Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the following facts are found: Respondent Kenneth Neil Watts has been employed by the Levy County School Board for ten years. He has continuously been assigned to Yankeetown School where he has taught seventh and eighth grade math, science and physical education. He has been on continuing contract status since 1975. Prior to coming to Yankeetown, he had an additional three years of teaching experience. On August 20, 1981, the first day of school for students, respondent came to school a little late. Harvey Markham, the Principal of Yankeetown School, believed that he smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. He had a conference with respondent and the building representative for the Levy County Educational Association, Barbara Delores Gaitanis, was present at this conference. Mr. Markham accused respondent of being inebriated and respondent denied that he had been drinking any alcoholic beverage: Respondent became very upset from his conversation with Mr. Markham, did not feel that he could go into his classroom in that upset condition and asked if he could be relieved from his duties on that day. Respondent then drove himself home. Nothing was placed in respondent's personnel file concerning this incident. Ms. Gaitanis did not notice any smell of alcohol from the respondent, and did not notice anything unusual about respondent's physical appearance. Mr. Markham believed he smelled alcohol and noted that respondent's face was flushed and his eyes were bloodshot. Respondent was not slurring his speech or staggering. On December 9, 1981, respondent did not report for work. This was the first occasion when respondent had not given prior adequate notice of his absence. The school called respondent's residence, respondent answered the phone and said that he had overslept and would be in later. Respondent's words during that conversation were somewhat slurred. Respondent's wife later called in and reported that respondent would not be in that day. Mr. Markham asked respondent to go to a doctor that day and to bring him a note from the doctor. Respondent did go to a doctor and brought Mr. Markham a paid receipt for the visit. Two students believed they smelled alcohol on respondent's breath on or about December 18, 1981, the last day of school before the Christmas holidays. These students did not notice any change in respondent's physical appearance or behavior on that occasion. Three other students believed they smelled alcohol on respondent's breath on several occasions. They could not recall the dates. On such occasions, respondent showed no difference in behavior or physical appearance. Two teachers who had worked with respondent for ten years and saw him on a daily basis, sometimes in the morning, at lunchtime and again at the end of the school day, never smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. One of these teachers specifically remembered seeing respondent on the last day before the Christmas holidays. Three teachers' aides employed at Yankeetown School for 6, 4 and 2 1/2 years respectively, observed respondent on a daily basis--sometimes three times a day--and never smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. Twelve students who had respondent as a teacher for two or three periods a day on a daily basis during the 1981-82 school year never noticed the odor of alcohol from the respondent. Many of these students had respondent as a teacher during the first and second periods of the day and would have been present both on the day preceding the Christmas holidays and on April 19th, the day of his suspension. On April 19, 1982, Principal Markham's secretary noticed the smell of alcohol on respondent's breath as he was taking roll in his classroom. Mr. Markham called respondent to his office and building representative Gaitanis was again present. Markham accused respondent of being intoxicated, respondent denied that he had been drinking, and Markham then gave respondent the option to take a breathalizer examination. Respondent replied that he would do so if he could do it locally and did not have to travel to Bronson. Bronson is some thirty-five miles from Yankeetown and respondent did not have a car on April 19th. Mr. Markham did not order respondent to take the breathalizer exam. Mr. Markham sent respondent to the teachers' lounge and then asked his secretary to drive respondent home. Ms. Gaitanis noticed no odor of alcohol during the conference between respondent and Mr. Markham. A teacher's aide who saw respondent in the teachers' lounge at about 10:00 a.m. on April 19th and sat three to four feet away from him noticed no odor of alcohol. Mr. Markham admitted that respondent did not slur his speech, stagger or otherwise appear intoxicated in his behavior. He did observe that respondent's eyes were bloodshot and his face was flushed. Mr. Markham's secretary smelled the odor of alcohol while driving respondent home, but did not notice anything peculiar in respondent's behavior or appearance. Respondent does not like and does not drink hard liquor. He sometimes drinks a beer or two on the weekends or in the afternoon or evening after school. Respondent does not drink beer or alcohol at school or in the mornings before school. His eyes are often bloodshot and he occasionally has trouble sleeping at night. On Sunday, April 18th, respondent had been at the beach in the sun all day. Yankeetown is a small town with a population of approximately 500. If a resident had a drinking problem, it is probable that it would be common knowledge throughout the community. There was no testimony from parents, teachers or other community members that they had heard that respondent came to school intoxicated or with alcohol on his breath, or otherwise had a drinking problem. Principal Markham's "Instructional Evaluation" of respondent for the 1981-82 school year was prepared on March 18, 1982. As was true for the previous years' evaluations, respondent received a "Currently Satisfactory," the highest rating available, in all areas under the headings of "Teaching Competencies" and "Personnel and Professional Qualities." The subareas in which respondent was rated included "planning," "teaching techniques," "classroom management," "accurate and punctual in routine duties, records and reports" and "complies with school, county and state policies." Respondent took eleven full days and five half days of sick and personal leave during the 1981-82 school year. Other than the one December 9th occasion, respondent gave adequate notice of his absences. His leave days were always approved and he was paid for each of them. Mr. Markham felt that respondent's absences were a "minor" problem and he would not have recommended termination on this basis alone. He discussed respondent's absences with him on one occasion, but did not place anything in writing in respondent's personnel file. Respondent prepared lesson plans for substitutes to use during his absences and these plans were submitted to Principal Markham. Markham recalled discussing inadequate lesson plans with respondent on one or two occasions, but admitted that he had not previously placed much emphasis on lesson plans. No memoranda were placed in respondent's personnel file concerning lesson plans, and respondent could not recall any discussion with Mr. Markham regarding the adequacy of his lesson plans.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in the April 30, 1982, "Recommendation of Dismissal" be DISMISSED, and that respondent be immediately reinstated with back pay from May 7, 1982, the date of his suspension without pay. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Anthony Cleveland General Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Francis E. Rowell Superintendent School Board of Levy County, Florida Post Office Box 128 Bronson, Florida 32621-0128
