bonita Springs Middle School. Instead, he was offered a teaching position at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The ALC principal, Ken Burns, was told to make a spot for Respondent to teach there, and he did. Respondent accepted the teaching position at ALC. He taught eighth grade social studies. ALC is an alternative school. Students are sent to ALC because they are having problems at other schools. Principal Burns describes the ALC students as kids who made bad decisions, but who are not bad kids. These students can present challenges for teachers and administrators. In classrooms, sometimes these students do not act properly. They can be disruptive. The teachers are responsible for managing their classrooms properly, in accordance with standards set by Florida law and regulations, and School District policies. Principal Burns described some of the methods used at ALC to deal with problems in the classroom. One tool in place is called Team Time Out. Specific teachers are scheduled to be in charge of Team Time Out for a period of time. If a student is getting unruly in a classroom, the teacher can send the student to the designated teacher in charge of Team Time Out. The student is allowed to cool down before returning to class. Another tool used is a regular Time-Out Room. If a student is disrupting a class, the teacher might send the student to the Time-Out Room, where the student can work on assignments. Regardless of the student problem being confronted, each teacher is expected to abide by the code of conduct established for the education profession. Rather than violate those conduct standards, if the teacher cannot otherwise handle a student problem, the teacher is expected to call administration or security for assistance. On November 30, 2012, while on his EPC-imposed probation, Respondent received a letter of warning, which is a form of disciplinary action, from the ALC principal. As described in the warning letter, a student reported that Respondent pushed the student out the door during a fire drill, and that the push nearly caused the student to fall. The incident described in the letter of warning is similar to the long list of prior incidents for which Respondent was disciplined and about which Respondent was repeatedly warned, including the incident for which Respondent had recently served a suspension without pay for nearly ten months. The November 30, 2012, letter of warning ended with a yet another reminder “to assist in correcting this conduct,” providing as follows: “From this point forward, please remember at no point should a student be physically touched. If you are having an issue with a student please notify the administration or security for immediate assistance.” Very shortly after that incident, the ALC principal received other complaints about Respondent’s behavior with students and his classroom temperament. The complaints came not just from students, but also from a paraprofessional (teacher’s aide) who was concerned about Respondent’s behavior that she had observed when she was in his classroom. The ALC principal consulted with the School District’s DPSE, collected statements from the paraprofessional and students, and passed on the information to the DPSE. By letter dated January 11, 2013, Respondent was informed that the DPSE was conducting an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Because the allegations involved issues of student safety, the notification letter informed Respondent that he was suspended from teaching with pay during the investigation. Andrew Brown, then-investigator for the DPSE, conducted the investigation of alleged incidents involving Respondent in December 2012 and January 2013, and prepared an investigative report. The complaints that were investigated were summarized in the report as follows: On or about December 20, 2012 (just before Winter Break), Mr. Cofield allegedly slammed a student’s fingers between the student’s desk and a binder the student was holding. In a separate incident [on] December 19, 2012, Mr. Cofield allegedly threatened a student by grabbing and holding a keyboard in a threatening manner. He allegedly slammed a door behind the same student as the student was leaving the room, making contact with the student’s arm. In a third incident [on] 1/8/12 [sic: 2013], Mr. Cofield allegedly embarrassed students by asking each one to sit separately on a stool at the front of the room and answer the question, “Do you have a teacher’s license?” before sending the same students out of the class. The investigative report noted that Respondent was “on probation” with the EPC “for similar allegations and conduct.” A predetermination conference was held on January 30, 2013, to allow Respondent to respond to the investigation findings and add any information he would want considered. Respondent was represented by union counsel at that conference. By letter dated February 5, 2013, Respondent was informed that the School District found probable cause for disciplinary action based on the allegations of misconduct investigated, and would be recommending termination of his employment.7/ As was done in 2009, the terms of Respondent’s suspension were changed to without pay, as of February 6, 2013. Before the School District could proceed with a Petition for Termination, Respondent submitted a letter of resignation on March 12, 2013. Respondent has disputed Petitioner’s contention that the resignation was in lieu of termination. When Respondent was deposed, he testified that he wrote his resignation letter to explain that this was a stressful situation for him. However, the letter makes no mention of a stressful situation. It simply reports that Respondent was taking the time for pursuit of higher education, to complete a master of arts degree and then seek a doctorate degree, and that Respondent had concluded: “I feel that it is time to resign in my career as a classroom teacher. I will peruse other opportunities that will be open to me as a result of obtaining my new graduate education.” Respondent testified that he did not think he had already been suspended from teaching when he resigned, and he thought he was still being paid. Contrary to Respondent’s recollection, he had not been teaching for nearly two months, having been suspended on January 14, 2013. He resigned six weeks after being confronted with the details of the DPSE’s investigation in a predetermination conference, and five weeks after he received a letter informing him that probable cause had been found and the recommendation would be made to terminate his employment. He had not been paid for five weeks when he submitted his letter of resignation. A fair inference from the timing is that he chose to resign when he did to avoid being terminated from employment and/or having to contest the charges in another administrative hearing. Pursuant to section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes, even though Respondent had resigned, the School District was required to report the alleged misconduct to the Department of Education, which then conducted its own investigation. Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on March 9, 2015, and an Amended Administrative Complaint on December 3, 2015. The specific incidents alleged in both versions of the complaint, are as follows: On or about December 19, 2012, Respondent grabbed a keyboard from a computer being used by R.T., a fourteen year old, male student. Respondent held the keyboard over the head while glaring at R.T. and in a manner that made the student believe Respondent was about to hit him with the keyboard. On or about December 20, 2012, Respondent became angered when C.G., a thirteen year old, male student, tapped on his binder repeatedly. Respondent slammed C.G.’s binder with force, bringing the binder down on C.G.’s fingers causing pain to C.G. Respondent then threw C.G.’s binder in the trash. On or about January 7, 2013, Respondent called students in his class to the front of the room and individually asked them, in front of the class, if they had a license to teach. Respondent disputed the first allegation of a keyboard incident; Respondent admitted parts of the second allegation of a binder incident, while denying part of the allegation; and Respondent admitted the third allegation. No non-hearsay evidence was presented to prove the allegations regarding a computer keyboard incident on December 19, 2012. The student, R.T., did not testify; no other students or other eyewitnesses testified; and Respondent denied the allegations. R.T. provided a written statement about the incident, which is in evidence, but that statement is hearsay and cannot be used as the sole basis for a finding of fact. Petitioner did not argue that R.T.’s statement would be admissible over objection in a civil action, and the statement does not supplement or explain any non-hearsay evidence. Respondent admitted parts of the allegations regarding a binder incident on December 20, 2012. Respondent acknowledged that a student in his classroom, C.G., was tapping on, flipping, or otherwise playing with a notebook or binder when the class was supposed to be taking a test. Respondent admitted that he took the binder out of the student’s hands, and threw the binder across the room into the garbage can. As he testified: A: If there is a kid sitting in my classroom after I’ve given instructions of what to do and they still banging on a desk, yes, I have the right to go remove this noise away from these students that are trying to get ahead. If there is something wrong with that I don’t need to be in a classroom. Q: And throw this in the trash can? A: Sir, when I took -- as my statement says, I took the binder away from the child and I threw it across the classroom. If it went in the garbage can, sir, it went in the garbage can. I don’t -- I didn’t pay attention to where it went at. I stopped the negative behavior going on in my classroom. Q: So now your testimony is you took it and threw it across the classroom? A: Sir, I took the instrument away from the student and it went in the garbage can. Q: . . . [T]ell us what you told them at your predetermination conference. Didn’t you say you put it in the garbage? A: No, I put the binder in the garbage, that’s what it states. But we clearly know that that’s not . . . [t]here’s nothing false about that. What it means is the binder left the student’s desk and wound up in the garbage can. Q: It didn’t wind up there, you put it there, right? A: Yes sir, I put it there. (Tr. 131-132). In his deposition testimony, Respondent more clearly acknowledged that he intended to throw the student’s binder in the garbage can; he did not equivocate as he did at hearing: Q: Then you didn’t walk over to the trash can and, in a Frisbee-type manner, throw the binder into the trash can? A: Oh, I most definitely put it in the garbage can, sir. Q: You did? A: Yes sir, I did. Q: All right. Why did you do that? A: Because the student was disrupting – or, I mean, was interrupting a test environment. Q: Okay. A: and that – and that instrument was the thing that was causing all of that disturbment [sic]. (Pet. Exh. 11 at 39-40). The facts regarding this binder incident that were admitted by Respondent were supplemented and explained by a number of written witness statements by students who were present, including C.G. These statements confirm that Respondent got angry because of C.G.’s toying with his binder, and that Respondent snatched the binder out of C.G.’s hands, and then either went across the room and then tossed it Frisbee-style into the garbage can or tossed the binder Frisbee-style across the room where it landed in the garbage can. While Respondent may have had good reason to stop C.G. from disrupting the classroom, the manner in which he went about it was inappropriate and contrary to the repeated warnings he had been given over the prior seven years by no less than four different principals (including, most recently, the ALC principal) to avoid any physical contact with students. See 2010 Suspension Order (detailing past disciplinary warnings and identifying principals issuing them). Respondent did not admit to having smashed the binder down on C.G.’s hand before snatching it away from C.G., and there was no independent non-hearsay evidence to prove that aspect of the allegation. Nonetheless, Respondent’s admissions establish that he took C.G.’s binder away while C.G. was tapping on it, flipping the cover, or otherwise playing with it, as the means Respondent chose to stop C.G. from playing with his binder. The only reasonable inference is that Respondent forcibly removed the binder while at least one of C.G.’s hands was on, in, or under the binder--an inappropriate physical contact. Respondent’s explanation that he did this because the binder was the instrument being used to cause disruption is insufficient to justify the inappropriate physical contact that had to occur to remove the binder from C.G. while he was playing with it. Respondent’s additional acts of tossing C.G.’s binder like it was a Frisbee and throwing the binder in the garbage can were inappropriate responses that went well beyond the claimed objective of stopping the disturbance. These actions can only be explained as displays of anger, presumably because C.G. did not listen to Respondent’s instructions to stop playing with the binder. If Respondent were genuinely concerned only with stopping the disruptive behavior, he would not have reacted by causing an even greater disturbance by tossing the binder like a Frisbee into the garbage can. Instead, he would have, and should have, dealt appropriately with C.G. Moreover, it was irresponsible for Respondent to throw the binder in the garbage can, after he had wrested the binder away from C.G. The binder could have contained important schoolwork for Respondent’s class or another class. Despite being on probation for a string of similar incidents, despite having been suspended from teaching for nearly ten months for a similar incident, and despite having just received a letter of warning three weeks earlier, Respondent failed to heed the repeated warnings that if he had an issue with a student, he should contact security or administration for immediate assistance rather than inappropriately attempting to “control” the situation by making contact with the student. The evidence was clear and convincing that in this binder incident, Respondent did not act with the calm, professional demeanor expected of a teacher who is able to deal appropriately with a student disrupting the classroom by playing with a binder. Instead, Respondent acted inappropriately with a temper that made an all-too-regular appearance in the classroom. The ALC principal described Respondent as having a temper that would turn on and off like a switch. His testimony was credible and is credited. Ms. Lewis, the paraprofessional who spent time working in Respondent’s classroom during the 2012-2013 school year, observed the same thing: Respondent had a temper that greatly affected his classroom conduct. Set off by minor incidents of students talking or not listening, Respondent