The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent was hired by Petitioner as a school security monitor in March of 1993. Although Respondent was initially assigned to Miami Northwestern High School, he was transferred to Norland High in April 1994, where he remained until the incident that is the subject of this proceeding. Respondent's employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). Pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D of the UTD contract, Respondent may only be discharged for "just cause," which includes, but is not limited to, "misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." The Allegations It is undisputed that during the 2009-2010 school year, an unknown number of students staged a series of unauthorized boxing matches1 at various locations on the grounds of Norland High. Of the multiple boxing incidents, this proceeding concerns only one: a match that took place in Norland High's wrestling room at some point between the beginning of the school year and February 2010. On that occasion, approximately 20 students gathered in the wrestling room (a location where the students were not authorized to be) during the second lunch period to view a match between D.L. and another student. Respondent, who was present2 during the entire incident, neither orally directed the students to stop fighting, nor did he physically intervene.3 A videotape of the incident, which was introduced into evidence during the final hearing, depicts the following: 00:07 - D.L. and unidentified student, both of whom are wearing boxing gloves, begin fighting. 00:19 - Several student "referees" separate D.L. and other participant. 00:30 - Respondent, wearing green golf- style shirt (the standard uniform for security monitors), standing in corner of room. 01:07 - Fighting resumes. 01:35 - D.L. and other participant broken up by students; match concludes. 02:00 - Respondent standing near unidentified student participant. 02:25 - Students begin to leave. 02:32 - Video ends. As the forgoing timeline indicates, D.L. and the unidentified student boxed for a total of 40 seconds. Although both students threw a number of punches during that span, most of the blows were wild and either missed or did not land cleanly. Nevertheless, the undersigned finds that the episode presented a condition that was potentially harmful to the physical health or safety of D.L. and the other student participant. Although the boxing incident detailed above is one that should have been reported, at no time did Respondent notify any member of Norland High's administration of what occurred. Respondent's explanation, which the undersigned credits with some reluctance, is that he unsuccessfully attempted to contact school administration upon discovering the incident, only to be informed by a front office worker that the administrators were in a meeting. After the students dispersed, Respondent went to lunch and forgot to follow up on the matter.4 Eventually, one of Norland High's assistant principals, Peter Melton, learned of the incident after a student told him to search YouTube for "Norland fights." Mr. Melton promptly notified the principal of Norland High, and an investigation ensued on or around February 2010. During the initial stages of the investigation, Petitioner suspected that Respondent had organized multiple boxing matches between students on Norland High's campus, charged admission, and awarded prizes to the winners.5 Ultimately, however, Petitioner determined that no probable cause existed to support such allegations, and instead charged Respondent with failing to intervene in the match involving D.L. and with not informing school administration of the incident. Although Norland High's administration faced some level of parental backlash as a result of the boxing incidents, Petitioner did not demonstrate that the backlash was attendant to the charges ultimately filed against Respondent, as opposed to the initial, more serious allegations that Petitioner could not substantiate. Petitioner failed to establish by a greater weight of the evidence that Respondent's effectiveness as a school security monitor has been impaired as a result of his conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: (1) finding that just cause does not exist to terminate Respondent's employment; and (2) imposing an appropriate punishment other than dismissal based upon Respondent's failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical health or safety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 6th day of April, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Petitioner on March 15, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. McElrath was employed as a teacher by the School Board and assigned to Miami Jackson, where she taught for almost 13 years. Ms. McElrath taught English, and she was the coach of the Miami Jackson debate team for one year and the advisor for the student newspaper for six years. She has consistently been rated acceptable in teaching and in professional responsibility in her annual evaluations at Miami Jackson. Ms. McElrath is employed by the School Board under a professional service contract. Prior to the incident that is the subject of these proceedings, Ms. McElrath had never been the subject of a School Board personnel investigation. She was known to her colleagues as a friendly person and had never displayed violent behavior. Thomas Rolle is a computer specialist employed by the School Board and assigned to Miami Jackson. Mr. Rolle's duties include trouble-shooting and maintaining the computers at Miami Jackson and administering the computer network. Mr. Rolle is blind in his left eye and is severely hearing impaired. He wears hearing aids in both ears; he can also read lips and understand a speaker in a face-to-face conversation. About three weeks prior to February 23, 2000, Mr. Rolle was conducting a computer survey at Miami Jackson to determine which computers needed to be configured for the school's Internet connection. When he arrived at Ms. McElrath's classroom, the class was watching a video on television, and the classroom was dark. Mr. Rolle also noticed that the computer and the Internet connection drop were on opposite sides of the classroom. Ms. McElrath told Mr. Rolle that she would move the computer closer to the Internet connection drop and that he should come back later to work on the computer. About ten days later, Ms. McElrath passed Mr. Rolle in the hallway, and Ms. McElrath told Mr. Rolle that she had moved the computer in her classroom. Ms. McElrath asked that Mr. Rolle come to her classroom to configure the computer. Ms. McElrath felt that her class was getting behind because there was no Internet connection in her classroom. Mr. Rolle did not go to Ms. McElrath's classroom as she had requested. Shortly before 11:00 a.m. on February 23, 2000, Ms. McElrath went to Dr. Choate, Mr. Rolle's supervisor, and asked if Dr. Choate could expedite Mr. Rolle's visit to her classroom to configure her computer. While Ms. McElrath was in Dr. Choate's office, Dr. Choate paged Mr. Rolle, and he immediately called back. Dr. Choate asked Mr. Rolle if he could go to Ms. McElrath's classroom; he told her that he was working in Room 137, the Language Arts lab, but that he would be finished soon and would go to Ms. McElrath's classroom in about 30 minutes, after he had finished a few tasks on the first floor of the school building. Dr. Choate gave Ms. McElrath this information. Ms. McElrath left Dr. Choate's office and went directly to Room 137. She was frustrated because Mr. Rolle had told her before that he would configure her classroom computer but had not done so. Ms. McElrath thought that if she went to Room 137 and waited for him, Mr. Rolle would be more motivated to go to her classroom immediately. When Ms. McElrath entered Room 137, Mr. Rolle was helping Ludgerte Jean-Baptiste, a school paraprofessional, create a school map for a job career fair. Both Ms. Jean- Baptiste and Mr. Rolle were facing away from the door to the room. At first, Ms. McElrath looked for some novels she had seen previously in the Language Arts lab, but they weren't there. She jiggled her keys to make noise so Mr. Rolle and Ms. Jean-Baptiste would notice her. Mr. Rolle did not turn around, but, after a few moments, Ms. Jean-Baptiste turned around and asked if she could help Ms. McElrath. Ms. McElrath told her she was waiting for Mr. Rolle. Ms. Jean-Baptiste touched Mr. Rolle on the shoulder, and he turned around. Ms. McElrath asked him to come with her to her classroom to configure the computer for the Internet. Mr. Rolle told her that