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 1, 1980, Respondent, David K. Witherspoon, and his parents were advised by the Pinellas County Superintendent of Schools, Gus Sakkis, that he was being suspended from the public schools of Pinellas County for the remainder of the 1980/81 and 1981/82 school years based on an allegation that Respondent committed a battery while on school grounds on September 19, 1980, following a high school football game. (Joint Exhibit 1) Respondent is scheduled to graduate from high school at the end of the 1981/82 school year. Following the expulsion, Respondent has been assigned and is attending an evening alternative education school program sponsored by the Pinellas County School System. According to testimony, that a system provides two hours of instruction each week day evening. Respondent appealed the Superintendent's expulsion and the parties stipulated that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to resolve this controversy. According to the Code of Student Conduct, students are expected to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that "shall [not] infringe on the rights of others. A battery, according to the Code of Student Conduct, is the unlawful, intentional touching . . . or force to another person, done in a rude, insolent and angry manner shall subject a student to disciplinary action which may include suspension or expulsion from school." Paragraph 3(a)2, Code of Student Conduct. The material allegations of this controversy are that following the football game at Gibbs Senior High School (Gibbs) on September 19, 1980, Respondent while in the company of four other black males struck Anthony Scott Taylor, a seventeen year old senior at Gibbs, his mother and his fiancee in the school's parking lot. Anthony Taylor charged that Respondent kicked him across his eye; struck him with his fist, bruising his nose and caused his eye to bleed. Taylor has know Respondent for more than two years and has had no prior run-ins or altercations with Respondent. Taylor alleges that approximately 20 or more black students encircled him during the altercation with Respondent. Taylor, while on his knees in a slouched position when he was allegedly hit an kicked by Respondent, glanced up to identify Respondent. Taylor admitted that he was preoccupied with ensuring that his fiancee and mother could leave the parking area without difficulty. He also commented that blood was streaming from his right eye from the blow he received. Ann Taylor, Anthony Taylor's mother, was also struck by a black male as she was leaving the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Mrs. Taylor testified that her son was knocked down he (Anthony) told one of the black males "that's my mother you knocked down." Mrs. Taylor testified that she was unable to identify any of the students involved in the altercation and noted that her son was dazed when he left the area where the fight occurred. Lori Bush, Respondent's fiancee, also accompanied the Taylors following the football game. Ms. Bush also could not identify any of the students involved in the altercation with them. Ms. Bush and Anthony Taylor's mother picked him up and carried him to their car. Ms. Bush did not recall having seen Respondent prior to the hearing in this cause. Paula Sitzelberger, a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department investigated the subject incident which occurred at Gibbs on September 19, 1980. Detective Sitzelberger spoke to Respondent at school on September 23, 1980, and after questioning him, reported that Respondent denied striking Anthony Taylor following the game. Detective Sitzelberger noted that Respondent admitted to having shoved another white male whose identity is unknown in another area of the parking lot after the white male allegedly pulled or struck Respondent. Detective Sitzelberger was unable to locate any independent witnesses to the subject incident. Jerry Young, a witness called on behalf of Respondent, recalled the numerous fights which occurred following the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Young followed Respondent throughout the school ground area and denied that Respondent had any involvement in the subject incident. He corroborated Respondent's testimony to the effect that Respondent's hand was injured in another incident in another area of the school's parking area after Respondent was first enmeshed in an altercation with another white male. Respondent related the incident following the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Respondent has been attending evening sessions at Mirror Lake Adult High School since his expulsion from the regular public schools of Pinellas County. According to Respondent, Tony Taylor was struck by a group of other blacks and Respondent denied any involvement on his part in that incident. Respondent surmised that Tony Taylor shouted that he recognized him while he was being struck in an effort to gain some sympathy from the group that was striking him. Respondent, after hearing Tony Taylor shouted that he recognized him while he was being struck in an effort to gain some sympathy from the group that was striking him. Respondent, after hearing Tony Taylor repeatedly shout that he knew him, left the area with companion Young although he got involved in another altercation with another white male which resulted in an injury to his hand. Respondent first became aware of his alleged involvement in the Anthony Taylor incident the following Monday when he was questioned by Dean Jones and Detective Sitzelberger. 2/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be reinstated in the Pinellas County School System; that the suspension be revoked and that the student be permitted to make up the school work missed as provided in Chapter 4(b)1(h) of the Code of Student Conduct adopted by the Pinellas County School System. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1981.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged and violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 722947, covering the area of Varying Exceptionalities. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a pre-kindergarten teacher at Curlew Elementary School in the Pinellas County School District. She had worked for the Pinellas County School District since 1993. At the time of the events at issue here, Respondent’s class consisted of approximately 12 pre-kindergarten students with varying mental and physical exceptionalities. Respondent had two paraprofessionals assigned to her classroom—Tiffany Jones and Lisa Ann Scalero-Gonzalez. Student C.G. C.G. was a student in Respondent’s class for approximately two years before the events at issue had occurred. C.G. utilized a wheelchair and was unable to stand or walk. He could, however, roll over, scoot on his stomach, and move his legs. He had some feeling in his legs. On August 22, 2017, C.G. was in Respondent’s classroom laying under a Johnny Gym, a toy with padded crossbars and dangling mobiles. C.G. was wearing short pants. Respondent sat in front of C.G. in a small chair. C.G. rolled onto his stomach, scooted out of the Johnny Gym, and attempted to crawl. Respondent had not seen C.G. crawl before and testified that she believed she was witnessing a physical breakthrough. C.G. attempted to crawl for approximately five minutes before tiring and placing his head down on the carpet. Respondent then picked up C.G. and placed him in a chair. C.G. appeared pleased with himself while trying to crawl. He did not cry or appear to be in any discomfort while attempting to crawl. Later that day, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the school nurse, Stephanie Doehlman, R.N., came to Respondent’s room to administer a tube feeding to C.G. When Ms. Doehlman arrived, C.G. was on his belly on the rug. This was not unusual according to Ms. Doehlman. Ms. Doehlman did not notice any blisters at that time, but the room was dimly lit. Ms. Doehlman picked up C.G. and placed him in a chair and fed him through the feeding tube placed in his belly. The feeding took about five to ten minutes. Ms. Doehlman left Respondent’s classroom after the feeding was over. Shortly after Ms. Doehlman left the classroom, the lights were turned on and Ms. Scalero-Gonzalez noticed that blisters were starting to form on C.G.’s knees. Ms. Scalero-Gonzalez asked Ms. Doehlman to return to the classroom to examine C.G.’s knees. Ms. Doehlman returned to Respondent’s classroom at about 1:30 p.m. and noted that C.G. appeared to have rug burns forming on both knees. Later that day, C.G. was placed in his wheelchair and taken outside for physical education. After C.G. was outside in the daylight, Ms. Doehlman