would get angry, yell at the students, use profanity (not the “f” word, but somewhat milder words),8/ and act in volatile ways, such as tossing text books so that they would slide on a table and stop just before they hit students. Respondent’s unpredictable outbursts caused concern for the students’ safety; sometimes when Respondent got angry, he would clench and shake his fists, trembling as if he was about to strike out. Respondent’s classroom temperament was unlike anything the paraprofessional observed from any other teacher in the other ALC classrooms where she also worked. While Respondent’s temper and classroom temperament, as described by the ALC principal and paraprofessional, were not set forth as the subjects of separate charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint, they tend to support the findings above that Respondent’s admitted conduct on December 20, 2012, was inappropriate, just as they undermine Respondent’s claimed justification. Respondent’s temper and lack of control also were on display on several occasions during the course of the hearing, adding even more credence to the findings. He raised his voice and got agitated while giving his sworn statement. He also accused the undersigned of having “belittled” him, without explanation as to why he said that. (Tr. 105). Respondent also admitted the third allegation describing his classroom conduct on January 7, 2013: Q: Did you do that on January -- on or about January 7, 2013, did you bring students up to the front of the class and ask them, “Do you have a license to teach?” A: I most – yes I did, sir. Q: All right. Good. So that, you admit? A: I clearly admit that, yes. Q: All right, good. A: And I –- and I will challenge anybody that -- that's in my classroom that’s trying to disrupt the class that don’t have a teaching license. (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 46). Respondent acknowledged to having engaged in that conduct on other occasions--indeed, as a matter of course: “I can guarantee you that I have asked all of my students over many periods of time do they have a license, because I’m the only person in that classroom with a teacher’s license.” (Pet. Exh. 11, p. 45). The paraprofessional working in Respondent’s classroom was an eyewitness to this conduct, which she described as very demeaning and embarrassing for the students. Respondent’s admissions and the paraprofessional’s eyewitness observations are corroborated by numerous written statements by students subjected to this conduct. Respondent sought to justify his conduct as legitimate teaching strategy. As he tried to explain it: It’s effective classroom management. If you have a bunch of students that do not have the ability to stop stopping their behavior, you have to ask them before you take them away from the classroom do they know what they’re doing. If the answer is yes, I know what I’m doing, then you need to send them out. If the person says no, I have no idea what I’m doing you need to work with that student until that student understands what is wrong with that behavior that you want to correct. (Tr. 129-130). Respondent’s explanation for his conduct does not square with his actual conduct. He is not being accused of asking unruly students whether they know what they are doing and then working with those students to correct their misbehavior. Instead, he is accused of demeaning these young teenaged students by isolating them one at a time at the front of the room, and requiring them to face their peers and announce that they are not licensed to teach, so that Respondent can remind them that he is superior. This has nothing to do with addressing unruly or disruptive behavior, questioning that behavior, or attempting to correct that behavior. Instead, Respondent dealt with disruptive students by belittling them, embarrassing them, and reminding them that he is better than them. As the ALC principal confirmed, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent’s conduct as any form of legitimate teaching strategy. Instead, this is inappropriate conduct for a teacher. Respondent offered little by way of specific evidence in his defense. Instead, at times he claimed to not recall anything about his disciplinary track record, or about the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.9/ He repeatedly challenged Petitioner to produce video evidence of the incidents, but never proved that any video evidence existed. If there had been video evidence, it would have been in the possession of the School District, but no video is identified in the investigative report as would be expected if it existed. Respondent could have taken steps to compel the production of any such evidence by the School District, but he did not. Respondent’s other defense was to attempt to challenge the credibility of Petitioner’s witnesses. These efforts were ineffective. Respondent made general sweeping statements that he was “shocked” by the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses, which he repeatedly characterized as filled with lies, without proof of that characterization. Other than those broad generalizations, no specifics came to light as to why the testimony of Petitioner’s witnesses should not be believed. Respondent argued in his opening statement that the ALC principal “has seemed to have an axe to grind and has been on the greatest witch hunt to railroad a great educator.” (Tr. 17). That charge was wholly unsubstantiated. Instead, the ALC principal recognized the same pattern of behavior evident since 2005 when Respondent was first required to take anger management training by a former Bonita Springs Middle School principal. Respondent proclaimed himself a great leader while offering his view that with one exception, none of the principals he worked for in Lee County were good leaders. It is worth noting that according to the 2010 Suspension Order, the “one great principal” Respondent identified (Tr. 113) was the principal who had Respondent undergo anger management training in early 2005, and who issued Respondent’s first letter of reprimand for pushing a student. To the extent Respondent attempted to blame his disciplinary history and the allegations he is now facing on his principals, rather than excusing or explaining the conduct for which he was disciplined and for which he is subject to discipline in this proceeding, the impression given is that Respondent has had difficulty accepting the subordinate role of teacher vis-à-vis principal. Indeed, Respondent admitted that he “did tell the principal the one that write down these false things against me, I could do your job just as well as you can do it. And maybe that offend some people. . . .” (Tr. 115). Respondent also attempted to discount the significance of the EPC Final Order by alluding to various medical problems he was experiencing that caused him to enter into a settlement agreement, even though he claimed the charges were not true. Respondent offered no evidence to substantiate his claims, but stated generally that he “had just got over having a kidney removed” and that he “had prostate cancer.” He also said that he had taken his wife’s money to fight the allegations, and agreed to the settlement so he could get back to work. (Tr. 111). Notwithstanding Respondent’s testimony, the EPC Final Order cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. Respondent accepted the terms of that Final Order, and knew full well that he was required to comply with the probation conditions or face more discipline for violating the terms of his probation. Respondent also claimed that he was set up for failure by being assigned to ALC, which was more than one hour away from his home instead of the ten-minute commute he enjoyed when teaching at the school where he earned a lengthy suspension, after a string of six letters of reprimand. Respondent did not contest the assignment, but accepted the teaching position at ALC. Respondent’s school assignment may have been a matter he could have raised in a grievance proceeding, but it is not a matter that explains his inappropriate conduct while teaching there, especially knowing he was on probation. Finally, in a seeming admission that his temper was erratic and his behavior volatile while he was teaching at ALC, Respondent testified that he was undergoing radiation treatment for prostate cancer, and that anybody undergoing that treatment “would have such mood swings some times.” Yet in the next breath, he said: “But it never affected my effectiveness in my classroom.” (Tr. 112). In his predetermination conference in which Respondent was informed of the investigation findings and allowed to respond to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent did not mention that he had been undergoing treatment that may have affected his behavior or his classroom conduct. If this was a legitimate reason that might explain or excuse, even in part, Respondent’s conduct in December 2012 and January 2013 that was the subject of the School District’s investigation, surely Respondent would have shared information about his treatment and how it might have affected him in a conference to determine if there was probable cause to proceed to terminate his employment. Without more to substantiate the relevance of any medical conditions, treatment, or other external factors alluded to by Respondent, including specifics as to the timing of such matters, they cannot excuse or explain Respondent’s improper conduct as found above. As in the administrative hearing that resulted in the 2010 Suspension Order, Respondent offered evidence of his positive contributions as a teacher, as mitigating evidence to consider in imposing discipline. However, most of Respondent’s evidence is old, pre-dating Respondent’s suspension, and in fact, duplicating the evidence of Respondent’s contributions, honors, and achievements considered and addressed in the 2010 Suspension Order. Respondent’s contributions and achievements in 2009 and earlier years were expressly credited as mitigating against a harsher result in the 2010 Suspension Order for his misconduct committed during the same timeframe as the contributions. Having already enjoyed the mitigating benefit of his pre-2010 achievements, honors, and contributions to lessen the consequences of his pre-2010 misconduct, Respondent’s older achievements are not considered again in this proceeding in mitigation of the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s post- suspension improper conduct. Respondent presented evidence that after he returned to teaching when his suspension was completed, he continued his participation in the computer give-away program, working with a community computer club sponsoring free laptop computers for selected students who wrote an essay explaining how they would benefit from a laptop. Respondent provided one such essay submitted by an ALC student. Respondent’s continued involvement in the computer give-away program while at ALC was a positive contribution for at least one ALC student who participated. The other post-suspension evidence offered by Respondent shows that he is bettering himself by pursuing higher education, obtaining an additional degree and a certificate, as he stated he would do in his March 2013 resignation letter when he stopped teaching. These are positive contributions by Respondent, but cannot be considered contributions by Respondent as an educator to mitigate the penalty imposed for Respondent’s improper conduct as an educator. Respondent has not worked as a teacher since he submitted his resignation letter to the School District in March 2013, but he has been pursuing the higher education described in that letter. It is unclear whether Respondent would otherwise be seeking work as a classroom teacher pursuant to his educator’s certificate. Petitioner’s witness for the School District testified that he could not imagine that the School District would consider hiring Respondent back to teach there. The ALC principal echoed that sentiment. The principal would be concerned because it is his job to make sure the school is safe for all students. He would not want Respondent back in a teaching role at his school because of his track record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 10A-1.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(p); Finding Respondent not guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(g); and Revoking Respondent’s educator’s certificate no. 777352 for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 August, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner under a continuing contract. The Respondent, Muriel Johnson Krueger, holds Florida teaching certificate number #0367469 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering grades K through 6. The Respondent is also certified in Florida for administration and supervision, grades K through 12. She also holds a Wisconsin teaching certificate. The Respondent taught in Wisconsin for a number of years; she taught in a one-room school house, grades 1 through 5. She began teaching in Florida in 1974 at Brooksville Primary School in Hernando County, where she taught first grade for two years. She next taught first grade at Moton School Center (Moton) also in Hernando County, for four years. She received her continuing contract in 1977. In 1979, the Respondent was appointed primary specialist at Moton; she held that position until August, 1985. As primary specialist, the Respondent was not assigned to a classroom; she worked primarily with teachers and teachers' aides. She was not responsible for drawing up lesson plans, recording grades, or developing pacing schedules, as those procedures are used in the ordinary classroom. The Respondent received favorable evaluations throughout her career in the Hernando County school system, until January, 1986. However, Respondent has never received an evaluation of her performance which would support her dismissal. In March, 1985, the Respondent was diagnosed as having certain physical and psychological problems, including diabetes and atypical psychosis. The Respondent's medical conditions, including the details regarding her psychological illness, were reported to the school system by the Respondent's doctors, Dr. Renee Haney, a psychiatrist and Dr. Joanne Pegg- McNab., a psychologist. In August, 1985, two days prior to the commencement of the school year, the Respondent was notified by the Petitioner that she would be teaching third grade at Spring Hill Elementary School (Spring Hill) during the 1985-86 school year. Previously, the Respondent had been given to understand, based on representations made to her by school administrators, that she would be teaching second grade in 1985-1986. The Respondent had prepared materials for the teaching of second grade, which she was unable to use in teaching third grade. Louise Ross, principal of Spring Hill, was aware that Respondent had not been a classroom teacher for at least four years prior to Respondent coming to Spring Hill in August, 1985. Ross was aware of Respondent's treatment for psychological illness. Prior to the students' return, the Respondent worked one week at Spring Hill. During that period, Respondent attended general meetings, and although Respondent received a packet of material during this period, it did not contain any specific instruction in regard to preparing lesson plans, grading or pacing. Respondent received specific written instruction regarding the recording of grades and pacing at a later date. Respondent did not receive any specific verbal or written instructions from Ross or any other person respecting the procedures in effect at Spring Hill in regard to grading and pacing until the memorandums of September 24, 1985 and November 19, 1985 from Ross concerning grades and pacing, and the December 16, 1985 letter to Respondent from Ross setting forth Ross' concerns about Respondent's procedures in grading, pacing, and lesson plan preparation that were covered in the meeting between Ross and Respondent on December 16, 1985. On September 24, 1985, approximately one month after school opened on August 22, 1985, Ross issued a memorandum regarding the number of grades to be recorded for each subject, and the procedure for recording the grades. On November 19, 1985 Ross issued a memorandum regarding the Ginn Reading Program (pacing student in reading). Both the memorandum and the chart attached pointed out it was a "guide" and that the primary concern was for the student to master the material. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent received this memorandum prior to returning to work on December 16, 1985. No documents concerning the pacing in other subjects were issued to Respondent. Pacing involves setting a pace for the teacher and the student to cover the required material in a set time and yet allow the student to master the subject matter. The failure to properly pace a class usually results in the student requiring remediation in the subject matter. Although Ross collected and reviewed Respondent's lesson plan books during the beginning of the school year and prior to Respondent going on sick leave in November, 1985, Ross did not make any suggestions or criticisms concerning pacing because when she checked the lesson plan books Ross found them sufficient. Respondent was aware of the requirement of preparing lesson plans in advance, but at Moton, where she had previously taught, the requirement was to prepare three days of lesson plans in advance, not five days as was required at Spring Hill. Spring Hill required lesson plans to be ready on the Friday immediately prior to week of the lesson plans, but Ross had allowed teachers to prepare lesson plans over the week-end for the following week. Respondent was absent from school beginning November 20, 1985 through December 16, 1985 on approved sick leave. Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans and leave them for her substitute. Respondent's illness prevented her from preparing lesson plans for the period beginning November 25, 1985 and up until Respondent returned on December 16, 1985. However, the lesson plans for November 20, 21 and 22, 1985 should have been prepared prior to Respondent's illness. On December 16, 1985, the day Respondent returned from sick leave, Ross held a meeting with Respondent to advise her of certain changes in performance expected by Ross. The expected changes were the result of Ross reviewing Respondent's grade book and determining that the grades were not recorded in accordance with the September 24, 1985 memorandum, and reviewing Respondent's lesson plan books and determining that Respondent's class (an average class) was ahead of the top class in the third grade in reading and math. Respondent was advised of how to effect the changes and that compliance was expected by the beginning of the second semester. Although Respondent's third grade class was ahead of other third grade classes during the period of school prior to December 16, 1985, the student's mastery of the subject matter covered during this period was within an acceptable range, and remediation was normal. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until the Respondent took leave on March 12, 1987, the Respondent's pacing of her students was in accordance with school policy. Respondent's grade books may have shed some light on whether Respondent had properly recorded the student's grades but the grade books were not introduced into evidence. Prior to taking sick leave on November 20, 1985, the Respondent had, in addition to those grades recorded in her grade, recorded grades on sheets of paper in the back of her grade book contrary to the instructions given in the September 24, 1985 memorandum from Ross. However, Ross permitted the Respondent to record these grades in her grade book at a later time. Without knowing that it was against school policy, Respondent allowed her aides to record grades in her grade book. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until she took leave on March 12, 1986, the Respondent's recording of grades in her grade books was in substantial compliance with school policy. Although Respondent did not totally comply with the December 16, 1985 memorandum from Ross, her compliance with the memorandum satisfied Sonia Terrelonge, the third grade chairperson, who Ross had assigned the duty of working with Respondent to bring about compliance with the memorandum. Ross did not check Respondent's plan book or grade book on a regular basis as she had indicated in her memorandum of December 16, 1985 but delegated that responsibility to Terrelonge. On March 7, 1986, Respondent escorted her students to Terrelonge's portable classroom to see a movie and, since Respondent had detention duty, she picked up the students from other third grade classes on detention and returned to her portable classroom. At lunch time Respondent returned the students on detention to Terrelonge's portable classroom and escorted her students to lunch. After lunch Respondent escorted her students back to Terrelonge's portable classroom for the balance of the movie; again picked up the students on detention, and returned to her classroom. At the time scheduled for the conclusion of the movie, Respondent returned to Terrelonge's portable classroom to escort her students back to her classroom. Upon arrival at Terrelonge's classroom, Respondent discovered that her students had left earlier with either Maria Wolf or Catherine Winemiller or Jacqueline Mitchie, the other teachers having students at the movie. Although one of these three (3) teachers would have been responsible for supervising the return of Respondent's students to her classroom since Respondent was on detention duty, there is insufficient evidence to show which one had that responsibility. Upon return to her classroom Respondent observed some of her students outside the classroom unsupervised. Some of the students were running around and some were standing on a railing attempting to rescue a shoe from the roof. Respondent summoned her students into the classroom. None of the students were injured in any way. After the movie and the shoe incident the Respondent's children were "hyper". To calm them down, Respondent decided to go to the playground rather than to the scheduled special class. Respondent notified the special class teacher of this change but, without knowledge that she was required to notify Ross, failed to notify Ross of this change. This was the only special class the Respondent's student's missed while under her care during the 1985-86 school year. Other teachers took their students out on unscheduled recess when the children would not settle down. The evidence does not reveal any written policy concerning unscheduled recesses. Respondent kept blank discipline slips and omni passes in an unlocked desk drawer, and that students had on occasions filled out these slips without Respondent's knowledge. There was insufficient evidence to show that the children were under Respondent's supervision at the time the slips were taken out of the drawer and filled out. There were a number of disruptive and behavioral problem students in Respondent's class, but the number of disruptive or behavioral problem children in Respondent's class was not shown to be greater than in any other average third grade class. During the 1985-86 school year, Ross made frequent, unscheduled visits to Respondent's classroom and found Respondent's performance, including her classroom management, satisfactory, except on one (1) occasion, March 12, 1986. As a result of the shoe incident and skipping the special class, Ross called Respondent to a meeting on March 7, 1986 with Edward Poore, Assistant Superintendent, and Cathy Hogeland, Union Representative being present along with Ross and Respondent. As a result of this meeting, Ross advised Respondent to take the rest of that day off, which was Friday, and March 10, 1986 which was Monday. Respondent complied and returned to work on Tuesday, March 11, 1986. On March 11, 1986, the day Ross returned to school her students went on a field trip but Respondent was not allowed to accompany them. During the day Respondent worked on grading, grade books and planning. Also, on March 11, 1986, Ross gave Respondent a handwritten memorandum instructing her in class management, specifically addressing the supervision of students, class discipline, the following of lesson plans and attendance of students at special classes. Additionally, the memorandum instructed Respondent that teachers were not to eat lunch in the classroom and listed those areas where Respondent could eat lunch. On March 12, 1986, around noon, Respondent met with Ross, with Joanne Knight, being present as Union Representative. This meeting occurred as a result of Ross visiting Respondent's classroom and finding the students particularly disruptive and disorderly. When Respondent indicated that she could resume teaching her class that afternoon, Ross informed Respondent that she must take a leave of absence and have a complete physical examination and psychological evaluation or Ross would recommend her termination to the school board. Respondent was also informed by letter from Ross dated April 8, 1986 that her return to work would be based on the psychologist's report which should be submitted no later than May 31, 1986. Due to Ross' demands, Respondent requested leave and signed the necessary papers which had been filled out by the school board office. Respondent was put on leave without pay for the balance of the school year. Respondent resumed seeing Dr. Haney in April, 1986 but due to Dr. Haney's, or Respondent's oversight, an evaluation was not submitted until July 30, 1986. However, on July 1, 1986, Ross had recommended Respondent's dismissal to the superintendent based solely on Respondent's failure to provide the evaluation by May 31, 1986 without any further notice to Respondent other than the letter of April 8, 1986. Respondent learned of Ross's recommendation of dismissal sometime around July 16, 1986 when Ross notified her by letter. The letter also informed Respondent that this recommendation would go to the school board on August 5 1986. During Dr. Haney's treatment of Respondent in 1986, she prescribed medication for her mental condition which had no detrimental side effects on the Respondent. Dr. Haney's report of July 30, 1986 made no recommendation as to Respondent's ability to return to the classroom but left to the school system the interpretation of her findings. Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, Respondent's treating psychiatrist, began treating Respondent in October, 1986. Dr. Gonzalez's opinion was that while Respondent does have a mental condition, it is treatable with medication and does not affect Respondent's ability to teach. Dr. Gonzalez prescribes the same medication for Respondent as did Dr. Haney. From his observations, the Respondent takes the medication as prescribed. It was also Dr. Gonzalez's opinion that Respondent understands the need for medication. It was the opinion of Dr. Haney that Respondent better understood the need for medication after her second hospitalization in April 1986 then she had after the first hospitalization in 1985. It was the opinion of both Dr. Haney and Dr. Gonzalez that Respondent's mental condition would not prevent her from being effective in the classroom and that her presence as a teacher would not endanger the welfare of the students. Respondent was a concerned teacher, interested in her student's welfare. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that Respondent had emotional outbursts in the presence of her students. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that, due to Respondent's action, the students in her third grade class were deprived of minimum education experiences. Respondent substantially performed her duties as prescribed by law. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that there was a constant or continuing intentional refusal on the part of Respondent to obey a direct order given by proper authority.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Muriel Krueger. It is further RECOMMENDED Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Hernando County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2001 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 11-13. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraph 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23 except for the last clause which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 17-19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, except for the one occasion on March 12, 1986 which would not be described as a chaotic condition. That classroom management was discussed with Respondent is adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. That students took discipline slips and filled them out is adopted in Finding of Fact 24, the balance of paragraph 23 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 24-27. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Rejected as not being relevant or material because that was Dr. Haney's provisional diagnosis which was changed when she made her final diagnosis. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. The balance of paragraph 31 is rejected as not being relevant or material in that although Respondent admitted being acquainted with those school board policies there was credible evidence that Respondent was not aware at the beginning of the school year of Ross' or the Superintendent's specific instruction in regard to maintaining attendance records, grade books, etc. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. 20.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22 as clarified. Rejected as not being a finding of fact but only a restatement of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 25.