he needed to finish helping Ms. Jean- Baptiste and would go to Ms. McElrath's classroom within 30 minutes. Ms. McElrath was very persistent and repeatedly inquired as to why he could not come to her classroom immediately. Ms. Jean-Batiste told Mr. Rolle that she could finish with the map if there was something else that he needed to do. Mr. Rolle got up to leave Room 137, and Ms. McElrath asked Mr. Rolle if he was ready to go to her classroom. Mr. Rolle told Ms. McElrath that he would go to her classroom within 30 minutes, that he needed to go to his office to get the computer software, the configuration information, and the drivers before he went to her classroom. Ms. McElrath was annoyed. She became confrontational and blocked Mr. Rolle's path to the door of Room 137. When Mr. Rolle moved to his left to go around her, Ms. McElrath moved to her right to block his path. She continually asked him why he could not go to her classroom "now," and she persisted in moving to block his path to the door. Mr. Rolle stated several times to Ms. Jean-Baptiste that she should watch, that she was a witness. When Mr. Rolle reached the door, Ms. McElrath's back was to the door. Mr. Rolle tricked Ms. McElrath by feinting in one direction and actually moving in the other direction. As he stepped to his right to go through the door, Mr. Rolle moved his left arm between his body and Ms. McElrath's, pushed her aside, 3/ and opened the door with his right hand with sufficient force that the door hit the outside wall. Ms. McElrath was startled when Mr. Rolle pushed her, and she took a step back; she and Mr. Rolle pivoted as he moved through the doorway, so that she was facing the patio outside and Mr. Rolle was facing her. While the door was open, and without any further provocation from Mr. Rolle, 4/ Ms. McElrath raised her keys and sprayed a substance into Mr. Rolle's face from a canister on her key ring. The door closed, and Mr. Rolle fell to his knees, holding his eyes. Ms. Jean-Baptiste, who was inside Room 137, saw Ms. McElrath spray the substance into Mr. Rolle's face, and she went to help him to the bathroom to flush out his eyes with water. Ms. McElrath fled upstairs to her classroom. At least five students and one staff member observed this incident. Immediately after the incident, Ms. McElrath and Mr. Rolle were summoned to the principal's office. Ms. McElrath completed a written statement in which she asserted that she had sprayed Mr. Rolle with a fluid she used to clean her dry-erase board. In her statement, Ms. McElrath stated only that she had a heated discussion with Mr. Rolle, that she had felt threatened when he said that he would not be responsible for what he might do to her, 5/ and that he had shoved her. Mr. Rolle suffered temporary damage to his eyes and was required to wear dark glasses for several weeks. His eyes were blurry and watery and light-sensitive for about a week, and he had difficulty doing his work. He also had to drop several classes he was taking at Florida International University because he missed several classes as a result of the injury to his eyes. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on May 1, 2000, to discuss with Ms. McElrath the Preliminary Personnel Investigative Report of the incident involving Mr. Rolle, in which it was concluded that the charge that Ms. McElrath assaulted Mr. Rolle was substantiated, and to discuss Ms. McElrath's violation of School Board policy and rules, as well as her future employment status with the Miami-Dade County school system. Ms. McElrath was advised at the Conference-for- the-Record that she would be notified of the "recommended action or disciplinary measures to include any of the following: a letter of reprimand, a TADS Category VII prescription for the Professional Responsibilities Component infraction which could impact the annual evaluation decision, suspension or dismissal." At this conference, Ms. McElrath conceded that the substance she had sprayed in Mr. Rolle's face was actually pepper spray. She stated that she was seeing a counselor recommended to her by the Employee Assistance Plan. She acknowledged that her actions were precipitated because she perceived that Mr. Rolle was ignoring her and that there was no excuse for her actions toward Mr. Rolle. The first time Ms. McElrath alleged to the School Board that Mr. Rolle had moved his hands to her throat and that she was fearful that he intended to attack her was in a letter dated July 26, 2000, which she wrote "to clarify, explain, and/or respond" to the information contained in the summary of the May 1, 2000, Conference-for-the-Record. In this letter, Ms. McElrath stated that she sprayed Mr. Rolle with pepper spray because she was defending herself; he had shoved her and was bringing his hands up to her throat, and she felt threatened. Ms. McElrath asked that this letter be included as part of her record. Summary It is uncontroverted that Ms. McElrath sprayed Mr. Rolle in the face with pepper spray and that she lied when she asserted in the statement she gave immediately after the incident that the chemical she sprayed in Mr. Rolle's face was a solution she used to clean her dry-erase marker board. The disputed factual issues that are presented for resolution in this case are whether Ms. McElrath conducted herself in her employment as a teacher in a manner that failed to reflect credit on herself and the school system; whether Ms. McElrath committed misconduct in office and thereby impaired her effectiveness in the school system; whether Ms. McElrath committed violence in the workplace; and whether Ms. McElrath acted in self-defense when she sprayed Mr. Rolle with pepper spray. Having considered all of the evidence submitted with respect to Ms. McElrath's conduct during the incident involving Mr. Rolle, the undersigned finds that Ms. McElrath was acting in the course of her employment as a teacher and that her conduct certainly did not reflect credit on her. In making this finding, consideration has been given to Ms. McElrath's actions in blocking Mr. Rolle's path as he tried to leave Room 137 and in repeatedly demanding to know why he would not go directly to her classroom, after he had explained that he needed to obtain materials necessary to configure her computer for the Internet, as well as to her spraying Mr. Rolle with pepper spray. The undersigned further finds that Ms. McElrath committed misconduct in office. Ms. McElrath did not value Mr. Rolle's worth as an employee of the School Board entitled to make judgments regarding his professional responsibilities or Mr. Rolle's dignity as a person. Furthermore, Ms. McElrath used exceedingly poor professional and personal judgment both in spraying Mr. Rolle with pepper spray and in her actions toward Mr. Rolle as he was trying to leave Room 137. The evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient, however, to establish that Ms. McElrath failed to sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct, that she interfered with Mr. Rolle's exercise of his political and civil rights, or that she used coercion to influence Mr. Rolle's professional judgment. Having considered all of the evidence presented on which findings of fact can be based, the undersigned finds that Ms. McElrath's actions with respect to Mr. Rolle were so serious that they impair her effectiveness in the school system. In making this finding, the undersigned is mindful that, based on the record herein, during her tenure as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public schools, Ms. McElrath has not been the subject of any other disciplinary action and that she has consistently received "acceptable" annual evaluations, the highest overall rating a teacher in the Miami-Dade County school system may earn. Nonetheless, the lack of control Ms. McElrath exhibited in her behavior towards Mr. Rolle raises serious and disturbing questions regarding her ability to resolve in a reasonable manner those frustrating situations that sometimes occur when one works with busy colleagues, her ability to respond in an appropriate manner to the stresses of classroom teaching, and her ability to appreciate the consequences of her actions. Without question, the act of spraying someone in the face with pepper spray is an act of violence that, the evidence herein establishes, took place at Miami Jackson, the public school in which Ms. McElrath worked as a teacher. The greater weight of the evidence is sufficient to establish that Mr. Rolle pushed Ms. McElrath aside as he was moving to open the door to leave Room 137, but Ms. McElrath testified that Mr. Rolle's "shove" did not harm her but merely startled her and did not precipitate her action in spraying Mr. Rolle with the pepper spray. Rather, Ms. McElrath asserts that she took this action in response to Mr. Rolle's moving his hands upward to grab her throat. Having carefully considered all of the evidence on which findings of fact can be based, the undersigned finds that Ms. McElrath did not have a reasonable basis for believing that Mr. Rolle was about to attack and choke her. It is notable in this regard that, as far as can be discerned from the record herein, Ms. McElrath did not, as one would expect, immediately explain her action as self-defense but, rather, waited approximately five months before presenting this justification to the School Board. The testimony of Andrea Zuniga, the only witness who corroborated Ms. McElrath's claim that Mr. Rolle was moving his hands up to grab her throat, has been considered and found not sufficiently persuasive to outweigh the testimony of Ms. Jean-Baptiste, Diane McKnight, and Mercedes Thompson that they saw no such action by Mr. Rolle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the decision of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, suspending Mary Jane McElrath without pay be sustained and that her employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2001.