could see that both of C.G.’s knees were blistered. Ms. Doehlman cleaned C.G.’s knees with soap and water and notified his parents. Photographs taken of C.G.’s knees one or two days later show significant rug burns on both knees. It is likely that C.G. sustained the rug burns when he attempted to crawl for approximately five minutes in Respondent’s classroom on August 22, 2017. Petitioner did not prove, with certainty, that it was reasonably foreseeable that significant rug burns would result from this activity. Likewise, Petitioner failed to prove that the rug burns are the result of Respondent’s failure to adequately supervise C.G. Student A.M. A.M. was a student in Respondent’s classroom in 2017. A.M. was also unable to walk and utilized a wheelchair. At approximately 1:16 p.m. on August 24, 2017, Respondent transported A.M. to the playground in his wheelchair while pulling a wagon loaded with students behind her. Respondent opened the door that accesses the playground and let go of A.M.’s wheelchair while she attempted to pull the wagon through the same doorway. As she let go of A.M.’s wheelchair, it started to roll down a concrete slope toward the playground. A video of the incident shows A.M. in his wheelchair rolling toward the playground, unescorted, and Respondent chasing after him. Before Respondent could catch up to A.M.’s wheelchair, its wheels hit the landscape edging separating the playground mulch from the sidewalk. The wheelchair tipped forward when its wheels struck the edging, causing A.M. to strike the mulch with his head. A.M. remained belted in his wheelchair, but his head hit the playground mulch with significant force when the wheelchair hit the edging and tipped forward. Within seconds, Respondent picked up A.M.’s wheelchair and removed him from it. A.M. began to cry as soon as he hit the playground mulch. After Respondent removed A.M. from his wheelchair, she sat down in a chair and rocked him in an effort to console him. Respondent held A.M. and rocked him for two minutes, but A.M. continued to cry. Respondent then carried A.M. to a playground swing and swung him. Ms. Scalero-Gonzalez told Respondent that she needed to take A.M. to the nurse immediately, but Respondent refused. Respondent continued to swing A.M. in the playground swing for about 20 minutes, and then carried A.M. to see Ms. Doehlman. Ms. Doehlman examined A.M. and found that he had redness over his left eye and a scratch on his forehead. There was no bruising or blood. Ms. Doehlman called A.M.’s mother at 1:55 p.m. to report the incident to her. Because A.M. injured his head, Respondent was required to describe the circumstances that led to the incident in a Student Injury Worksheet and Student Injury Report. After Respondent carried A.M. to Ms. Doehlman, Respondent hand-wrote the following account of the incident in the Student Injury Worksheet for A.M.: [A.M.] was in a wheelchair going to p.e., he propelled himself to the edging that separates concrete from mulch. His wheelchair tipped and he went forward in the chair. Teacher caught him as he hit the mulch. This is a false account of the incident. A.M. did not propel himself to the edging; Respondent let go of A.M.’s wheelchair and it rolled down a concrete slope, struck the landscape edging, and tipped forward, causing A.M.’s head to hit the mulch. Respondent did not catch A.M. as he hit the mulch. A.M. hit the mulch with significant force before Respondent caught up to his wheelchair. The Student Injury Report Respondent completed on August 24, 2017, contains the same false report of the incident involving A.M. The reasonable inference is that Respondent hoped to avoid reporting this incident altogether by attempting to console A.M. for 20 minutes before she finally took him to see Ms. Doehlman. Then, Respondent lied about the incident in the Student Injury Worksheet and Student Injury Report to avoid responsibility for having caused the accident. It is reasonably foreseeable that letting go of A.M.’s wheelchair could cause it to roll down the concrete slope and cause an accident. To her credit, Respondent ran after A.M.’s wheelchair as soon as she noticed it was rolling toward the playground. Unfortunately, Respondent could not catch the wheelchair in time. This was a momentary lapse that, fortunately, did not cause serious harm to A.M. This was not an intentional act, and there was no evidence that Respondent had been careless in the past when transporting A.M. or other students to the playground. Respondent’s actions after the incident are far more troubling. Respondent should have taken A.M. to the school nurse immediately after the accident happened. Respondent did not take A.M. directly to the school nurse because she hoped he would calm down and she could avoid reporting the incident. The resulting delay in examination could have resulted in serious harm to A.M. had he suffered a more severe injury when his head hit the mulch. After she carried A.M. to the school nurse, she lied about the incident, hoping to avoid any responsibility for her carelessness. Respondent’s delay in taking A.M. to the school nurse and false report of the incident are intentional acts of misconduct. Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect A.M. from conditions harmful to his physical health when she let go of his wheelchair and when she delayed his presentation to the school nurse for approximately 20 minutes. Respondent failed to maintain honesty in professional dealings when she knowingly and intentionally submitted a false report of the incident involving A.M. in the Student Injury Worksheet and the Student Injury Report that she completed on August 24, 2017.
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 that Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and (c)1., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of two years from the date of the final order; and probation for a period of one year after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRIAN A. NEWMAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Turlington Building, Suite 316 Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether there are sufficient grounds for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Respondent’s teaching certificate and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 484422, covering the areas of biology and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2017. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at Oak Park. Respondent worked at Oak Park from September 25, 2013, to May 20, 2014. On May 21, 2014, Respondent was removed from her classroom as a result of the May 16, 2014, student-smoking incident (the “incident”) described herein and assigned to the school district office in a non-instructional position. Respondent was a first-year probationary teacher at Oak Park. Due to the incident, Respondent’s employment with the school district was not renewed for the following school year. Respondent is currently employed at Emerald High School in Greenwood County, South Carolina. Respondent had not been the subject of any previous complaints or disciplinary actions during her period of employment. The first session of the Oak Park school day, extending from 9:04 to 9:34 a.m., is called Knights Unite (“KU”). KU is described as: 30 minute period where healthy relationships between the students, faculty and staff of OPMS can be built. It is a time set aside for mentoring, engaging students with interactive activities to build their character, interactive activities to review content and to give each student of Oak Park someone they can trust and confide in. Respondent described the KU period as one in which she could help students to make up work, help them with independent study, allow students to meet with other teachers for help or independent study, engage in certain mandated activities, e.g., bullying lessons, and perform student-related administrative tasks. Fridays were typically independent study days in which students were allowed to make up work from the week. On Friday, May 16, 2014, during the KU period, students were involved in independent study and with filling out required address forms. Students needing to go to the media center, the guidance office, the main office, or to meet with other teachers during the KU period are given passes. Allowing students to engage in those tasks, including issuing passes for students “to get assistance or additional paperwork from a different teacher” was not contrary to Oak Park policy, nor did it violate any standard. Except for the four students involved in the incident, there was no evidence that any student left Respondent’s classroom without a pass. Petitioner suggested that the tasks being performed (or that were supposed to be performed) in Respondent’s class on May 16, 2014, were inconsistent with Petitioner’s written KU guidelines. Since the activities being performed by students, with the exception of those related to the incident, were not alleged as violations in the Administrative Complaint, compliance with the KU guidelines is not at issue. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that activities, such as individual mentoring or tutoring and individual catch-up work, are an appropriate use of KU period time. According to Ms. Longo, there were 18 students in Respondent’s KU class on May 16, 2014. At the time of the incident, each student had an individual desk. Currently, as depicted in the photographs in evidence, the classroom has been reconfigured with tables that seat multiple students. At some point during the May 16, 2014, KU period, a group of four of Respondent’s less responsible students huddled furtively in the back of the classroom. The two male students involved, D.L. and J.G., lit the butt of a small “Tiparello”- style cigar, and took a few quick puffs. They had their backs to Respondent’s desk and ducked down to conceal their actions. One of the two female students, J.C., in order to preserve the foolhardy act for posterity, took a cell phone video of the incident. The length of the video was a total of one minute and 51 seconds. The cigar appeared to have been first lit at the 0:05 mark. The youthful miscreants did not intend to be discovered, as evidenced by one student’s hushed statement that “I swear to God if you show anybody that [unintelligible] snitch.” That their actions were not obvious is supported by the lack of attention that they drew from other more conscientious students in the class, who did not look up or react to the act of false bravado. At the 0:17 second mark, Respondent can be seen at her desk at the front of the room attending to H.E., another student who was not involved in the incident. H.E. was generally positioned between Respondent and the cigar-smoking students, shielding Respondent from their actions. Respondent was also in the process of taking attendance. Ms. Longo testified that it is appropriate for Respondent to be at her desk to perform those tasks. Although Respondent and H.E. are only glimpsed at the 0:17 mark, it is not reasonable to conclude that H.E. simply vanished at that point, exposing the four troublemakers to Respondent’s view. Rather, some seconds had to have passed before H.E. moved away. The student’s efforts to hide the cigar and fan away the smoke confirm their efforts to avoid detection. Although J.G. coughed, his proximity to the cell phone (one or two feet) makes it impossible to tell how noticeable the cough would be from a distance. At the 0:25 mark, D.L. eyed the recording cell phone and threw down with a devil-may-care “whazzup, whazzup.” From roughly the 0:33 mark to the 0:44 mark, the youthful miscreants hurriedly hid the evidence and assumed an attitude of casual insouciance. The video then went black from the 0:43 mark to the 0:55 mark and, although the picture returned, the cell phone was clearly being concealed from the 0:55 mark to the 1:03 mark. That thirty seconds of cover and concealment is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that she got up and went over to the students’ desk area. The video resumed at the 1:03 mark and, after a few furtive sweeps of the area, clearly taken from a low vantage point, again went black from the 1:11 to the 1:18 mark. At the 1:18 mark, the video resumed and, at the 1:22 mark, J.G. is seen lighting the half-inch butt with a Bic lighter. The behavior of J.G. and D.L. demonstrated a continued effort to conceal their actions. At the 1:30 mark, the video shows that the students had been “busted.” J.G., in a display of feigned innocence, loudly proclaimed “what is that smell?” By the 1:35 mark, Respondent had called J.G. and the owner of the phone to her desk, and they dutifully complied. An unidentified student mentioned the word “perfume,” and either J.G. or J.C. spoke of “cologne” in an obvious effort to explain the unusual aroma in the room. At the 1:48 mark, Respondent advised J.C. that Respondent would need her phone for the rest of the class. Though occurring after the 1:51 end of the video, Respondent successfully confiscated the phone, which Ms. Longo confirmed was the appropriate course of action. Respondent indicated that she could momentarily smell something unusual in the room, which she attributed variously to incense, cologne, or deodorant. Due to the pervasive musty and mildewy smell in the class caused by a water leak and chronically wet carpeting, along with her blocked sinuses, she could not tell what it was. As stated convincingly by Ms. Pickens, “there were different types of smells in there on one day to the next depending on whether or not they put the fan in the classroom to dry out the carpet.” There was no evidence that Ms. Warren could see what was occurring while taking attendance and consulting with the student at her desk.2/ Petitioner’s speculation that Respondent could have (or should have) seen exactly what was happening at the back of the room was just that - speculation. After J.C.’s cell phone was confiscated by Respondent, D.L. came up with several excuses as to why he should be allowed to leave the classroom. His requests were denied. Thereafter, as Respondent was calling the office to report the incident, D.L. and J.G., followed by the girls, J.C. and C.W., left the classroom without permission. Teachers are not allowed to physically restrain students attempting to leave the classroom. Rather, the teacher is to “push the call button that’s in every classroom immediately and say that so-and-so just walked out of my class.” Respondent complied with that expectation by calling the office, which is an acceptable option. Since no administrators were available, Respondent gave the information regarding the students’ escape from the classroom to Ms. Longo’s secretary. It took a while for anyone to respond to Respondent’s call. The students returned to the classroom after about five minutes. After their return, Mr. Justus, who was the school’s athletic director and “coach” for the social studies department, and a member of Ms. Longo’s “leadership team,” came to the room. Respondent wrote referrals on D.L. and J.G., and they left with Mr. Justus. After the boys were taken from the classroom, Respondent sent an email to Mr. Wade, the associate principal and dean of discipline, and Mr. Justus to inquire about the referral of the girls, J.C. and C.W., and to let them know that she had J.C.’s cell phone. Two periods later, Mr. Wade came to Respondent’s classroom, at which time Respondent turned over J.C.’s cell phone to him. By that time, she had retrieved a cigar wrapper from D.L.’s desk, which was also turned over to Mr. Wade.3/ Ms. Peterson concluded that “[n]o evidence exists to show that Ms. Warren was ever aware that students were actually smoking a cigar in her class.” She further testified that Respondent “wasn’t aware they were smoking. She thought something was wrong, but that doesn’t mean she knew that they were smoking. That could mean that someone’s with something like a piece of paper.” On May 20, 2014, Respondent was removed from the classroom and reassigned to the school district office. Respondent’s inability to see exactly what was occurring in the back of the classroom did not prevent her from suspecting improper conduct by the students and acting on that suspicion by appropriately requesting assistance from administration, confiscating the cellular telephone of a student, and investigating the matter herself to find the wrapper. The tone of the Administrative Complaint gives the impression that J.G. and D.L. put their feet up on their desks and enjoyed a fine Cuban Presidente while under Respondent’s approving gaze. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts show that J.G. and D.L., in a manner that was as sneaky and surreptitious as possible, lit the small cigar and, over the course of approximately 28 seconds, took a few furtive puffs. After putting it out and hiding the evidence, the miscreants repeated the act for approximately 13 seconds before being nabbed. The suggestion that Respondent neglected her duties, failed to make reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning or to their mental or physical health or their safety, or engaged in personal conduct that seriously reduced her effectiveness as a teacher is simply not supported by the facts of this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 17th day of November, 2016.