-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34 and 35 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 Susan E. Hicks, Esquire Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this inquiry Respondent has held Florida Teaching Certificate No. 145121, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida, covering the area of Art. That certificate is valid through 1993. Respondent had been employed by the Duval County School Board for a period of twenty-seven years at the time of hearing. He had been assigned as an art teacher at Jefferson Davis Junior High School in that school system for the last twenty-six years of his teaching duties. Sherry Hoefling-Tobia was a student of the Respondent in the second semester of the 1971-72 school year and for all of the 1972-73 school year. She was also a member of the yearbook staff which the Respondent sponsored in the 1972-73 school year. The student was born on October 10, 1957. She attended the classes described in the eighth and ninth grade. At times the student Sherry Hoefling-Tobia, and other students, would stay after class in the Respondent's classroom while attending junior high school. The student Sherry Hoefling-Tobia while a student in the Duval County School System confided in the Respondent concerning her relationship with her family. During the summer of 1973 the student Sherry Hoefling-Tobia was enrolled in an art summer school where Respondent taught. Respondent did not teach her per se but did take photographs of the student, and other students who were enrolled in the program. Respondent also gave her rides to and from the camp. After the student Sherry Hoefling-Tobia finished her studies at Jefferson Davis Junior High in the ninth grade, she attended high school in Duval County and graduated following her completion of the eleventh grade in the school year 1974-75. While in high school she would visit the Respondent at Jefferson Davis Junior High. After graduating from high school and while attending Florida Community College of Jacksonville, a junior college, Sherry Hoefling-Tobia entered into a sexual relationship with the Respondent. Having considered the testimony and exhibits presented, this is the first occasion wherein the evidence is clear and convincing that the Respondent and Sherry Hoefling-Tobia had a sexual relationship.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses the administrative complaint against the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4929 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the date of birth is October 10, 1957. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 in the first sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The remainder of Paragraph 8 through Paragraph 11 are not accepted Paragraph 12 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 14 through 19 are not accepted. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 22 through 25 are not accepted, with the exception of Paragraph 24 which is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 27 is not accepted. Paragraph 28 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 29 is subordinate to facts found in the suggestion of sexual intercourse with the Respondent during summer 1975 and is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute as it suggests a relationship with another person beyond the time of her experience beyond graduation from high school. Paragraph 30 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute, nor are the first two phrases in Paragraph 31. The last phrase in Paragraph 31 is not accepted. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 34 is not accepted in its suggests Respondent abused Sherry Hoefling-Tobia while she was a student. Paragraphs 35 through 37 are not accepted. Paragraphs 38 and 39 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 40 through 42 are not accepted. Paragraphs 43 and 44 are not relevant given the facts found. Respondents's Facts Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 and 4 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 5 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 10 through 16 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are not relevant. Paragraph 19 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 20 through 21 are not relevant. Paragraph 22 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 27 and 28 constitute argument. Paragraph 29 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 30 and 31 constitute argument. Copies furnished: Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 East Union Street, Suite 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Stephen J. Donohoe, Esquire 437 East Monroe Street, Suite 1 Jacksonville, FL 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers Union 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, FL 32207 George A. Bowen, Acting Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, should be reprimanded and reassigned from her position as Countryside High School principal to a position as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office, at the same rate of pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, has been involved in the field of education for over 20 years. She moved to Volusia County in 1985 to begin her career in Florida. She began as assistant director of personnel but went through target selection and became an elementary school assistant principal, an elementary school principal, and then the principal of Volusia County's largest high school. She married and moved to Pinellas County in 1993 and was hired as an assistant principal at Gibbs High School for the 1993-94 school year. She was promoted to principal of Countryside High School for the 1994-95 school year. During her tenure in Pinellas County, Lambeth was a very effective principal and generally very well-liked (although, like almost all principals, she had her detractors as well as her supporters.) Lambeth's performance evaluations during her tenure in Pinellas County through May 8, 1998, have been excellent. Lambeth's employment as principal of Countryside High School has been under successive annual contracts with the Pinellas County Schools. The contract for the 1997/98 school year provided, in pertinent part: . . . The Board may, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, transfer and assign the Employee to a similar position in any other location of the district, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned, and the salary shall be heretofore set forth. * * * 5. The Board may suspend or remove the Employee for just cause. The Employee shall not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Employee be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. * * * 11. Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions, hereof, or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice. On April 28, 1998, Lambeth again was appointed to a position for the 1998/99 school year, "subject to assignment and transfer." Lambeth accepted the appointment on May 8, 1998. There exist Pinellas Administrators Association Personnel Practices and Grievance Procedures. These documents were developed jointly by the Superintendent of Schools and the Executive Board of the Pinellas Administrators Association; they were approved by the School Board on July 14, 1976. The Personnel Practices provide in pertinent part: COMPLAINTS A. Complaints, oral or written, involving administrators or supervisors shall be investigated through line offices. A copy of such a complaint shall be immediately forwarded to the employee concerned so that he may respond. The employee shall be entitled to know the name of the person or group making the complaint. * * * TERMINATION Termination for Cause. Administrative and supervisory personnel may be terminated for cause on the same grounds as delineated in F.S. 231.36(6) at the discretion of the School Board. Termination shall include discharge, suspension without pay, demotion in salary or status, or any other action involving fault on the part of such administrator or supervisor. * * * C. Any administrator or supervisor terminated for cause subjected to a personnel action as defined above shall have the right to register his complaint through the Pinellas administrators' grievance procedures. However, the significance of these documents is not clear; nor is it clear that they are still are applicable at this time. They apparently are not duly promulgated School Board policy, and the School Board does not refer to them in the conduct of its employment relationships. They also are not part of Lambeth's employment contract. Even if generally applicable, it also was not clear whether they would apply to administrators who are not members of the Pinellas Administrators Association, and there was no evidence that Lambeth is a member. In August 1997, someone approached Countryside assistant principal, Kathleen Novak, to explain the circumstances of a 1997 graduate. The student was a few points short of the minimum grade required in certain core high school courses by either his college's admission requirements, the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) athletic scholarship requirements, or both. Novak went to her principal, Lambeth, to discuss the matter. Another assistant principal, Paula Flott, also participated in the discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that Lambeth asked Novak and Flott to try to contact "their" teachers (i.e., the teachers "assigned" to them for purposes of supervision and division of duties) to find out if there were any grades that could be raised enough through re-testing to meet the minimum requirements the student needed to meet. Before contacting the teachers, Novak first had occasion to confer with yet another assistant principal, Henry Moore. Moore helped Novak review the student's report cards and identified two grades he thought could be raised enough to give the student the minimum grade required. One was a "mid-point" grade in a history class the student took during his junior year (1995-96). Under School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.24(2)(g): "At the mid-point of each grade level, i.e., 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, .5, it will be the option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Moore also identified a psychology grade from the student's senior year (1996-97) which was borderline. It is not clear from the evidence whether Moore thought it was necessary to contact the history teacher, David Ferguson, about the mid-point grade. Moore understood Countyside's unwritten policy to be that, if a student improved his or her grade during the grading period, a mid-point grade would be increased to the next higher whole number or letter grade unless the teacher went to the principal to justify deviating from the policy. There was some evidence to suggest that Moore thought Lambeth, as principal, could raise the mid-point grade without re-testing; but the evidence was not clear that Moore communicated this to Novak or Lambeth at the time. In any event, Moore testified to his assumption that Novak would next contact the teachers concerning re-evaluation of the two grades. The next day, Novak reported to Lambeth the results of her conversation with Moore. Lambeth decided that the student should re-take the final examinations in both classes. She testified that she instructed Novak to contact the teachers about the re-evaluations and re-testing. Novak denied receiving explicit instructions to contact the teachers at this point. It is found that Novak would not have disregarded a direct instruction to contact the teachers. It is more probable that Lambeth simply instructed Novak to proceed to take care of it and assumed that Novak would contact the teachers. Novak also saw Flott that day. Flott told Novak that Flott had not contacted any of "her" teachers yet. Novak told Flott not to worry about it, that Novak had "taken care of it." Flott assumed Novak meant Novak had contacted the teachers. Actually, Novak meant that, since the two grades Novak and Moore already had been identified were enough, there was no need for Flott to contact any of "her" teachers. At this time during the summer, the teachers were on vacation, and Novak researched files of past exams maintained by the school administration to document grades and reproduced the final exams for the grades she and Moore had identified. Novak then made arrangements for the student to retake the exams and notified Lambeth that the student had improved his grades enough to meet the student's college requirements. When Novak reported to Lambeth, the deadline for the student's college requirements was imminent. Lambeth assumed but did not ask whether Novak had contacted the teachers whose grades were involved. Lambeth did not ask to see any documentation of the teachers' assent to a grade change or any documentation of the retesting. Lambeth just told Novak to change the grades in the official records and notify the college and/or the NCAA. Novak responded that she did not know how to do this. Lambeth told her to get assistance from clerical personnel who knew how to change grades; Lambeth herself took care of notifying the college and/or the NCAA. To notify the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth modified a form used by Countryside's athletic department to document that a student-athlete's grade had been properly re-evaluated so as to regain eligibility to participate in interscholastic athletics. The form utilized had a place for the signature of the teacher whose grade was being re-evaluated. In modifying the form for purposes of notifying the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth deleted the provision for the teacher's signature. Lambeth signed the form as principal on August 15, 1997, and sent the notification to the college and/or the NCAA. Lambeth denied that she deleted the teacher signature provision in the form because she knew the teachers were unaware of the grade re-evaluations. Although the teachers were at school on August 15, 1997, preparing for the start of the 1997-98 school year, Lambeth said she dispensed with the teacher signature provision in order to expedite the notification. A few days after the start of the 1997-98 school year, the girl friend of the student whose grades were changed told Ferguson that the student had retaken Ferguson's final exam. Ferguson was busy and told the girl that they would discuss it later, which they did about a month later. For another month or more, Ferguson did nothing about it. Towards the end of October or early November 1997, Ferguson approached Lambeth to let her know what had happened and that students were talking about it. To his surprise, Lambeth told him she knew all about it, having been directly involved herself in the grade re-evaluation. Lambeth did not act as if she saw anything wrong with what was done; she even seemed proud of her participation. Ferguson, who did not think it was right for one of his assigned grades to be re-evaluated without his knowledge, was taken off-guard by Lambeth's response and decided not to say anything else about it at the time. In about December 1997, Ferguson found the time to spend several hours looking into the circumstances of the grade re-evaluations. He discovered that the grades were changed in the student's official transcript, but that the changes