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent threatened to shoot students with a firearm located in his vehicle that he parked on campus, and whether the acts proved during the administrative hearing constitute just cause to terminate Respondent's professional services contract pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(6)a), Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught diesel mechanics at the Ridge Vocational Technical Center (Ridge Center) in Polk County, Florida, for over 12 years. Respondent teaches diesel mechanics pursuant to a professional services contract. By letter dated May 14, 2007, the Superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools notified Respondent that she was suspending Respondent from his employment with pay. The letter also states that, on June 12, 2007, the Superintendent would recommend to Petitioner that Petitioner terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On June 12, 2007, Petitioner followed the recommendation of the Superintendent. The letter dated May 14, 2007, is the charging document in this proceeding. The letter notifies Respondent of the alleged grounds for termination of his employment and provides Respondent with a point of entry into the administrative process. In relevant part, the stated grounds for termination of employment are: On May 11, 2007, an investigation revealed that you had a 9mm pistol in the front seat compartment of your personal vehicle. When asked if you understood that it was against School Board policy to bring a weapon on campus, you indicated that you were aware of the policy. You were arrested by the Winter Haven Police Department for having a weapon on campus. The arresting officer also indicated that further charges may be made against you regarding threatening comments that you allegedly made to the students. * * * Your conduct in this situation is aggravated by the fact that you made reference to the weapon and threatened to use it against students and by the fact that you admitted you were aware that bringing the weapon onto campus was a violation of both state law and Board policy. This was a knowing, intentional act on your part involving students and constitutes just cause for termination. It is undisputed that Respondent possessed a firearm on the Pine Ridge campus on Friday, May 11, 2007. On the morning of May 11, 2007, Respondent placed a 9mm pistol into its holster and put both items into the center console of his truck. Respondent drove the truck to work and parked the truck in the Ridge Center parking lot. The truck was parked approximately 25 feet from the school. The pistol was securely encased and not readily accessible for immediate use within the meaning of Subsections 790.001(16) and (17). The possession of a firearm on the Ridge Center campus violated the written policy of Petitioner. In relevant part, the policy provides: It is the expressed policy of the Polk County School Board that no weapons/firearms shall be taken upon school property by any one other than law enforcement personnel. . . . Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 10. The charging document notifies Respondent of several aggravating factors that are alleged as grounds to support a finding of just cause to terminate Respondent's employment. The document alleges that the violation of the written school policy was a knowing and intentional act; that Respondent made reference to the weapon and threatened to use it against students; and that the possession of the firearm by Respondent was unlawful. The violation of the written school policy was knowing and intentional. Respondent knew of the written school policy prohibiting the possession of firearms on campus but brought the firearm to school in his truck to take with him that night to a weekend job discussed in subsequent findings. Respondent did not make reference to the firearm and threaten to use it against students. The accusing student complains that Respondent referred to the firearm and threatened to shoot students on May 10, 2007. However, there is no evidence that Respondent possessed a firearm on campus on May 10, 2007. The weight of the evidence does not support the testimony of the accusing student that Respondent threatened to retrieve his firearm from his truck and shoot Pine Ridge students on May 10, 2007. On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Respondent was grading papers in his classroom at the Ridge Center. Several male students outside of the classroom were using long broom handles to "sword-fight." Respondent readily admits that he yelled words from his classroom on May 10, 2007, to the effect that, "I'm going to shoot all of you guys one of these days if you don't straighten up." Respondent did not make reference on May 10, 2007, to the firearm he possessed on campus on May 11, 2007. The admitted statement was not a threat to shoot students and did not expose any student to conditions harmful to his or her physical or mental health. Respondent continued grading papers, and Respondent and the students remained on campus until shortly after the school day ended at 2:00 p.m. One of the students playing in the hall on May 10, 2007, testified that Respondent said, "The next one of y'all that breaks a broomstick, I'm going to go to my truck, I'm going to get my nine and come back and shoot you." The student further testified that he asked Respondent, "You're going to shoot them?" and that Respondent replied, "Yeah, I'm going to shoot them." The testimony of the accusing student is not credible and persuasive and conflicts with material facts in the record. Respondent did not possess a firearm in his truck on May 10, 2007, when he allegedly threatened to fetch the firearm. A finding based on the testimony of the accusing student would require the trier of fact to ignore the weight of the other evidence as well as the candor, forthrightness, and cooperative nature of the testimony of Respondent. The accusing student is an older high school student with a history of discipline problems at the Ridge Center. The accusing student did not return to the Ridge Center after May 10, 2007, and, on the date of the hearing, was no longer pursuing a trade or degree in any school. He is hoping to enter a military academy within five months of the date of the hearing. Testimony from the accusing student that he did not return to the Ridge Center for fear of Respondent is not persuasive. The accusing student was a problem for other teachers and administrative staff at Pine Ridge, and the testimony of teachers and administrators shows they preferred that the student had never attended the Ridge Center. Petitioner did not prove that possession of the firearm on campus on May 11, 2007, was unlawful. Rather, the evidence and relevant legal authority discussed in the Conclusions of Law shows that the firearm was in Respondent's truck on Friday, May 11, 2007, for a lawful purpose pursuant to Subsection 790.115(2)(a)3. Respondent was scheduled to work that weekend on a truck delivery route that would take him into Liberty City, Florida, between midnight and 5:00 a.m. Respondent drove directly from the Ridge Center to his weekend job and took the firearm on his truck delivery job for self defense. Local law enforcement officials arrested Respondent for allegedly committing a third degree felony in