The Issue Whether Ms. Rokos' teaching certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for gross immorality or moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), and (f), Florida Statutes (1987), of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), and (h), Florida Administrative Code, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Nicole D. Rokos holds Florida Teaching Certificate 542378, in the areas of mental retardation and specific learning disabilities. She is 35 years old and has taught at exceptional student education programs for 11 1/2 years. At the time of the incident involved, Ms. Rokos was employed as a special education teacher at Ely High School by the School Board of Broward County. Ms. Rokos teaches students who are learning disabled, mentally handicapped, and emotionally disturbed. Learning-disabled students are typically of average or above average intelligence who do not learn in the same way as regular students, but require different teaching strategies and methods to succeed academically. Ms. Rokos often had contact with her students in addition to her regular class periods. She attempted to involve students in activities relating to areas in which they were insecure in order to improve their self-concept. As a teacher for 8 1/2 years at Ely High school, Ms. Rokos received very good evaluations of her performance which noted not only her teaching skills, but also her involvement in extra-curricular activities, see, e.g., the evaluations of December, 1982 and February, 1985. None of her evaluations contained any entries in the portion of the form used to describe areas needing improvement. Other teachers at Ely High School regard Ms. Rokos as an excellent teacher. Former students also regard her as an inspiring teacher. One of Ms. Rokos' students at Ely High School in 1988-89 school year was Earl Thomas Williams, Jr. He has learning disabilities in the areas of oral and written communication and mathematics and is of average intelligence. During December of 1988-89 school year he was 18 years of age, 6'3" tall and weighed 226 pounds. During evenings Earl Williams often would call Ms. Rokos for help with homework. Earl's father has high regard for Ms. Rokos, and believes that due to her work with Earl, Earl has stayed in school, and now attends community college. During the 1988-89 school year Marla Henderson, a cousin of Nicole Rokos by marriage, also attended Ely High School. She met Earl Williams through Ms. Rokos. Marla and Earl went out together from mid-September to mid-November, 1988. On December 3, 1988, at Earl's suggestion Ms. Rokos and another teacher accompanied Marla Henderson and Earl Williams to an Ely High School football game. That night Ms. Rokos dressed in socks and sneakers, white jogging shorts, white sweatpants which said "Tigers" down the side in orange letters, white tank top under a gray T-shirt with "Ely" written in orange letters across the front and a green "Ely" windbreaker. Earl Williams wore a yellow shirt, white jeans, and under them black cotton shorts that reach to the mid- thigh, which are similar to spandex bicycle shorts, but which fit somewhat more loosely. Those shorts had large white lettering horizontally at the elastic waist, as well as large white lettering vertically on the outside thigh area. After the game, at approximately 10:00 p.m., all four returned to the other teacher's home, where Ms. Rokos picked up her car, and left with Marla and Earl. Ms. Rokos' car has tinted windows. Marla was in the front seat and Earl in the back. Earl was sulking due to the recent break-up of his relationship with Marla. Ms. Rokos first dropped off Marla at approximately 11:00 p.m. Before returning to Earl's home, Earl ostensibly asked Ms. Rokos if they could go to a park and talk. Ms. Rokos drove to Kester Park in Pompano Beach, a park of approximately one square block. She pulled into the park between tall trees which line the perimeter of the park. The tree canopy obscured the light from near-by street lights in the car. A home invasion robbery had been reported to the Pompano Beach Police Department at a home near the park at about 11:00 p.m. At approximately 11:30 p.m. Officer William Weir of the Pompano Beach Police Department was in the area. He found Ms. Rokos' vehicle pulled between the trees at the park, which was then closed. Because the park was closed, and the car was partially concealed from view by the trees, he was alarmed, because the car could have been involved in the nearby robbery. Officer Weir was in a marked police car. Officer Weir drew near Ms. Rokos' car, and parked behind it so that the car could not back on to the street, nor go forward because of the trees and foliage in the park. He activated the spot lights on the top of his car, and could clearly identify a female figure inside the car. The driver side window was partially opened. As Officer Weir approached the car on foot, the driver attempted to back out, and although the car lurched back, its path was obstructed by the police car. As Office Weir reached the side of the car, a back-up officer arrived on the scene and also approached the vehicle. Officer Weir shined his police flashlight into the automobile where he could see Ms. Rokos and, for the first time, a man who was sitting in the passenger seat, who had not been visible before because the passenger seat was fully reclined. Officer Weir saw that Ms. Rokos was dressed only in a shirt, and was nude from the waist down. He could clearly see her thighs, pubic hair and genital area. Earl Williams was completely nude, and attempting to hide his genitals with the cloth of his yellow shirt. Officer Weir saw the student's penis protruding from beneath the material and his pubic hair. All facts taken together have led the Hearing Officer to infer that sexual contact between Ms. Rokos and the student had occurred or was imminent but interrupted by Officer Weir. In order to investigate further, Officer Weir directed both Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams to dress and exit the vehicle. After seeing Ms. Rokos' clothing with the Ely High School logo and noting the youth of her passenger, he asked whether she was a teacher. Initially, she denied it but later admitted to Officer Weir that Earl Williams was one of her students. Earl Williams readily admitted he was a student at Ely and Ms. Rokos was his teacher. She asked the officer not to report the incident, and was obviously distraught. Officer Weir then determined that Earl Williams was not a minor, and then warned Respondent about her conduct and allowed both of them to leave. Although no arrests were made, Officer Weir did file a uniform offense report about his contact with Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams at the end of his shift. Ms. Rokos testified that she was not nude, but had removed her socks, shoes, and sweatpants to be more comfortable, but was still wearing her shorts, and that Earl Williams had removed his shirt, which was in his lap, and had taken off his jeans, but he was not nude because he was wearing the black shorts. The testimony of Officer Weir is more credible. He saw the student completely nude and Ms. Rokos nude from the waist down. His testimony was emphatic and specific. Moreover, it was quite cool during the early morning hours of the night of December 3-4, 1988. There is no reasonable explanation for a teacher to have been parked in a car in a closed city park late at night with a student who had, according to