were not otherwise documented. The lack of documentation also seemed wrong to Ferguson. During the spring semester of the 1997-98 school year, Ferguson approached Jim Watters, the psychology teacher whose assigned grade was changed. By this time, Watters was at a different school, and Ferguson thought it would be logical for Watters to be the one to complain about the grade changes since Ferguson not only still was at Countryside but also had to deal with Lambeth in his capacity as Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA) union representative. Watters told Ferguson that he did not want to complain because he was near retirement and did not want controversy at that point in his career. Subsequently, Ferguson sought the advice of the PCTA as to whether he would be opening himself to discipline if he did not report the incident to the school district administration. It was concluded that the incident should be reported. On April 23, 1998, Rik McNeill of the PCTA contacted Dr. Martha O'Howell, an administrator in the school district's Office of Professional Standards, to report the grade change incident; the next day, Jade Moore of the PCTA sent O'Howell a letter reporting the incident. On or about April 30, 1998, O'Howell's office began an investigation of the reported incident. On May 11, 1998, O'Howell interviewed Lambeth, Novak, and others at Countryside and took written statements from them. When O'Howell told Lambeth that teachers had complained, Lambeth wondered aloud why, since they had participated. Novak's statement, on the other hand, was that the teachers were not notified or involved because they were not at school at the time. On May 14, 1998, O'Howell re-interviewed Lambeth and Novak. In her re-interview of Lambeth, the principal maintained her understanding that Novak had discussed re-testing with the teachers whose grades were involved. During her re-interview of Novak, O'Howell asked Novak for the second time to produce the re-tests she administered, but Novak reiterated that she could not find the re-tests or any documentation that re-testing had in fact taken place. She got the impression that O'Howell questioned the truth of her assertion that re-tests actually had been administered and became defensive. Novak got the impression that it was very important for her to be able to produce the re- tests. On May 21, 1998, Novak submitted a supplement to her earlier written statement. In the supplement, Novak expressed confusion about Ferguson's complaint in light of her recollection that Ferguson had told her "emphatically last year that it wasn't his responsibility to give early exams or make up exams if they might extend beyond contract hours" and said: "That's administration's problem, not mine." Afraid of what might happen to her if she could not produce the re-tests (that it could end her career and jeopardize her retirement benefits), Novak panicked. She tried to again re- produce the examination questions, and she forged answers. She presented the forgeries to O'Howell on June 2, 1998. O'Howell quickly saw through Novak's inept forgeries for what they were, and Novak was in even more trouble than she thought she was in before the forgeries. On or about June 9, 1998, Lambeth asked for a meeting with the investigator and Area Supervisor Bill Williamson. Their assessment of the situation was that it was "serious"; they suggested that Lambeth consider what parents would think. But Lambeth also knew about Novak's forgeries and assumed that Novak had become the focus of the investigation, not her. Indeed, at a meeting on June 18, 1998, O'Howell informed Novak that her job was in jeopardy; O'Howell said she was prepared to recommend that the Superintendent terminate her employment. At that point, Novak retained an attorney, who asked to meet with the School Superintendent, J. Howard Hinesley, and the School Board's attorney, Wesley Bridges. The meeting took place on June 24, 1998. At the meeting on June 24, 1998, Novak and her attorney tried to explain to Hinesley and Bridges why Novak forged the re- tests. They also told Hinesley and Bridges that Novak thought Lambeth was trying to blame Novak for the incident but that Lambeth never told Novak to contact the teachers whose grades were involved. Hinesley took this and other information given by Novak at the meeting into consideration in evaluating the situation. Based on the discussion at this meeting, Hinesley decided to reprimand and demote Novak to an instructional position with no reduction in pay, instead of terminating her employment. On or about June 29, 1998, Area Supervisor Williamson told Lambeth that it was time to have a meeting to resolve the matter. Williamson again emphasized that it was "serious," this time communicating to Lambeth that she was also in jeopardy. The meeting was set for July 2, 1998. At this point, Lambeth hired an attorney. The meeting was attended by Lambeth, Hinesley, their attorneys, Williamson, and O'Howell. Lambeth was informed that she was being removed as principal at Countryside for her role in the grade change incident and would be transferred to another position. She was told that a letter to that effect had been mailed to her. She was required to hand over her office keys and was told to make arrangement to clean-out her office at 5 p.m. She was told that she would not be allowed to return to campus without campus police being present. Campus police escorted her to her car. On or about July 8, 1998, Lambeth received Hinesley's letter dated July 2, 1998. Besides reciting facts found through the investigation, the letter accused Lambeth of failing "to ensure that the teachers of the two courses involved had knowledge of or approved the final examination re-takes and the subsequent grade changes" and "to ensure that the re-takes were properly administered and graded and that the results were documented." The letter reprimanded Lambeth for "violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23, as well as the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida." (School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23 sets the district's High School Credit and Student Performance Standards; section (6) of the rule provides that a student's mastery of performance standards "shall be determined by the teacher with the principal's approval.") The letter also stated that Lambeth's conduct "reflects a lack of sound professional judgment and seriously diminishes your effectiveness as a school leader." As a result, the letter stated, Lambeth was being removed her from her position as Countryside High School principal, was being placed on administrative leave, and would be reassigned to another position. By letter dated July 8, 1998, Hinesley notified Lambeth that she was being reassigned as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office. Lambeth's contract was not changed, and her pay was not reduced. Her new position is classified as Level 4 in the School Board's personnel system, while high school principal is a Level 8 position. There are some similarities between the two positions, but there also are differences. Both positions require a master's degree, certification in administration and supervision, and five years of related professional experience; a program supervisor for Title I also requires an additional minimum of three years of teaching experience. Both positions involve working with teachers; but while a principal supervises 95 teachers (plus non-teacher personnel and 1500 to 2000 students) at a school site, a Title I program supervisor works with but does not supervise principals, assistant principals, and teachers at 18 different elementary schools. Both jobs involve budget planning, but the nature of the budgets are different; a Title I program supervisor reviews budgets for federal funds. There is no provision for re-evaluating a student's grades after graduation. There is a policy to allow a student who has passed all 24 courses required to graduate, but did not earn the minimum grade point average (GPA) required to receive a diploma, to "walk" at graduation , receive a "certificate of completion," and return to school in the summer and/or an additional year of high school to re-take classes to hopefully raise his or her GPA enough to receive a high school diploma. But there is no evidence that the student involved in this case did not receive a diploma when he graduated at the end of the 1996-97 school year. He was no longer a student and should not have been able to change his grades at that point. In circumstances when it would be permissible to re- evaluate a student's grades, it should only be done in consultation with the teacher who assigned the grade. Subject to the requirement that grading policies are followed, student grading is the province of the teacher's exercise of professional judgment, subject only to the principal's approval. The integrity of the grading system depends the teacher's exercise of professional judgment. Likewise, the "education contract" among the administration, teachers, students, and parents presumes and requires integrity in the grading process. School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.28(4)(g) is clear that, in the case of "mid-point" grades, it is the "option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Clearly, this policy gives the principal the ability to review the teacher's grade and argue forcefully that a different grade should be assigned. Some teachers would succumb to the principal's choice, either because of the force of the principal's arguments or because of fear of the possible consequences of disagreeing with their principal. The policy may even enable a principal to overrule the teacher. But it is a violation of policy for a principal to change a grade without following the mid-point grade policy. Because of the importance of integrity in the grading system, it is incumbent on the principal to take reasonable steps to ensure that teachers are involved in any grade re-evaluation. Clearly, a principal must delegate responsibilities to assistant principals when necessary and appropriate, and a principal should be entitled to rely on an assistant principal to follow the principal's instructions (whether expressed ad hoc or in policy). For that reason, Lambeth normally would have been entitled to expect an assistant principal to involve the teacher in any grade re-evaluation. But re-evaluation of a student who had graduated was not normal, and Lambeth should have made it clear to Novak that Novak was not to proceed with re-testing and grade re- evaluation without the teachers' participation. It is not clear from the evidence that Lambeth made reasonable efforts make this clear to Novak. By the same token, because the situation was not normal, Lambeth should have made some effort to ensure that Novak properly documented the re-take of the examinations and the grade change instead of relying entirely on Novak. There is no question but that Lambeth's effectiveness as a school leader diminished as a result of this grade change incident. As Lambeth pointed out at final hearing, most principals have their supporters and detractors, and predictably there were some teachers and parents who testified that the grade change incident did not reduce Lambeth's effectiveness as far as they were concerned. But most of these witnesses did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives. Meanwhile, there were many witnesses who testified that Lambeth's effectiveness was seriously diminished in their view, and they were not all detractors of Lambeth; they included Hinesley, other Pinellas County school administrators, retired Pinellas County School Superintendent Scott Rose, administrators from other school districts, teachers at other schools, and parents. Some of these also did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives; but some knew all or most of the facts and circumstances and spoke from broader perspectives. Some witnesses expressed the idea that the reduction in effectiveness would not be insurmountable or permanent if Lambeth would admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again. Unfortunately, Lambeth did not admit error until her testimony at the end of her case-in-chief. While she complained that she was not given the opportunity to do so before the meeting on July 2, 1998, she missed innumerable opportunities since; indeed, much of her case seemed aimed at proving that she had done nothing wrong. The authenticity of her eleventh-hour repentance is suspect. At the same time, while Lambeth's effectiveness certainly was diminished by the incident (and her refusal to admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again), it is not clear just how seriously her effectiveness has been diminished. There were mitigating factors. First, Lambeth has an excellent record as an effective administrator. Second, while her efforts were misguided, her motive was to help a student gain educational benefits. The student was African- American and, while the Petitioner criticized Lambeth for testifying in deposition that the student's minority status was a factor in her efforts to help, the School Board in fact has a policy of emphasizing the delivery of educational benefits to minority students. Also, after what she has been through, it seems unlikely that Lambeth would be foolish enough to repeat this or any similar grade change blunder in the future. A reprimand and reassignment to Title I program supervisor certainly is a setback for Lambeth's career as a school principal. But, contrary to Lambeth's concern and contention in this case, it is found that such an action does not necessarily mean the end of Lambeth's career as a school principal in this or any other school district. Certainly, if Lambeth's offense is as minor as she contends it was, she may well be able to convince a school superintendent other than Hinesley to assign her as a school principal. It certainly seemed that retired School Superintendent Rose would have been open to the idea; there is no reason to be certain that others may not also consider Lambeth for a principal position. If Hinesley's position as Pinellas School Superintendent is as tenuous as Lambeth's evidence attempted to suggest (i.e., that he may be just one School Board vote from being the former Pinellas School Superintendent), the chances are that it may not be long before Lambeth could apply to a subsequent Pinellas School Superintendent for such a position. It even seems possible (although perhaps not likely) that Hinesley himself might reconsider and reassign Lambeth as a principal at some point in the future. Lambeth also contended that other School Board employees have been treated more leniently for worse offenses. But the evidence did not prove selective enforcement against Lambeth. The other situations either were too dissimilar to compare, or Lambeth's treatment was not clearly excessively harsh by comparison. Lambeth first points to the treatment of Novak. While it is true that Novak forged the re-tests, she was Lambeth's subordinate and subject to Lambeth's