violation of Section 790.115, Florida Statutes (2006).2 At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, not only were additional charges for threats against students not filed against Respondent, as alleged in the charging document in this proceeding, but the state attorney refused to prosecute Respondent on June 12, 2007. It is unclear from the record whether Petitioner knew of the decision of the state attorney on June 12, 2007, when Petitioner terminated Respondent's employment, in relevant part, for the unlawful possession of a firearm on May 11, 2007, and alleged threats against students. The criminal investigation began on May 10, 2007, when local law enforcement officials received an anonymous telephone complaint sometime concerning the alleged threat by Respondent. On May 11, 2007, an officer from the Winter Haven Police Department (Department) visited the Ridge Center to investigate the complaint against Respondent. The police officer questioned Respondent on May 11, 2007, and Respondent acknowledged that he had a pistol holstered and securely encased in his truck in the campus parking lot. Respondent took the officer to the truck, directed the officer to the location of the firearm in the center console, and otherwise fully cooperated in the investigation. The police officer arrested Respondent for possessing a firearm on a school campus in violation of Section 790.115. The Department conducted a full investigation, Respondent fully cooperated in the investigation, and the state attorney dismissed the charges against Respondent on June 12, 2007. Relevant legal authority is discussed further in the Conclusions of Law. At the hearing, Petitioner submitted evidence intended to prove the presence of several aggravating factors that the charging document does not allege. These un-alleged aggravating factors are that Respondent previously possessed an unloaded hunting rifle on campus in Respondent's truck; violation by Respondent had impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a educator; and Respondent failed to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical or mental health. The charging document does not provide Respondent with notice that Petitioner intended to submit evidence at the hearing of the un-alleged aggravating factors. However, Respondent did not object to questions asked during the hearing pertaining to the un-alleged aggravating factors. The ALJ admitted the relevant evidence and considered the evidence in this proceeding. The evidence supports a finding of only one unalleged aggravating factor in this proceeding. Sometime before May 11, 2007, Respondent possessed an unloaded hunting rifle in the back of his truck while the truck was parked on the campus of the Ridge Center. The events of May 10 and 11, 2007, and the prior possession of a hunting rifle did not expose any student to conditions harmful to his or her physical or mental health and did not seriously impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. The testimonies of the director of the Ridge Center and a fellow teacher show that Respondent has consistently been an effective and competent teacher at the Ridge Center. Respondent has no prior discipline in his employment history.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of December, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Charlotte County School Board (the "School Board") has just cause to terminate the employment contract of Respondent, Natalie Santagata, based upon loss of effectiveness as a teacher due to scandalous materials being disseminated to School Board employees and parents.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of the School, which is an elementary school within the Charlotte County Public School system. The School is an "A-rated" school with approximately 650 students and 45 members of the teaching staff. At all times relevant hereto, Santagata was employed at the School under a professional services contract. At the time of her termination from employment by the School Board, Santagata was teaching fifth grade at the School. She had been teaching at the School for approximately four years, having transferred from Peace River Elementary School. By all accounts, Santagata was an excellent teacher when she was hired to work at the School. She was hired to teach third-graders, an important grade due to the "no-child- left-behind" requirements associated with that grade level. Santagata was a "stellar" teacher according to the school principal. When she first came to the School, she taught third grade. Then, she "looped" to fourth grade the next year. One hundred percent of her students' parents agreed to allow their children to loop with her so she could continue teaching them. Santagata continued to be an excellent teacher at the School. However, in the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, things began to change. At the start of the school year Santagata was operating at about the same proficiency level as in previous years, but in November her supervisor and co-workers began to notice disturbing changes in Santagata's appearance and demeanor. She began to show up at work in a somewhat disheveled state, she began to lose a noticeable amount of weight, and she was absent from the classroom more than usual. There were reports that Santagata was leaving her co-teacher alone in the room with the students more frequently. Her co-teacher at that time was a teacher with three years' experience as a teacher, but was in her first year at the School. Santagata was, however, never unable to perform her duties as a teacher during the school year. Santagata was experiencing significant difficulties in her personal life at the time she began to struggle as a teacher. She was going through a very unpleasant divorce and was undergoing extreme stress and anxiety because of that event. Beginning late in 2010 and continuing into the early months of 2011, Santagata showed signs that she was not performing up to her normally excellent standards. According to her principal, Santagata began to lose her "with-it-ness," i.e., her ability to maintain interaction and involvement with her students and their parents. One day, Santagata did not show up for work. When the principal called, Santagata said she had overslept. Santagata, ultimately, made it to work, but she was late and was admonished for that failure on her part. As her concerns about Santagata grew, the principal began to take more frequent "walk-throughs" in Santagata's classroom as a means of monitoring her more effectively. As a result of her observations during those walk-throughs, the principal decided to offer Santagata some help by way of the employee assistance program. The program provides teachers a way to deal with private and personal problems more effectively in order to maintain professionalism in their classrooms. The program was first discussed with Santagata in November of the 2010-2011 school year when the principal first learned Santagata was going through her divorce. The program was offered a second time in January after Santagata's behavior and demeanor began to change even more. There was no evidence as to whether Santagata availed herself of the employee assistance program. At about the time Santagata began showing signs of stress, the School received a few anonymous telephone calls from individuals saying that Santagata was using drugs and making inappropriate life choices. The School knew that Santagata's estranged husband was attempting to hurt her in any way he could. It was believed that he may be the source of the anonymous calls. The School also received an anonymous email advising about a You-Tube video purportedly showing Santagata in a room where other people were apparently smoking marijuana. When confronted with those allegations, Santagata voluntarily agreed to take a drug test to prove her innocence. The School decided not to test Santagata at that time. At a school field day held in the spring, a couple of parents reported to a teacher that Santagata looked "terrible." The teacher reported the observation to the principal, who went to see for herself. The principal found Santagata not to be up to her normal standards, but she did not look terrible. Shortly thereafter, the principal received another anonymous email saying Santagata was abusing drugs. At that time, the School decided to ask Santagata to submit to a drug test. Santagata was placed on administrative leave pending the result of the test, and when the test returned with a negative result, Santagata was reinstated. The reinstatement occurred just a few days before the end of the 2010-2011 