her testimony, removed both his shirt and jeans, and for her to have removed her running shoes, socks, and sweatpants. Moreover, due to the bold white lettering horizontally across the waistband of the student's black shorts, and the bold white lettering vertically down the outside thigh of the shorts, the police officer would not have mistaken the shorts for flesh, even though the student is black. After receiving the incident report completed by Officer Weir, Lieutenant DeFuria of the Pompano Beach Police Department forwarded the report to the Director of Special Investigations at the School Board of Broward County, Howard J. Stearns. After reviewing the report on December 5, 1988, the first school day following the incident, Mr. Stearns had the administrators of Ely High School notify Ms. Rokos to meet with him at his office concerning the incident. At the interview, Ms. Rokos told Stearns that she was wearing underpants and the student was not nude. Having heard her denial, Mr. Stearns suggested that if she were being truthful, then Officer Weir must be lying, and the Pompano Beach Police Department should be requested to investigate the false report made by Officer Weir. Mr. Stearns began to dial the number of the Police Department, when Ms. Rokos relented and said that she did not think that any investigation of Officer Weir should be made. Ms. Rokos then broke into tears and asked to see her union representative. After meeting with that representative, Ms. Rokos resigned her position with the School Board of Broward County. One of the reasons she did so was to avoid the publicity incident to an investigation into the incident by the School Board. As the result of being discovered in such a compromising situation with one of her own students, Ms. Rokos has lost her effectiveness as a teacher in Broward County and would not be reemployed by the School Board of Broward County as an educator.
Recommendation It is recommended that the teaching certificate of Nicole D. Rokos be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of January, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-3947 Rulings on findings proposed by the Commissioner of Education: 1. Adopted in finding of fact 1. 2. Covered in finding of fact 1. 3. Adopted in finding of fact 6. 4. Adopted in finding of fact 6. 5. Adopted in finding of fact 11. 6. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 7. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 8. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 9. Adopted in finding of fact 13. 10. Incorporated in finding of fact 13. Considered in finding of fact 15. Considered in finding of fact 16. Considered in findings of fact 6 and 12. The remaining portions of the proposal are rejected as argument. It is true, however, that it would have been impossible for Earl Williams to have disrobed without Ms. Rokos being aware of it. Discussed in finding of fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Discussed in finding of fact 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Discussed in finding of fact 17. Rulings on findings proposed by Ms. Rokos: Adopted in finding of fact 1. Adopted in finding of fact 2. Generally adopted in finding of fact 3. To the extent appropriate, the evaluations are discussed in finding of fact 4. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate to the findings of fact made in findings 3-5. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 5. Discussed in finding of fact 6. Discussed in finding of fact 7. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 8. Discussed in finding of fact 9. Discussed in finding of fact 10. Rejected, see the findings made in finding of fact 10. Rejected; even if Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams discussed any matters relating to school, such discussions were not the focus of their activities in the car. See, the final sentence of finding of fact 12. Discussed in finding of fact 12. Discussed in finding of fact 12. How far the window was open is not significant; the officer had an adequate view of the scene. Adopted in finding of fact 12. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 15. Adopted in finding of fact 13. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. 25 and 26. Discussed in finding of fact 16. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 16. It is not clear whether Mr. Stearns said anything which would have led Ms. Rokos to believe than the school board would not report the matter to the Department of Education. The school board had no choice, and the matter was reported and investigated by the Department, which led to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks & LeBoeuf, P.A. 836 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should discipline Respondent for immorality, misconduct in office, or incompetency in connection with his supervision, as a high school baseball coach, of a team trip, during which hazing occurred, and his subsequent investigation of the incident.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a teacher and a coach for 27 years. He taught and coached in Illinois for 11 years before moving to Florida, where he has taught and coached for the past 16 years. He currently is teaching health, and he sometimes teaches physical education. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 551145, which is valid through June 30, 2005, and he is certified in health education, physical education, and social science. Respondent has coached basketball, football, and baseball. Most recently, Respondent was the head baseball coach at Coconut Creek High School where he was the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Coach of the Year for Broward County three years ago. He coached baseball four years at Coconut Creek High School and the preceding eight or nine years at Fort Lauderdale High School. The events in this case arose during the 2000 season; Respondent did not coach during the 2001 season. During spring break of 2000, Respondent took his baseball team to Orlando and Sebring. The purpose of the trip was to allow the team to play two high-school baseball games against teams from different regions of the state and to visit an Orlando theme park. The trip took place toward the end of the season, prior to the commencement of the district tournament. The Orlando trip extended from Sunday, April 16, through Wednesday, April 19. Twenty-four student athletes went on the trip. In addition to Respondent, the other adults supervising the students were assistant coaches Reynaldo Nieves, Joseph Leone, and Rex Nottage. Respondent's wife was also with him, as were several parents, but they did not share with Respondent and the assistant coaches supervisory responsibility for the students. On arriving in the Orlando area early in the morning, the group first visited Islands of Adventure, a theme park. They finally reached their hotel at about 8:00 p.m. Respondent gathered the students together and gave them directions as to where they could go. He told them they could not leave the motel property without the permission of a coach. Some students wanted to eat; most wanted to shower. Respondent told them they had to be in their rooms by 11:00 p.m. and their lights must be out by midnight. Respondent warned them that he and the other coaches would perform bed checks at these times. Respondent and his wife had arranged the rooms so that the group was together at the motel. Their rooms were on the second or third floor of the motel. Each room accommodated four students. Respondent and his wife were in a room, Mr. Leone was in a room, and Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage shared a room. The students' rooms were between the rooms of the adults to enable the adults to exercise closer control over the students. At some point prior to the first bed check, the older students began entering the rooms of the younger students, by trick or by force. A large group of the older students would then overpower the younger student and, typically, apply Icy Hot liniment to a towel and then to the testes of the student. The students were aware that this hazing was likely to occur during this trip. Seven of the students were hazed by nearly all of the remainder of the team. Prior to being hazed himself, D. B. was