direction, and her treatment (reassignment to a completely nonsupervisory position) was somewhat harsher than Lambeth's. Lambeth also points to Ferguson, who Lambeth contends went unpunished after alleged violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-6.22 by posting a copy of a portion of the School Board's investigative report on Lambeth and Novak on the bulletin board in the teacher's lounge. But Policy 6Gx52-6.22 provides: Employees shall not use the classroom, nor any other part of school facilities, as a platform for making disparaging remarks against students, parents, teachers and/or administrators. Conduct contrary to this policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, it is not clear that posting information about an investigation that was of genuine concern to the teachers is the same thing as using the bulletin board "as a platform for making disparaging remarks." Nonetheless, Lambeth's replacement as Countryside's principal considered the posting to be bad for morale and asked Ferguson to remove it. Initially, Ferguson refused to remove it; eventually, he removed it at the request of and as a favor to Jade Moore of the PCTA. (The evidence was that Hinesley was not aware of the posting.) Lambeth's other evidence on this point consisted of letters of reprimand to a principal and an assistant principal for not following proper procedures and immediately notifying the proper authorities of allegations of sexual abuse. It is not clear that these offenses are so similar to Lambeth's as to have required the School Board in fairness to also remove and reassign them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for a Name Clearing, Due Process and Florida Statute 120.57 Hearing and approving the reassignment of the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, to Title I program supervisor under the same contract and at the same pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Orange Park Center 696 First Avenue, North, Suite 400 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers & Coleman, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(1)(2) and (3), Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), (b), (e), and (f), Rule 6B-1.006(4)(a) and (b), Rule 6B.006(5)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (o), and Rule 6B- 1.001(1), (2), and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what actions should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Jenkins holds a Florida Educator Certificate. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, he was employed as a physical education teacher at Pasedena Lakes Elementary School (Pasedena Lakes) in the Broward County School District, where he had been teaching for 15 years. Mr. Jenkins was a Master Steward for the teachers' union. He was also a member of the School Advisory Council (SAC) and was chair of the Safety and Discipline Committee, which is a part of SAC. Jill Wilson has been the principal at Pasedena Lakes for six years and has a total of 29 years of educational experience. The assistant principal at Pasedena Lakes is Charlene Hogan, who has been at Pasedena Lakes for five years and has a total of 28 years of experience in the field of education. On October 29, 1998, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Mr. Jenkins came to Ms. Wilson's office and yelled at her, accusing her of discrediting him and making things worse at the school. During this incident, Donna Blank, a former employee of Pasedena Lakes, was leaving the building and, through a window, observed Mr. Jenkins pounding on Ms. Wilson's desk and saying, "You're not my boss." Ms. Blank went to her car, but returned to the building because she felt that she could not leave Ms. Wilson alone in that situation. When Ms. Blank went to Ms. Wilson's office, Ms. Wilson was visibly shaken. Ms. Wilson felt intimidated by Mr. Jenkins and, as a result of the incident, issued a memorandum to Mr. Jenkins dated October 30, 1998. The memorandum outlined the events that had taken place in Ms. Wilson's office on October 29, 1998, advised Mr. Jenkins that his actions were inappropriate, and required him to schedule future meetings with her secretary so that she could have another staff member present when they met. Pasedena Lakes has about 900 elementary students. Parking was a problem at the school, as well as traffic congestion when parents dropped off students in the mornings. Parents would park in the teachers' parking spaces, and there would be disruptions in the flow of traffic when the parents would take time to dole out lunch money, dress the children, say farewells, and otherwise take up additional time as they were dropping off the students. Mr. Jenkins volunteered to help direct traffic in the mornings in order to reduce the congestion in the parking lots. His mode of directing traffic was more aggressive than the methods that had been used previously by the other teachers. Mr. Jenkins used a bull horn to shout at the parents to move the traffic along and to tell them to kiss their kids at home and not at school. At first his efforts were commendable, but he began to become frustrated with the job. Mr. Jenkins would yell at the parents and the students, upsetting both the parents and the students. On one occasion while on traffic duty, Mr. Jenkins, using his bullhorn, called another teacher "Deadwood," belittling her in front of students, parents, and other staff members. Sometime during the fall of 1999, Patricia Lewis was bringing her two children to the school. Ms. Lewis needed to talk to one of her children's teachers, so she dropped her children off and told them to wait for her while she parked the car. While she was parking the car, Mr. Jenkins yelled at her children, "You little monkeys, hurry up and get back to class." Ms. Lewis, a Haitian-American, was upset at his remarks and confronted him. She told Mr. Jenkins, "My kids have a name. You do not call them that." Mr. Jenkins replied, "If you don't like it, go get a lawyer, and my lawyer will win." Visibly upset, Ms. Lewis went to the school administration's office and asked to speak to the principal. She talked with Ms. Wilson and explained what had happened in the parking area. Ms. Wilson assured her that she would take care of the matter and talk to Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Lewis left the office and went to find her child's teacher to talk with her as originally planned. She ran into Mr. Jenkins in the hallway. Mr. Jenkins said, "Oh, you're the one who went to the principal." Ms. Lewis told him that she did not want to talk with him and turned away. Mr. Jenkins began to yell at her, and she went back to the office in tears. When she got to the principal's office, Ms. Lewis was loud and upset. Again Ms. Wilson calmed her down. In the fall of 1999, the Safety and Discipline Committee had concerns over the traffic problems at Pasedena Lakes and over unauthorized visitors on campus. A meeting of SAC was scheduled for November 9, 1999, to discuss these issues. The Safety and Discipline Committee met and drafted a letter which was to be sent to the parents asking them to come to the meeting and outlining the concerns which would be discussed. Ms. Hogan was on the Safety and Discipline Committee, and she edited the draft letter with input from other committee members so that the letter would fit on one sheet of paper. Mr. Jenkins was not happy with the edited version, but he did not tell Hogan of his displeasure at the time the letter was rewritten. Mr. Jenkins helped distribute the letter to the parents in the parking lot. Alice Lacy, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes, was the chair of SAC, and Hogan was co-chair. On November 1, 1999, Mr. Jenkins told Ms. Lacy that he wanted to have a meeting prior to the SAC meeting scheduled for November 9, 1999, in order to get the teachers to form a coalition and come to the November 9 meeting to support him. As chair of SAC, Lacy told Mr. Jenkins that it would be better to send a memorandum to the teachers rather than schedule a separate meeting. Later on the same day, Mr. Jenkins told Ms. Lacy that he was demanding that the teachers come to the November 9 SAC meeting. He became angry with Ms. Lacy and told her that it was a personal issue and that the teachers owed it to him. He stormed away from Ms. Lacy. Ms. Lacy became concerned about the November 9 SAC meeting and felt that Mr. Jenkins should clarify his intentions prior to the meeting. She sent Mr. Jenkins a memorandum, requesting that he provide her with an agenda by November 5. Mr. Jenkins did not supply an agenda. Ms. Lacy heard him yelling at teachers outside her classroom on November 5, but did not know what he was discussing with the teachers. Ms. Lacy became concerned and sent a memorandum dated November 5, 1999, to Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan, urging that the November 9 SAC meeting be postponed until the issues involving Mr. Jenkins could be resolved. The administration met with Mr. Jenkins, and Ms. Lacy was assured that Mr. Jenkins understood that the SAC meeting would be under Ms. Lacy's direction, the agenda would be followed, and the meeting would take place in the media center. When Ms. Lacy went to the media center on the evening of November 9, 1999, she found that the media center was locked and that Mr. Jenkins was setting up the meeting in the cafeteria, where he could have teachers sit on stage with him to lend him support. Lacy confronted Mr. Jenkins and told him that the meeting would take place in the media center as planned. Mr. Jenkins shook his finger at Ms. Lacy and told her that she was making a big mistake. When Ms. Lacy was calling the meeting to order, Mr. Jenkins called out of turn and said, "I motion to move this meeting to the cafeteria." Ms. Lacy called Mr. Jenkins out of order. There was a large turn-out for the SAC meeting, and it was agreed that each speaker would be limited to two minutes. When Mr. Jenkins began to make his presentation for the Safety and Discipline Committee, Ms. Lacy felt that he was unprepared and was improvising. Several times Mr. Jenkins spoke and went over his two-minute limit. When he did, Ms. Lacy would cut him off and go on to the next speaker. After this happened three times, Susie Ruder, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes, sent a note to Ms. Lacy, telling Ms. Lacy that she felt Ms. Lacy was being rude to Mr. Jenkins. After Ms. Lacy received the note, she gave Mr. Jenkins more time to speak. The day after the meeting, Mr. Jenkins ran into Ms. Hogan and Cathy Greenspan, a reading resource specialist at Pasedena Lakes, on the school campus. Mr. Jenkins shook Ms. Hogan's hand and commented that the SAC meeting had been a good meeting. Approximately ten minutes later, Mr. Jenkins went to Ms. Wilson's office. He was wearing shorts, a shirt, and a fanny pack. His purpose for the visit was to discuss sending flyers to parents advising them of the decision of SAC to require parents to obtain a visitor's pass to come on the school campus. Ms. Wilson told him that the passes had been ordered but had not arrived and that she did not want the flyers to be sent until the passes had arrived. Mr. Jenkins shifted the conversation and told Ms. Wilson that she was responsible for the rumor mill around school and accused her of changing a letter that had been written by the Safety and Discipline Committee in October to advise the parents of the November 9 SAC meeting. Mr. Jenkins said the letter that went home to the parents was not the letter the Safety and Discipline Committee had agreed upon. Ms. Wilson did not know about the changes to the letter and called Ms. Hogan to come into the office to discuss the letter. Ms. Hogan brought in the disc on which the letter had been saved, and they viewed it on the computer. Mr. Jenkins again shifted the conversation to the November 9 meeting and held Ms. Wilson responsible for the rudeness he felt Ms. Lacy displayed at the SAC meeting. Mr. Jenkins then shifted the discussion again and wanted the South Area Office to look into what Ms. Wilson's role was on SAC. Mr. Jenkins started to yell and point his finger in Ms. Wilson's face. His face got red, and his voice became louder. He told Ms. Wilson that she would be in charge of damage control. Ms. Hogan told him not to point his finger at Ms. Wilson. Mr. Jenkins turned to Ms. Hogan and said, "I've got an attorney, I've got the union, and I've got a gun." Both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan asked Mr. Jenkins what he said. He replied that he did not know what he said and that he had been interrupted. Either Ms. Wilson or Ms. Hogan told him that he had said, "I've got a gun." Mr. Jenkins became flustered and walked out of the office. Both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan were shocked by Mr. Jenkins' outburst. Neither woman could tell whether Mr. Jenkins actually had a gun in his fanny pack. A conference room was located next to Ms. Wilson's office. Cathy Greenspan, Donna Blank, and Barbara Perkins were in the conference room when Mr. Jenkins was meeting with Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan. Both Ms. Blank and Ms. Perkins heard Mr. Jenkins say the word, "gun." Ms. Greenspan heard Mr. Jenkins say, "I've got a gun." After Mr. Jenkins left the administration office, Ms. Hogan called the Special Investigative Unit (SIU), which is the school police, and requested assistance. Investigator Evelyn McCabe came to the school. Ms. Hogan was afraid of what Mr. Jenkins might do and locked herself in her office until Investigator McCabe arrived. Mr. Jenkins returned to the administration office with Sydna Satterfield, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes and a friend of Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Satterfield, Investigator McCabe, Ms. Wilson, and Ms. Hogan went into to Ms. Wilson's office. A few minutes later Susie Ruder, another teacher and friend of Mr. Jenkins, joined them. Mr. Jenkins denied saying that he had a gun and then stated that he did not know what he said. He threw his keys on Ms. Wilson's desk and asked to be transferred to an "F" school. He walked out of the office but returned and said that he wanted an investigation. Ms. Wilson told him to think about whether he wanted an investigation or wanted to work out things. She advised him that she was willing to work with him on their problems. Mr. Jenkins said he did not know what he said, but apologized for whatever he had said. Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Wilson hugged, and they agreed to try to work together. That evening and the next morning, Ms. Wilson received calls from staff members who feared for their safety and the safety of their children as a result of the incident with Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Wilson began to think about what had happened and the complaints from staff. She also saw an article in the newspaper concerning a colleague who had not contacted authorities concerning an incident that had happened at his school and had tried to resolve the situation by himself. She felt she had to get assistance. Ms. Wilson called Bruce Wagar, who is in charge of professional standards. He advised her to file a complaint with SIU, which resulted in an investigation. As part of the investigation, Mr. Jenkins underwent a psychological evaluation in April 2000 by Dr. Joel Kimmel. The evaluation report stated: Personality tests and behavioral observations indicate that Mr. Jenkins is a frustrated individual who believes he is being prevented from doing his job. His responses to the personality tests indicate that he tends to define his identity based upon his position and derives a lot of satisfaction from his job. He enjoys working with students and motivating them to achieve their potential. He likes the status and recognition he receives from his position and may have a lonely life outside his job. He also appears to be somewhat incompetent, or inefficient. When frustrated, he can escalate and demand his way. However, there are no signs of any violent behaviors in any of his responses suggesting that he probably will not act out when frustrated. He does believe in the benefit of talking things out. However, he does want to do things his way and may not respect others if they disagree with him. He also does appear to have some boundary issues in terms of not understanding where his authority ends and being able to accept the authority of others. His greatest fear is that of failure and losing his job which could represent a failure for him. His provisional diagnosis would be Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features (DSM IV 309.28). It is highly recommended that Mr. Jenkins participate in sensitivity training and interpersonal relationship programs in order to develop his capacity to tolerate others' viewpoints as well as decrease his frustration. A stress reduction program would also be helpful in improving his ability to control his frustration and developing more patience. Meetings between he [sic], his principal, and a counselor may be of assistance in improving their relationship. Mr. Jenkins has demonstrated inappropriate behavior on different occasions involving his students. He showed his paycheck to a first grade class and asked them if that was not a lot of money. Another time, he read an article from a newspaper to a kindergarten swim safety class about a student who had drowned and told the class that they could drown. Mr. Jenkins left his physical education class outdoors unattended when their regular classroom teacher failed to pick them up on time. On November 17, 1999, Ms. Wilson inadvertently referred to Mr. Jenkins during a morning announcement as Thomas Wilson rather than Thomas Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins and his wife composed a letter to show how one word could be misconstrued. The letter, which Mr. Jenkins referred to as a private joke, stated that Mr. Jenkins thinks that Ms. Wilson fantasizes about him being her husband, that she wants his body, that Ms. Wilson was a "horny lady," and that she might lose control and have sex with him. Mr. Jenkins' wife shared the letter, which Mr. Jenkins called a "nothing" letter, with other employees of Pasedena Lakes. Both teachers and parents testified that they were fearful of Mr. Jenkins based on his past conduct and that he had created a hostile work environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that just cause exists for suspending Thomas Jenkins, finding that Thomas Jenkins is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office, and suspending Thomas Jenkins for 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Randy A. Fleischer, Esquire 4801 University Drive, Suite 3070 Davie, Florida 33328 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Frank L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas B. Ferris, holds Florida teaching certificate number 286085 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering the area of physical education and junior college. The Respondent has held a valid teaching certificate since 1971. The Respondent began teaching in 1971 in the field of physical education at Hollywood Park Elementary School in Hollywood, Florida. He later taught at Sterling Elementary School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for one year, and for five years at Stephen Foster Elementary School in Fort Lauderdale. The Respondent's latest employment was as a physical education teacher at Spring Hill Elementary School in Hernando County for over 3 academic years. The Respondent's teaching performance and ability have never been less than satisfactory, and he received satisfactory teaching evaluations during his last employment at Spring Hill Elementary School. The principal of Spring Hill Elementary School had the opportunity to observe the Respondent for approximately one and one-half years, and during this time completed two performance evaluations of the Respondent. He is an enthusiastic teacher who works effectively with children. The Respondent also served as teacher-in- charge in the absence of the principal. The Respondent and the subject minor male student first met during the 1979-1980 school year while the Respondent was teaching physical education at West Hernando Elementary School, now named Spring Hill Elementary School. This minor was a student in the Respondent's physical education class, and also became a physical education helper in this fifth grade class. The Respondent and the minor became good friends. During the ensuing four years they participated in various recreational activities together. The minor and the Respondent frequently went jogging, bike riding, motorcycling, canoeing, lifted weights, and played basketball. In the summer of 1983, they engaged in a lawn mowing business and purchased a motorcycle together. The minor babysat for the Respondent and his wife frequently during his seventh, eighth, and ninth grade years, and in 1983 he babysat for them approximately three or four times a month until August. Between 1982 and 1983, the minor's relationship with the Respondent and his family intensified. The minor began to call the Respondent's home, and visit with the Respondent and his family so frequently that the Respondent started to avoid these telephone calls. The minor was visiting at the Respondent's home, or they would see each other, nearly every day. During the summer of 1983 the Respondent and the minor terminated their lawn mowing business. At about the same time the Respondent and his wife began to indicate to the minor that he was spending too much time with the Respondent and his family, and they suggested that he spend more time with his own mother and father. The minor's involvement with the Respondent's household began to decrease at this point, which was around the end of August, 1983. On the evening in late August, before school started in 1983, which is the occasion of the first allegation of sexual misconduct against the Respondent, the minor was babysitting for the Respondent and his wife at their home. They returned at approximately 11:30 P.M., and found the minor asleep on the couch in the living room. This was not unusual, as the Respondent and his wife would often find the minor asleep on the couch while babysitting, if they returned home at a late hour. After a brief conversation, the minor retired upstairs to the bedroom of Douglas, the son of the Respondent. After using the bathroom, the Respondent retired to the parents' bedroom on the first floor; his wife followed shortly thereafter. The Respondent did not leave his bedroom during the night. Neither did he proceed upstairs during the night, awaken the minor, and bring him downstairs. Several undisputed facts lead to this finding. The Respondent's wife is a very light sleeper. When the Respondent arises during the night, she is aware of it. She is often awakened by sounds in the house, especially from her children upstairs. The Respondent is a heavy sleeper who normally does not arise during the night. Moreover, the Respondent's bedroom is adjacent to the living room, where the alleged misconduct occurred. While in this bedroom, noise and voices from the adjacent living room are easily heard. The room of the Respondent's son, Douglas, is directly over the Respondent's bedroom. While in the Respondent's bedroom, noise and sound from the son's bedroom, including footsteps, can be heard. From the Respondent's bedroom, the sound of anyone using the adjacent staircase can be heard. Yet the Respondent's wife heard no sound or voices during the night, either from her son's bedroom upstairs, or from the staircase. Neither did she hear voices or sound from the adjacent living room during the night. On a Thursday night, October 6, 1983, the minor and the Respondent attended a concert in Lakeland, Florida. The minor had the permission of his parents to attend this concert. On the way home after the concert, they stopped at Bennigan's on Dale Mabry in Tampa, and ate dinner. They had agreed previously that the minor would pay for the concert tickets and the Respondent would pay for the dinner. Bennigan's was the only stop made by the Respondent and the minor while enroute from the concert to the Respondent's home. The Respondent and the minor arrived at the Respondent's house after the concert at approximately 12:30 A.M. Earlier on this evening, the Respondent's wife attended a painting class in Inverness, which had been meeting once a week on Thursday nights. She was in the kitchen at home working on a class craft project which she had not finished, when the Respondent and the minor arrived. The three of them engaged in a general conversation for approximately a half hour while sitting at the kitchen table. The minor then retired to the upstairs bedroom of Douglas, while the Respondent and his wife remained downstairs. The Respondent spent no time alone in the living room with the minor. The Respondent then retired to his bedroom, and his wife followed shortly thereafter. The Respondent did not arise during the night and leave the bedroom. His wife heard no voices or noise during this night either from the stairs above the bedroom, or from the adjacent living room. The Respondent bad no sexual contact with the minor during either August or October, 1983, or at any other time. These are the relevant facts pertaining to the charges of sexual misconduct which are found from the evidence presented. The minor student testified that one evening near the end of August, but before school started in August of 1983, he babysat for the Respondent. The Respondent's two children went to bed around 9:00 P.M., and because the Respondent and his wife were out late, the minor went to bed in the upstairs bedroom of the Respondent's son. Sometime after the Respondent and his wife returned home, the Respondent awakened the minor and brought him downstairs. The Respondent's two children were upstairs asleep, and his wife had retired for the evening. Once downstairs, the Respondent began massaging the minor's back, then his stomach, and then masturbated him. The minor testified that while doing so, the Respondent told him that he loved him more than just as a friend. The minor testified further, that on October 6, 1983, he and the Respondent attended a concert in the Lakeland Civic Center. He and the Respondent drove to Lakeland alone in the Respondent's automobile. The concert began around 7:00 or 8:00 P.M. and ended approximately 10:00 or 10:30 P.M. After the concert, they drove to a Bennigan's Restaurant in Tampa. Because he is a minor and it was after 9:00 P.M., he was refused admission. The Respondent and the minor left Bennigan's and drove back to Brooksville. On the way, the Respondent stopped at a convenience store and purchased two beers, one for the minor and one for himself. This convenience store is located approximately 20 to 30 miles outside Brooksville, but was not further identified clearly. Because of the lateness of the hour, it had been pre-arranged that the minor would spend the night at the Respondent's house. During this night, in the Respondent's living room, he again began massaging the minor, and masturbated him, and this time also performed oral sex upon the minor. In order to make the findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1 - 13 above, it is not essential that this testimony of the minor be rejected as false. There simply is not sufficient evidence in this record to corroborate the minor's testimony. There is no evidence of any previous sexual misconduct on the part of the Respondent in the twelve years he has been teaching physical education. There is no evidence of any sexual misconduct with the subject minor throughout their years of close relationship, except the two incidents described, even though better opportunities for such misconduct existed frequently. Even on the night of the concert in Lakeland, there were opportunities to abuse the minor in a parking lot or along the road during the trip, instead of in the Respondent's house only a wall away from the eyes and ears of his lightly sleeping wife. The guidance counselor at Spring Hill Elementary School who receives complaints of sexual molestation received none concerning the Respondent. Neither the principal of Spring Hill Elementary School nor the assistant superintendent of the Hernando County School Board received any such complaints concerning the Respondent. The evidence discloses that the Respondent has a reputation for being a law abiding citizen in both his local community and his teaching community. In summary, the evidence, apart from the allegations in this case, is that the Respondent has never made any sexual contact with any minor. Based upon the allegations of sexual misconduct made against him, the Respondent was arrested on December 22, 1983, and charged by information with the offense of sexual battery. On the advice of his attorney, the Respondent entered a plea of no contest, and on April 18, 1983, the Circuit Court entered its order withholding adjudication, placing the Respondent on probation for three years, and assessing court costs of $515.00 against him. Following the Respondent's arrest, various newspaper articles were published reporting the allegations, his prosecution, and his suspension from the teaching position he held. As a result, the local teaching community as well as the student body became aware of the Respondent's situation. Nevertheless, the principal of Spring Hill Elementary School and the assistant superintendent of the Hernando County School Board testified that if the charges against the Respondent were proven to be true, then his effectiveness as a teacher would be seriously impaired, and the principal would not want the Respondent to return to school as a teacher if the allegations were proven to be true. Based upon the failure of the weight of the evidence to support a factual finding that these allegations are true, this testimony is not relevant. Moreover, there is no evidence in this record to support a finding that the Respondent would not be effective as a physical education teacher under the factual situation that is found above, based on the weight of the credible evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed by the Education Practices Committee against the Respondent, Thomas B. Ferris, be dismissed. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the charges against the Respondent, Thomas B. Ferris, brought by the Hernando County School Board, be dismissed. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Thomas B. Ferris, be reinstated by the Hernando County School Board with full back pay from the date of his suspension. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 30th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Bolder, Esquire P. O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 33512 Perry Gall Gruman, Esquire 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct with students and colleagues during the 1996-97 school year, having received a Letter of Reprimand on September 22, 1997. Whether Respondent violated various provisions of the Principles of Professional Conduct during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school year. Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked or suspended or other penalty imposed as provided by law, for gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the exhibits received into evidence, the stipulation of the parties, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Education Practices Commission has the authority to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any person holding a Florida Educator's Certificate for violation of Florida laws and rules. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 537304, covering the areas of Elementary Education and Middle Grade Math, and which is valid through June 30, 1999. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed by Orange County School District as a teacher at Union Park Middle School. April Cook, now 14, had Respondent as a math and English teacher when she was in the sixth grade. On one occasion, during the 1996-97 school year, while April was attending Respondent's class, Respondent was talking to the class about a "higher power" and raised her hand using her middle finger stating that this referred to the higher power. April interpreted this hand gesture to mean "fuck you" and was "stunned" by Respondent's conduct in the classroom. Ricky Souza, now 14, had Respondent as his sixth grade language arts teacher and seventh grade math teacher. On one occasion while Ricky was attending Respondent's class, Respondent was talking to the class about how she praised God and raised her hand using her middle finger in the same manner observed by Cook. Ricky was "offended" by Respondent's hand gesture, although Respondent stated that God was a good force. Respondent was not a popular teacher while at Union Park Middle School and students were regularly disrespectful in class and would spread rumors about her throughout the school. Rebecca Jones and Carol Pickler are teachers at Union Park Middle School. Mrs. Jones has been a teacher for 18 years, Mrs. Pickler, 32 years. On one occasion during the 1996-97 school year, while Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Pickler were in the hallway of the school talking, Respondent approached them and stated: "Every time I see the two of you, I'd like to beat the shit out of both of you." She then turned and walked down the hallway. No provocation for the statement has been established. However, no students were in the area to hear the remark. Diane Lovett was the principal at Union Park Middle School during the relevant time period. She has been a teacher and administrator for 10 years. Her responsibilities include evaluation of teachers, observations of teachers and handling disciplinary matters. While principal at Union Park, Mrs. Lovett observed Respondent teach on several occasions. During these observations Respondent's teaching seemed to be "scattered discourse." On one occasion, Lovett heard the Respondent threaten her students by telling them that the FBI would come and take them to jail if they did not behave. Mrs. Lovett also observed Respondent, while holding her hand up and counting on all of her fingers, use her middle finger in the same manner described by April Cook and Ricky Sousa. She alluded to the third finger as being an example of the higher power. Parents reported to Mrs. Lovett that they were offended by the hand gesture made by Respondent, as reported to them by students. Respondent used hand gestures in the classroom which were misinterpreted by the students. Mrs. Lovett counseled Respondent about the hand gesture and told her that it was an obscene gesture and that she should not use it in the classroom. After Mrs. Lovett counseled Respondent about her using the hand gesture, Mrs. Lovett observed Respondent use the gesture in the classroom again by referring to the middle finger as the higher power. On another occasion, Mrs. Lovett went to Respondent's classroom. When Mrs. Lovett arrived, Respondent was very distraught. Respondent was screaming at a student and pointing in the face of one of the students because she thought the student's book bag was not placed properly under his desk. Respondent stated that she could not take it anymore. Other students in the classroom observed Respondent's behavior and they were "on the verge of tears." Respondent used acrostics often in the classroom. One acrostic was to use the word "Christ" to spell out a positive message. Linda Lovell is the bookkeeper at Union Park Middle School. Mrs. Lovell has been at Union Park for 14 years. On one occasion, Respondent directed one of her students to take a document to Mrs. Lovell and ask her to send the document to the address by fax. Mrs. Lovell told the student to inform Respondent that she (Mrs. Lovell) could not fax the document, but that she would show Respondent how to use the fax machine. Later that afternoon, Respondent went to the front office where Mrs. Lovell's office was located and engaged in a verbal altercation with Lovell, at whom Respondent yelled and screamed. Respondent accused Mrs. Lovell of causing her husband to lose his insurance because Mrs. Lovell did not send the fax. Because Respondent was very angry and appeared out of control, Mrs. Lovell was afraid and did not know what to do. Others in the office could hear the Respondent's verbal assault upon Mrs. Lovell. On September 22, 1997, the principal of Union Park issued a letter of reprimand for misconduct, including inappropriate conduct in the classroom and with school statements for the incidents described above which occurred in the 1996-97 school year. Respondent disputed the substance of the allegations contained in the letter. The 1996-97 school year was a very stressful period for Respondent. During the period, Respondent's mother died, her husband became gravely ill and subsequently died also, and Respondent was removed from the classroom for a period of time. When she returned she came under the close scrutiny of a new principal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order that: Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct with students and colleagues during the 1996-97 school year. Respondent be found not guilty of gross immorality or committing an act involving moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Respondent be found not guilty of violating Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent be issued a letter of reprimand in view of the minor matter of the offense and the demonstration of mitigation by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 10th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Harvey M. Alper, Esquire Alper & Crichton, P.A. 112 West Citrus Street Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Ron Weaver, Esquire 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact From September, 1990, and at all times material to this case, Karen E. Maroon (Respondent) was employed on an annual contract as a bus driver for the Lee County School District. "Bus referrals" are the method used by bus drivers to report student misconduct to appropriate school authorities. A referral consists of a multi- part form completed by the bus driver which identifies the name of the student alleged to have committed the infractions and a description of the offending behavior. The form is submitted to the school official responsible for addressing bused student misbehavior. The official reviews the report and completes the form by setting forth the action taken in response to the referral. At Bonita Springs Middle School, Assistant Principal Helen Hicks-Wiley is responsible for bus referrals. On March 3, 1993, the Respondent wrote several bus referrals alleging that three female students had acted improperly on the Respondent's bus. She did not turn them in at that time. The next day, the Respondent was absent from work. On the morning of March 5, 1993, the Respondent turned the referrals into the Bonita Springs school office. Ms. Hicks-Wiley reviewed the referrals and wrote "see me" on them. On the afternoon of March 5, 1993, the Respondent arrived at the Bonita Springs Middle School prior to 3:30 p.m. Upon her arrival, another bus driver delivered the Respondent's referral slips on which Ms. Hicks-Wiley had written "see me." The Respondent began attempting to locate Ms. Hicks-Wiley. Bonita Springs Middle School students are released from class in two sections. Bus students are released first. After buses have departed, the remaining students are released. At approximately 3:30 p.m., the Respondent located the school's principal and inquired of Ms. Hicks-Wiley location. He stated he did not know where she was. During that very short conversation, the Respondent was in a hurry and somewhat angry. At that time, the 3:30 bell signaling the first release of students was sounded. At 3:30 p.m., Ms. Hicks-Wiley was in front of the school at the site of the bus transport staging area. It was her usual responsibility to monitor the area while the students boarded the buses. At the 3:30 p.m. first release bell, approximately 500 students began exiting the building on their way to their buses. At approximately 3:31 p.m., the school fire alarm sounded. Smoke, from what was subsequently determined to be an overheated water cooler, was visible in one hallway. As the fire alarm sounded, the bus-riding students, already in the hallways and exiting the building, were joined by the evacuation of approximately 200 additional students. As the students became excited, the fire alarm compounded the typical confusion expected at the close of the middle school day. The students were more noisy than usual. The fire alarm continued to ring. Some of the buses, engines running, were waiting to depart. At about 3:32 p.m., the Respondent approached Ms. Hicks-Wiley in front of the school and inquired as to the "see me" notation on the referrals. Because Ms. Hicks-Wiley was otherwise occupied with the evacuation of students from the facility, she declined to discuss the referrals at that time and directed the Respondent to contact her on Monday. The Respondent was apparently dissatisfied with Ms. Hicks-Wiley's response and attempted to continue the conversation. Ms. Hicks-Wiley repeatedly declined to discuss the matter in front of the milling children and directed the Respondent to contact her on Monday. Ms. Hicks-Wiley's manner in declining to discuss the matter at that time was to use the "broken record method" during which she simply repeated again and again her direction to contact her on Monday. Ms. Hicks-Wiley attempted to walk past the Respondent so as to continue her supervision of the bus loading area. As Ms. Hicks-Wiley walked, the Respondent placed her hand on Ms. Hicks-Wiley's arm. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Maroon blocked Ms. Hicks-Wiley's movements. Ms. Hicks-Wiley lost her temper, throwing her hands into the air and stating "Don't touch me. Don't ever touch me." Ms. Hicks-Wiley's fingernails are exceptionally long. The Respondent, having lost her temper and apparently feeling threatened by the length of Ms. Hicks-Wiley's nails, threw her hands into the air and stated "Don't touch me. If you touch me, bitch, I will kick your ass." Beyond the Respondent's touching of Ms. Hicks-Wiley's arm, there is no evidence that either woman touched the other. Ms. Hicks-Wiley then directed the Respondent to get on her bus and complete her job duties. Ms. Hicks-Wiley, who was equipped with a portable transmitter radio also contacted the school's Resource Officer. He arrived at the site but was not required to intervene. The Respondent, upset by the situation, returned to her bus, and departed from the school with her load of students. The Lee County Superintendent of Schools directed an investigation of the incident. On March 10, 1993, a conference was held at which time the Respondent was provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations. She denied the allegations. On March 10, 1993, the Respondent was suspended with pay from her employment as a bus driver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Karen E. Maroon. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2937 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5. Rejected, as to how the Principal "felt," irrelevant. 8. Rejected as to location of parties during incident, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected as to the extent of the explanation as to the reason the discussion would have to be postponed, irrelevant. It would have been obvious as to the reason. 14-15, 17, 19. Rejected, subordinate. 20-21. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 22. Rejected, irrelevant. 25. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 27. Rejected, subordinate. 28, 33-34. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6-7. Rejected, unnecessary. The referral was addressed on the day it was turned in to the school office. Unusual circumstances at around 3:30 p.m. on that day prevented the appropriate school official from discussing the matter with the Respondent. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, as to the alarm not being cause for concern, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 11-13. Rejected, restatement of testimony is not appropriate finding of fact. 14. Rejected, subordinate. 15-21. Rejected, restatement of testimony is not appropriate finding of fact, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 23-26. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, contrary to greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which fails to establish the precise location of parties during incident. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, testimony of other bus drivers is not found to be credible or persuasive except as otherwise set forth herein. 30-31. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Bobbie D'Alessandro, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Marianne Kantor, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament, Esquire Kunkel & Hament Suite 785, 1800 Second Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 32902