school year. After the conclusion of the school year, various administrators at the School received packages from an anonymous sender. The packages contained videos and still photographs that purported to be Santagata engaged in sexual activities and smoking marijuana. The person in the videos and photographs resembled Santagata. The school principal recognized Santagata's house from one of the videos or still photographs. However, there was no verification that the person in the videos and photographs was indeed Santagata. Santagata neither admitted, nor denied that the videos and photographs were of her. One of the videos shows a woman engaging in oral sex with a man. Both appear to be adults and the sexual activity appears to be consensual. The videos also show the man and woman smoking cigarettes, but holding the cigarettes between the thumb and forefinger, i.e., in the manner which is generally associated with smoking marijuana cigarettes. The man in the videos at one point asked the woman whether she was "high" or some such reference to drug use. One of the videos also shows the woman moving from room to room, seemingly gathering clothes and other items as if she were packing. The man and woman appear to be angry at each other during this particular video. The woman appears to be preparing to terminate whatever relationship existed with the man. Once the videos were received at the School Board, they were turned over to the School Board security officer so that an investigation could be conducted. As part of the investigation, the security officer reviewed the videos and pictures, pleadings and other documents concerning Santagata's divorce proceedings, newspaper articles, and other documents. The officer interviewed school employees, but did not interview any parents of students from the School. The officer did not interview Santagata. Mrs. Mangiafico, a parent of students at the school, also received the pictures that had been sent to the School and School Board. Mangiafico's children were never in Santagata's classroom, but they were friends with Santagata's children. Mangiafico may have, at the time she turned over the pictures to the School, stated that she did not want Santagata teaching her children. However, she considered Santagata to be an excellent teacher and that "everybody wanted their kid in her class." Mangiafico did not know whether any other parents of students received the videos or pictures. She did not believe there had been any change in Santagata's reputation as a result of the pictures being disseminated. A local newspaper published an article about Santagata saying she was under investigation due to "inappropriate photos" the School had received. The article was published on August 10, 2011. There is no mention in the article as to what the photographs may have depicted. The School Board recognized that Santagata was not responsible for releasing the videos and pictures. It was, however, concerned about the possible perception of the School and Santagata by the general public. Specifically, the superintendent worried that "because the pictures and videos had been sent out to parents, that would affect [Santagata's] effectiveness in the classroom." The School principal was concerned about "the doubt that was placed in parents' minds" about Santagata as a teacher. Likewise, the assistant superintendent's concern was that once the pictures got out into the public, "it would lessen her effect [sic] as a teacher." The School Board was genuinely worried that if the videos and pictures were distributed more widely, the School may experience some negative public scrutiny. The School and School Board took strong measures to ensure that they were not the source of dissemination of the information to the public, but they could not be sure that some anonymous person might do so. Based upon those concerns, the School Board decided to terminate Santagata's employment. Santagata was offered the opportunity to resign, rather than being fired, but she refused to do so. Santagata was placed on administrative leave with pay, effective August 1, 2011. On September 6, 2011, the School Board voted to terminate Santagata's employment; she was notified by letter the next day. According to the superintendent of schools and the School principal, the pictures and videos were not sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant discipline against Santagata, nor had any discipline been imposed against Santagata prior to her being placed on administrative leave. The basis of the School Board's action was simply the possibility that Santagata may lose her effectiveness, if the public was made aware of the photographs and videos.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Charlotte County School Board, rescinding the termination of Respondent, Natalie Santagata's, employment and that she be reinstated to her position with back pay and benefits for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 13th day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Douglas Whittaker, Superintendent Charlotte County School Board 1445 Education Way Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1052 Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Erin G. Jackson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether Respondent committed any of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 2014, and, if so, what is the appropriate disciplinary penalty?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who hold a Florida Educational Certificate when they are appropriately alleged to have committed a violation as provided in section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. See § 1012.796, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Shadrick Fields, a male and, at the time of the events pertinent to this case, a middle school teacher employed by the Broward County School District (the District), holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 977090. Valid through June 30, 2017, the certificate covers the areas of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education. Respondent was employed as a coach and Social Science teacher at Pompano Beach Middle School during the school years 2007-2010. In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was also employed as an assistant coach (but not as a teacher) at Coconut Creek High School. Pompano Beach Middle School and Coconut Creek High School are within and part of the District. On or about April 26, 2010, Respondent resigned his teaching position in lieu of termination of his position. The District accepted the resignation and placed Respondent’s identification in its records under “non-hire” status. The personnel action was taken because of allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Respondent and a female student. An Inappropriate Relationship Develops J.D. is a female. Born in 1992, she attended Pompano Beach Middle School in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. She met Respondent at Pompano Beach Middle School although he was not her teacher or her coach. The events that led to Respondent’s resignation occurred principally in the 2009-2010 school year when J.D. was 17 years of age (her 18th birthday was in March 2010) and a student at Coconut Creek High School. The events had their origin, however, in 2006 when J.D. was a middle school child. J.D. met Respondent as a seventh grader when Respondent was “doing security [for the school] at the time.” Hr’g Tr. 81. Later, J.D. had contact with Respondent in Respondent’s capacity as coach of the middle school football team. On the last day of J.D.’s eighth grade school year (in 2006), Respondent gave J.D. a letter written from him to her. The letter was not produced at the hearing. Respondent asked for it back, and J.D. returned it to him. When asked about the letter at the hearing, the following colloquy took place between and counsel for Petitioner: I have to go in detail about the letter? Q. Well . . . just tell us in general, what was the nature of the letter? A. He liked me. I liked him. Hr’g Tr. 83. J.D. did not see or communicate with Respondent over the summer between her eighth and ninth grade. J.D. resumed contact with Respondent during her freshman year at Coconut Creek High School where she was a student and he was one of the coaches for the wrestling team. Respondent was not J.D.’s coach nor was he one of her teachers; he continued to teach at Pompano Beach Middle School. Nonetheless, they talked on the phone. On Valentine’s Day, Respondent gave J.D. a card. The card opens with the statement, “Falling in love with you was something I hadn’t