aware that other students had been hazed and was aware of the form of the hazing because some of the other students had come to D. B.'s room and asked to use the shower. D. B. was a junior, but this was his first year on the varsity, and he knew that the older students would try to haze him too. However, he did not try to contact one of the coaches or parents to intervene in the half hour that D. B. estimates elapsed between the hazing of the last of the other students and his hazing. As had happened to most of the other hazed students, most, if not all, of the older students on the team entered D. B.'s room, pulled down his pants, and applied Icy Hot and shaving cream to his genital area. D. B. yelled and struggled against four or five students on various parts of his prone body. He sustained some minor scratches while he was held down for about one minute. As soon as he was released, D. B. took a shower. He chased the remaining students out of his room, swinging a belt and yelling. While in the shower, D. B. was so angry that he threw soap and shampoo containers in the shower stall. About ten minutes after D. B. was hazed, Mr. Nieves was roaming the rooms and entered D. B.'s room. Petitioner contends that Respondent had allowed Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage to leave the motel for dinner from 8:00 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. If so, Respondent, his wife, and Mr. Leone could adequately supervise the students occupying the six rooms between them. However, D. B. testified that the hazing took place around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m., so, if Mr. Nieves arrived ten minutes later, he was gone only until 9:10 to 9:40 p.m. Either way, the record does not reveal any irresponsibility on Respondent's part in allowing his two assistant coaches to leave him, his wife, and Mr. Leone to supervise 24 students for even three hours. When Mr. Nieves looked into D. B.'s room, he found D. B. in a bad mood, angrily throwing things around the bathroom. The door to D. B.'s room was open, so Mr. Nieves walked inside and asked if he was okay. D. B., who was wearing only a towel wrapped around his waist, did not answer, but left the bathroom and stood in front of the wall air conditioning, unit, which was blowing cold air. Mr. Nieves saw about five marks on D. B.'s back and saw that D. B. was beet red. The marks appeared as though someone had been grabbing him. Mr. Nieves offered to get Respondent, and D. B. said to do so. Mr. Nieves thought that D. B. had been wrestling or something. His visit to D. B.'s room had occurred not long before the first room check. Mr. Nieves walked down the hall to Respondent's room and found Respondent inside. Mr. Nieves informed Respondent that D. B. wanted to talk to him. He told Respondent that it looked like something was wrong. Respondent and Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room. They arrived there about three minutes from the time that Mr. Nieves had left the student's room. Respondent entered D. B.'s room ahead of Mr. Nieves and found D. B. standing in front of the air conditioning fan, holding the towel open like he was cooling down. In a conversation that lasted about 30 seconds, Mr. Nieves said to D. B., "Coach is here. Tell him what's wrong." Respondent added, "What's wrong?" To these inquiries, D. B. replied, "Nothing. Don't worry about it." Mr. Nieves and Respondent asked about the red marks, but D. B. said they were nothing and everything was fine. D. B. testified that he did not disclose the hazing because he knew that Respondent would punish the team. He assumed that the team would be upset with D. B. for telling the coach that they had done something of which Respondent disapproved. Somewhat irritated that D. B. had asked to see Respondent and three minutes later declined to tell him anything, Mr. Nieves left the room with Respondent. They then completed the bed check, and Mr. Nieves did not see Respondent again that night. However, Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room about a half hour later. He found D. B. still standing by the air conditioning fan. Mr. Nieves told D. B. that it was not fair to Mr. Nieves to say to Respondent that nothing was wrong. Mr. Nieves then asked if something was wrong. D. B. replied, "They got me, coach." Mr. Nieves did not know what he meant, but thought that D. B. meant some sort of rough-housing. Mr. Nieves asked D. B. why did you not say something to Respondent. Mr. Nieves spent about 15 minutes in D. B.'s room, but did not learn anything more specific. However, D. B. expressed considerable anger to Mr. Nieves. The Icy Hot that came into contact with D. B.'s penis was most painful. The next morning, the pain was somewhat reduced. Early that morning, the team went to a baseball field to prepare for a game that day. They did a lot of situational baserunning so the fielders could practice. Because D. B. was not a starter, he and the other nonstarters had to do much of the baserunning. He displayed no problems running in the morning. However, hours later, during the pregame practice, a ball was hit toward D. B. in the outfield. He charged it, but it got by him. Instead of turning and running after the ball, as Respondent required of all players, D. B. turned and walked toward the ball. Seeing D. B. and another student not hustling, Respondent pulled them off the field. When Respondent demanded to know why D. B. had not run after the ball, D. B. said that "my balls are on fire." D. B. had a poor attitude at times and was stubborn. Without responding meaningfully to D. B.'s explanation, Respondent benched both players for the entire game. D. B.'s explanation is discredited due to his ability to run without impediment in the morning. D. B. had called his parents Monday at around noon and had told them what had happened the prior evening. D. B. called them again after the afternoon game. During the first call, D. B.'s parents told him to defend himself if necessary and not to worry about talking to Respondent about the hazing. Respondent had not been feeling well Sunday night. By the time of practice Monday morning, his throat was so sore that he had to have his assistant coaches direct the students on the field and yell instructions. After the game, in which Respondent's team had played poorly and lost, Respondent spoke only briefly to the team and allowed Coach Nottage to yell at the students to fire them up and make them work harder. After the team had returned to the motel, Mr. Nieves talked to D. B.'s roommates. He was somewhat concerned about D. B. because, after the game, when he had asked the student what was wrong, D. B. had only laughed as if he were mad. The roommates talked vaguely about Icy Hot, but they were unwilling to be more specific. Around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Monday at the motel, D. B. came to Respondent's room and asked if he could talk to the coach for a minute. Respondent said he could. D. B. then told Respondent that he had had Icy Hot put on his testes. Whispering, Respondent asked if he was alright and what did D. B. want Respondent to do about it. The record is unclear whether he asked this in a challenging or inquisitive tone. D. B. did not add more details. On Tuesday morning, the team departed Orlando in vans headed for Sebring, where they were to play another game Tuesday night. Respondent had been quite sick Monday night, unable to swallow or talk. By Tuesday, he was even more sick. No one spoke to him about D. B. or hazing. With considerable effort, Respondent was able to escort the team to the Sebring motel, and then he went directly to a nearby hospital emergency room. Diagnosed as having pharyngitis, Respondent obtained an injection of antibiotics, which provided him relief the next day. Scheduling problems resulted in postponing the Sebring game, so that the team did not return to the motel until after 11:00 p.m. Respondent directed the students to go directly to their rooms and told them that there would be a midnight bed check. Late the next morning, Wednesday, the team left Sebring to return to Fort Lauderdale, where they arrived at 3:00 p.m. One of the parents traveling with the team told Respondent at a gas stop that D. B. had called his parents. Respondent summoned D. B. and complained about D. B. calling his parents without first informing Respondent of the problem. The conversation was brief because the group was waiting in their vans. D. B. replied, "Well, coach, you know what happens." Respondent answered, "I don't know what happens. Go get in your van." On the way back to Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Nieves told Respondent what he knew about hazing in the form of older students applying Icy Hot to the genitalia of younger students and, in some cases, paddling younger students. Respondent expressed his frustration that D. B. had not complained to him about the hazing. When they returned to Fort Lauderdale, Respondent told D. B. that he wanted to speak to him and his father, who was there to pick him up. However, D. B. and his father left the school without speaking to Respondent. Respondent decided to call a team meeting to find out what had happened. Respondent called D. B.'s mother to assure that D. B. would come to the meeting, but she said that he was at work and that she had already called the school board. D. B. was not at work. In the team meeting, Respondent warned the students that hazing was very serious. He asked for those persons directly and indirectly involved to identify themselves. Various students began raising their hands, admitting to various levels of involvement, and Mr. Nottage recorded their names, at Respondent's direction. Respondent then warned the students that the school board was involved and there could be criminal punishments for certain persons. He told the students that there was nothing that he could do about these consequences, but he would take his own actions. At this point, many of the students began retracting admissions. Feeling that the notes had become useless, Respondent obtained the notes from Mr. Nottage and discarded them later that weekend. Prominent among the many differences in testimony concerning the events of this trip and its immediate aftermath is a difference in recollection between Respondent and Mr. Nieves concerning a conversation between the two of them following the meeting. Mr. Nieves testified that Respondent instructed him to deny that the notes existed, and Respondent denied that this is true. Such dishonesty, if true, would merit punishment. It is possible that Respondent did ask Mr. Nieves to conceal the truth in order to protect Respondent's students, who had made confessions prior to understanding the potential administrative and criminal consequences. Perhaps Respondent regretted his role in securing this inculpatory information. On the other hand, Mr. Nottage, as well as over 22 students were at this meeting (another student had failed to attend), so Respondent had to know that such a concealment was unlikely to go undetected. Most importantly, though, Mr. Nieves was a most unconvincing witness. His recollection of details was poor, contradictory, and entirely inconsistent with his apparent intelligence. His demeanor was poor. The Administrative Law Judge was left with the opinion that Mr. Nieves was lying at the time that he first provided statements concerning the events--for some reason, trying unfairly to inculpate Respondent or to exculpate himself--or he was lying at the hearing--belatedly, trying to protect Respondent. On balance, it is impossible to credit Mr. Nieves' testimony on this crucial point. After talking the matter over with Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage (Mr. Leone had already left before the meeting), Respondent decided to punish the students as best he could by making them run. Those who had actually touched the younger students had to run 10 miles. Older students who had stood by and encouraged or supported the hazing had to run an intermediate distance. Even the victims, such as D. B., had to run because they had not reported the hazing, but their distance was the shortest. The team had a game the next morning. Late in the afternoon or early in the evening on Thursday, Respondent called his supervisor for athletics, the Coconut Creek High School athletic director, and reported the hazing in general terms. The athletic director told Respondent that he had done the right thing by calling him and said to come see him Monday, when school was back in session. On Saturday morning, Respondent required the students to run the distances that he had determined appropriate. He also informed the team that he would be recommending to the principal that the baseball team not take field trips. The athletic director later suggested that Respondent not make that recommendation. D. B. and his parents have filed a civil action against the school board for damages arising out of the incident. School officials have known that hazing has been a problem in the past at Coconut Creek High School, although more with the soccer team. In 1997, the athletic director asked Respondent, as the baseball head coach, to draft a letter stating a policy prohibiting hazing. Addressed to the parents of baseball players, the letter states in part: "The athletic department has a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to "initiating" or "hazing" a fellow student. Anyone guilty of participating in a hazing or a form of initiation will be immediately dismissed from the team." Respondent and the athletic director signed the letter. At the start of the 2000 season, Respondent warned the students on the team that he would not tolerate any sort of misbehavior, including hazing. Respondent had not been aware of any hazing incidents on the baseball team since 1997. As already noted, other students knew of the continuation of the practice. Some of the parents of the older students also knew of the practice, at least as it had been inflicted on their sons. However, it does not necessarily follow that what a student shares with a parent, he also shares with his coach. Petitioner has failed to prove incompetency, lack of fitness, inefficiency, or incapacity on the part of Respondent. Nor has Petitioner proved immorality. The evidence does not establish that Respondent knew or had reason to know that hazing was about to occur or that hazing had occurred. At all times, Respondent was in charge of 24 students, and, most of the time, he was sick--after Sunday, very sick. The scrutiny that Respondent could reasonably be expected to give the D. B. situation, especially given the student's reluctance to make a straightforward declaration of what happened, must be assessed n light of these circumstances. As the last person to be hazed, D. B. had ample opportunity to alert the coaches. After the hazing, D. B. repeatedly declined to disclose the problem to Respondent. D. B. knew that Respondent did not condone hazing. D. B. knew that, rather than ignore a hazing complaint, Respondent would punish the responsible players, and this would draw unwanted attention to D. B. Seeking advice from his parents, D. B. was reinforced in his earlier determination not to seek the effective remedies that he knew were available within the structure of the team. Petitioner has also failed to prove misconduct in office. Again, Respondent's supervision of the students was adequate. His investigation was sufficient for imposing intra- team discipline. His apparent departure from school policy of dismissal from the team may be explained by Respondent's awareness that the school board and possibly law enforcement would also investigate the matter and impose their own sanctions; presumably, the athletic department policy was intended to operate in isolation. Although Respondent could have informed the athletic director of the problem Wednesday night or Thursday morning, Respondent did so later Thursday. This brief delay caused no prejudice, as Respondent's supervisor assured Respondent that he had done the right thing and he would visit him the next Monday.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Frank Till Superintendent School Board of Broward County, Florida K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen Rodriguez Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street, Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Robert F. McKee Kelly & McKee, P.A. Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Jerry W.Whitmore, Bureau Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