expected but being in love with you is something I wouldn’t stop, even if I tried.” Pet’r’s Ex. 6. It closes with the statements, “I already have my Valentine’s Day Gift and it’s you! I love you.” Id. J.D. claimed at the hearing that she and Respondent engaged in sexual relations once during her freshman year at Coconut Creek. She said they took place in Respondent’s truck, an arrangement they agreed to both by speaking about it and writing about it. The letters related to their rendezvous in the truck were not produced at the hearing because J.D. disposed of them in a trash receptacle. J.D. claimed that she engaged in sexual intercourse with Respondent only one other time: during her senior year, again in Respondent’s truck. The time that elapsed between the two sexual events, according to J.D., was due to an agreement between Respondent and J.D.: they agreed to cease further sexual involvement until she graduated from high school (albeit, as J.D. testified, the agreement failed in February of her senior year). During the time between the two incidents of sexual relations to which J.D. testified, J.D. and Respondent frequently communicated through writings, cards, and letters. When Respondent wrote to J.D. he delivered the communications through one of two methods: he handed them to her directly or he placed them in an open tube affixed to the wall of a hallway outside the wrestling locker room. When the latter method was followed, Respondent would send a text to J.D. to alert her to the presence of a letter in the tube. The purpose of using the tube was to prevent suspicion by others should Respondent be observed handing written communication to J.D. The letters produced at the hearing that J.D. received are emotionally intimate. The third of the four letters that make up Petitioner’s Exhibit 7 is highly charged and sexually graphic. It refers, for example, in detail to love-making in which Respondent and J.D. had engaged. Respondent’s letters refer to himself as “King” and are signed “M.N.U.A.I.A.,” which stands for “Me and You Against It All.” See Pet’r’s Ex. 7. During J.D.’s senior year in high school, J.D. and Respondent had increased opportunities to interact on school days. J.D. played on a school flag football team and became the assistant manager of the wrestling team for which Respondent was the coach. Family members picked J.D. up after flag football practice or when she stayed after school in her capacity as the wrestling team assistant manager. But Respondent also provided her transportation home in his truck. He gave J.D. a ride home after these extra-curricular events whenever she asked. The question was asked at the hearing, “Generally, who gave you a ride home?” J.D. testified, “Mr. Fields.” Hr’g Tr. 98. Respondent also gave J.D. cards and gifts, including a Teddy Bear that was delivered with a card. The card ends with “I’m your Teddy Bear baby, M.N.U.A.I.A. I Love You.” The card makes reference to the silence of Teddy Bears and that “they will never breath [sic] a word of secrets you may tell.” Pet’r’s Ex. 8. In December and January of the 2009-2010 school year (J.D.’s senior year), Respondent had significant contact with J.D. by cell phone. Pet’r’s Ex. 9. For the month of December 2009, phone calls between J.D.’s cell phone and Respondent’s cell phone averaged more than one per day. Following more than 40 phone calls in January of 2010, the phone contact continued into February. In the middle of the month of February 2010, Respondent handed a Valentine card to J.D. (He did not place it in the tube because “[i]t wouldn’t fit in there.”). Hr’g Tr. 96. The card states, “You know that I would give anything to be in your arms, touching your face, staring into your eyes and tasting your lips. I can’t but I can depend on our love to see me through.” The card addresses J.D. as “Lil Solja” and is signed: Happy Valentine’s Day #1 M.N.U.A.I.A. Love & “Sincerely Yours”, Solja Pet’r’s Ex. 9. Over the late 2009 and early 2010 time period, some of the many phone calls between J.D. and Respondent were for extended periods of time or were at odd hours. One set of calls was both. On February 19, 2010, a call was placed from Respondent’s cell phone to J.D.’s cell phone that is shown by phone records to have lasted for 186 minutes (until 2:50 in the morning of February 20, 2010). The same records show that one minute later, at 2:51 a.m., February 20, 2010, a phone call was placed from J.D.’s cell phone to Respondent’s cell phone. This second “middle of the night” phone call lasted another 76 minutes. The two calls total more than four hours. The lengthy “middle of the night” phone calls in mid-February of 2010 occurred roughly one week before events that precipitated the discovery of J.D.’s relationship with Respondent. The events took place on February 26 and 27, 2010, the weekend before J.D.’s 18th birthday. Discovered February 26, 2010, was a Friday. J.D. worked that evening at Steinmart as a merchandiser. She had worked at Steinmart her entire senior year with a schedule of roughly 20 hours per week. The following are questions and answers from the transcript of the hearing about what occurred the evening of February 26, 2010, when J.D. was at work: Q. Did Mr. Fields come to your work that day? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what happened. A. I went to work, took a break right before the store closed, around eight-something. I had been talking to him throughout the day. He came to my job. We had sex. I got off work and went home. * * * Q. . . . Mr. Fields came to your work, correct? A. Came to my job on my break. Q. And how long of a break did you have? A. Thirty minutes. Q. Thirty minutes. And what did you do on that break? A. I got in the truck with him, we talked, we had sex and I went back to work. Q. When you say you had sex, you had sexual intercourse? A. Yes. Q. And this occurred in Mr. Fields’ truck? A. Yes. Q. Where at in the truck? A. In the back seat. Hr’g Tr. 101. When asked by counsel for Petitioner how she felt about having sex with Respondent in his truck, she testified as if it were nothing unusual: “I really didn’t feel no way.” Hr’g Tr. 102. When asked immediately after, “You felt what?” J.D. reiterated her testimony, “I really didn’t feel any type of way, you know.” Id. During the interlude in the truck, J.D. and Respondent developed plans for the next night, Saturday, February 27. J.D. did not have to work that Saturday, but she “planned to lie to [her] mom” and tell her she did so she could, in her words, “spend the time with him before my birthday.” Hr’g Tr. 103. Hewing to the plan, J.D. told her mother that she was needed at Steinmart on Saturday to help her manager with inventory. J.D.’s mother, accordingly, drove her to work and dropped her off in the middle of the day. Later in the day, J.D.’s mother returned to Steinmart to purchase a shirt for her husband using a family discount by virtue of J.D.’s employment. She asked for J.D. in the store because J.D. had to sign a form to make the discount effective. When it turned out that J.D. was not at work and had not been at work, J.D.’s mother became extremely concerned. She called J.D. and texted her. When the calls and texts to J.D. went unanswered she enlisted other family members to assist in contacting and locating J.D. She lodged a missing person’s report with local law enforcement, and she began her own investigation. J.D.’s cell phone was under her mother’s account. When her mother checked the phone log she saw a number “that had been calling back and forth.” Hr’g Tr. 40. The phone number was Respondent’s: 954-691-6468. J.D.’s mother did not recognize the phone number, but discovered later that it belonged to Respondent. When asked about a voice message she left on Respondent’s phone, J.D.’s mother testified, “I don’t want to say under oath what I said but I was upset once I realized whose phone it was.” Hr’g Tr. 41. After testifying that the pattern and consistency of the phone calls between her daughter and an older male made her distraught, she was asked to explain by counsel. She answered, “Because I just felt like that communication shouldn’t have been going on, as many times as I’d seen it in the call log.” Id. Between being transported to her work place and the frantic activity of her mother, J.D. had talked to Respondent on the phone. He picked her up at Steinmart and drove her across the county to a movie theater in the western part of the county about 35 minutes away by car. After watching a movie, “The Crazies,” the two had something to eat at “TGI Friday’s,” hearing transcript 105, a restaurant in the same plaza as the movie theater. J.D. noticed that she had received phone calls from her mother, but she was “scared,” id., to call her back. While the two were still inside the restaurant, Respondent noticed that he had received telephone calls from J.D.’s mother as well. J.D. told Respondent not to return the call, and he did not. Respondent drove J.D. back to Steinmart and dropped her off at roughly 9 p.m., the time J.D. should have been getting off work had she worked that day. Respondent did not return J.D.’s mother’s call before he left J.D. at Steinmart. J.D.’s brother picked her up at Steinmart and drove J.D. home where she was met by Deputy Matthews, who had responded on behalf of local law enforcement to the missing person’s report. Deputy Matthews’ report indicated that J.D. was questioned about sexual activity with Respondent and that she denied sexual activity. Text Messages On Sunday (February 28, 2010), Respondent texted J.D.: Does she still want to talk to me? I’ll take da day off in effort to make things right by sitting down with her. A million more apologizes from da heart. Pet’r’s Ex. 5, at P010/011 [marked in hand-writing as “83”]. On March 1, 2010, the next Monday, Respondent sent text messages to J.D. At 3:17 in the morning, his text reads, I hope I haven’t tarnished or messed your life first and everyone else that looks up to me. I’ve let so many down . . . mainly you. I pray for ur fams forgiveness. Pet’r’s Ex. 5, P0087/011 [marked in hand-writing as “81”]. Another text follows at 3:45 in the morning: I never lied to you. Everything I said I meant from the heart but I should have never told you. Every day forward free is a blessing & will be cherished. Id. Later in the day, at 3:36 in the afternoon, Respondent texted “I’m going to turn myself in. Its all in your hands, my life.” Pet’r’s Ex. 5, P0097/011 [marked in hand-writing as “82”]. Over several days, J.D. and her mother engaged in a number of emotion-laden conversations. J.D.’s mother reached the point of “yelling” and “crying.” Hr’g Tr. 56. At some point in the midst of the emotional interchanges between J.D. and her mother, J.D.’s mother told her that she intended to take J.D. to a gynecologist for an examination for sexual activity. J.D. did not want her mother to know that she was not a virgin. But she was not concerned for herself alone. She did not want to tell anyone that she had engaged in sexual activity with Respondent because she wanted to protect him. The gynecological examination of J.D. revealed that she had been sexually active. Despite misgivings both for herself and because of the potential impact to Respondent, J.D. told her mother she had engaged in sex with Respondent. J.D.’s mother’s impression was that J.D. had not been sexually active even though she had a boyfriend (who was not Respondent). When J.D. revealed the sexual nature of her relationship with Respondent after the examination, J.D.’s mother called local law enforcement to report it. As a result of the call, a case was opened, and it was assigned to Deputy Julie Bower of the Broward County’s Sheriff’s Office of Sex Crimes. Deputy Bower questioned J.D. and reviewed the phone records, as well as the cards and letters that have been admitted into evidence in this proceeding. Deputy Bower confirmed that J.D. was 17 years’ old, a minor, when Respondent took her to the movies and that Respondent was over the age of 24 at the time. Their ages led Deputy Bower to conduct an investigation into whether Respondent had committed the crime of “Unlawful Sex with Certain Minors.” March 5 Statement to the Sex Crimes Unit On March 5, 2010, Officer Bower took a statement from J.D. In the statement J.D. admitted that she and Respondent had engaged in sexual activity on February 26, 2010. As the interview for the statement progressed, Deputy Bower took J.D. through the history of the relationship. J.D. stated that Respondent seemed to take an interest in her more than the other girls at school (Pet’r’s Ex. 2, p. 4 of 24). She also related that she received the first letter from him at the end of the eighth grade, but that she was not interested in him until her senior year in high school when Respondent started writing her and giving her gifts: “clothes, shoes, . . . cards, letters” id., page 7 of 24, and a bracelet of white gold. In the meantime, during her ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades, J.D. claimed in the statement that their relationship was “nothing . . . just a hi and bye.” Pet’r’s Ex. 2, p. 6 of 24. She related that in December of 2009, however, her relationship with Respondent started changing after “he made the move” (Id., p. 8 of 24), at which time she decided she wanted to start dating. They discussed having sex, and Respondent told J.D. that he loved her. J.D. stated to Deputy Bower that she was a virgin until the encounter with Respondent in his truck on her break from work on Friday, February 26, 2010, at which time she claimed they engaged in sexual intercourse. Deputy Bower was unable to verify J.D.’s claim of sexual intercourse with Respondent through any source other than J.D.’s statement. Nonetheless, Respondent was prosecuted criminally. Acquittal Respondent was charged with the crime of Unlawful Sexual Activity. He was tried by jury in the circuit court in and for Broward County and was found not guilty. See Respondent’s Ex. 1, Circuit Court Disposition Order in and for Broward County, Florida, rendered October 31, 2011, and an attached “Felony Order of Acquittal.” The Administrative Complaint and the Amended Administrative Complaint An Administrative Complaint seeking appropriate disciplinary sanction of Respondent’s educator’s certificate was issued by Dr. Tony Bennett, as Commissioner of Education, on July 8, 2013, 20 months or so after the acquittal. The complaint contains three counts of statutory violations and two of rule violations all based on facts alleged in a section entitled “Material Allegations.” The gist of the material allegations are contained in the section’s first sentence, “During the 2009/2010 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with J.D., a 17-year-old, female student.” Administrative Complaint. The statutory violations are of section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes, for “gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education;” section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, for “personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as employee of the school board;” and, of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for violation of “the Principles of Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by the State Board of Education rules.” Administrative Complaint, p. 2 of 3. The rule violations are of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), “in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and/or safety,” and of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(e), “in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.” On March 24, 2014, Petitioner executed an Amended Administrative Complaint deemed filed as of that date by an Order Granting Leave to Amend. The amended complaint adds two new paragraphs to the material allegations. The new paragraphs expand the time frame for the basis of the statutory and rule violations outside the 2009-2010 school year to prior years back to 2006. The second of the two paragraphs of material allegations alleges: In subsequent years [post-2006], including 2010, Respondent wrote type [sic] letters . . . to J.D., along with cards and music CD’s. Some of the letters contained sexually graphic language . . . Amended Administrative Complaint, para. 3 and 4. The amended complaints also add two new rule violations, one of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(f) that Respondent intentionally violated or denied a student’s legal rights; and, the second of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(h) that Respondent exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. Amended Administrative Complaint, Counts 6 and 7. Respondent’s Defense to the Factual Allegations The following statement appears in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties: “Respondent admitted his text messages and phone calls to J.D. but denied any sexual activity or involvement with the notes and letters.” In addition to Respondent’s testimony under oath that he did not engage in sexual activity with J.D., he points to a number of facts that support his argument for why J.D.’s testimony that it occurred should not be credited: a. her denials to law enforcement the night of February 27, 2014; b. her denials to her mother at first; c. her claim to her mother that she had sex with Respondent only after the pressure of emotional conversations and the gynecological examination that showed her to have been sexually active; d. the inconsistency between her statement under oath to Deputy Bower that the first sexual encounter with Respondent was in her senior year and the statement under oath that her first sexual encounter with Respondent was when she was in the ninth grade; and e. the testimony of Dwanaill Sutton. Mr. Sutton was a year behind J.D. in high school and a member of the wrestling team. He met J.D. when he was in the ninth grade through his best friend at the time, another male member of the wrestling team. The coaches of the wrestling team were “Coach Carradine and Shadrick Fields [Respondent].” Hr’g Tr. 279. Respondent also coached Mr. Sutton on the football team, again as an assistant coach. Eventually, Mr. Sutton and J.D. became “best friends.” Id. They remained so into Mr. Sutton’s junior year (J.D.’s senior year). They do not see each other much anymore but they communicate “[v]ia social media.” Hr’g Tr. 280. Mr. Sutton has no ill feeling about J.D.’s allegations against Respondent. While J.D. and Mr. Sutton were still under the status “best friends,” Mr. Sutton was interviewed at school one day before lunch by a detective who asked him questions about J.D. and Respondent. At lunch, Mr. Sutton asked J.D. what she knew about the detective. J.D. replied that she had given Mr. Sutton’s name to the detective. Mr. Sutton followed up by asking J.D. “what was going on with her and Coach Fields because those were the only two names that the detective mentioned.” Hr’g Tr. 284. J.D. replied “‘nothing happened.’” Id. When asked by counsel if Mr. Sutton asked J.D. “did you guys do something?” id., Mr. Sutton replied that J.D. said “‘We didn’t do anything.’” Hr’g Tr. 285. With regard to the written communication J.D. claims to have received from Respondent, he argues J.D.’s testimony should not be credited because: Respondent denies sending any such items [and did so under oath]. [citation omitted] Respondent testified that he does not write in the fashion the card and letters were written and that it seems as if someone with less than a college education prepared them. [citation omitted] He denies giving J.D. any cards, stuffed bear or bracelet. [citation omitted] Petitioner failed to produce any evidence to support the conclusion that the handwriting on the various cards and letters was that of Respondent. No handwriting expert testimony was adduced and no lay testimony was presented that the writings were that of Respondent. Respondent’s Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6 of 11, para. 16. Respondent claims that the purpose of his relationship with J.D., and the many phone calls and communications with her, was to lift her spirits in the face of personal problems at home, particularly with her step-father and not being able to live with her biological father, and ensuing academic problems and problems at school. But he admits the relationship was inappropriate: [A]s far as lifting her spirits . . . [w]hat I should have did is had a female teacher or mentor be that person for her. I shouldn’t have been there like that. That was inappropriate for me to be there. Hr’g Tr. 228.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be permanently revoked and that he be barred from re-application. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 5th day of December, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny L. McCray, Jr., Esquire Law Office of Johnny L. McCray, Jr., P.A. 400 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street, Suite E Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated January 16, 2003, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed February 27, 2003, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz taught emotionally handicapped and seriously emotionally disturbed students in North Miami Beach High's Bertha Abbess exceptional student education program. He has been employed by the School Board since 1993, and is currently employed under a professional services contract. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz and at least one other person were making a music video for a course they were taking at Florida International University. Alvarro Gutierrez was working with Mr. Lefkowitz on the video, and Mr. Gutierrez had chosen the girl who would sing and would choreograph the dances for the video. Mr. Gutierrez did not, however, have any dancers, and Mr. Lefkowitz told Mr. Gutierrez that he knew some girls "from school" who were dancers and that he would ask them if they wanted to dance in the video. J.D. was, at the times material to his proceeding, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, although she was not a student of Mr. Lefkowitz. Rather, J.D. met Mr. Lefkowitz in a school hallway, while she was selling candy for her French class, and they apparently had several conversations during school hours. In one of these conversations, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that he was filming a music video for a college class. J.D. asked if she could be in the video, and Mr. Lefkowitz agreed and asked J.D. if she had any friends who could also dance in the video. J.D. introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to her friend N.F. N.F. was, at the time, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, but she did not know Mr. Lefkowitz until J.D. introduced them. Mr. Lefkowitz did not know at the time he met her that N.F. was a student at North Miami Beach High. J.D. also introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to Glamour Legros, whom she knew because she and Ms. Legros attended the same church. Prior to introducing Mr. Lefkowitz to Ms. Legros, J.D. had told him on a number of occasions how much Ms. Legros wanted to meet him.4 Ms. Legros and N.F. shared an apartment. Ms. Legros was not a student at the times material to this proceeding, and she was older than N.F. and J.D. J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros agreed to dance in the music video and went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment several times to discuss, rehearse, and shoot the video. Mr. Lefkowitz picked up J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros and drove them to his apartment on the occasions when they were working on the video. Mr. Lefkowitz also took J.D. and her friends home on these occasions. M.D., J.D.'s brother and a student at North Miami Beach High at the time, went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment once, and H.D., another student at North Miami Beach High, was at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment on at least one occasion, when she danced for the music video. These two students also rode with Mr. Lefkowitz in his car on at least one occasion. In addition to her visits to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment and her rides in his car, J.D. spoke with Mr. Lefkowitz numerous times on the telephone. When working on the video, J.D. went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment with her friends. She was alone with Mr. Lefkowitz once, after her friends left Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment; Mr. Lefkowitz took her home after about an hour. Mr. Gutierrez did not observe Mr. Lefkowitz engage in any improper behavior with J.D. or her friends at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment during the time they were discussing, rehearsing, and shooting the music video. On April 21, 2003, Ms. Legros called the police and she and N.F. reported that Mr. Lefkowitz had come to their apartment, beat on the door, and threatened them verbally. According to the police incident report, the police were dispatched at 10:09 p.m. and arrived at Ms. Legros's and N.F.'s apartment at 10:12 p.m. Mr. Lefkowitz had outpatient surgery on April 18, 2002. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother was with him at his apartment from April 18 through the morning of April 22, 2002, the day he returned to work. According to Ms. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz was in bed, asleep, on the night of April 21, 2002. On April 22, 2002, Raymond Fontana, the principal of North Miami Beach High, received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself to Mr. Fontana's secretary as J.D.'s aunt and who told Mr. Fontana that an exceptional student education teacher named "Neil" was having a relationship with J.D., a student at North Miami Beach High; the caller also reported that the teacher had been involved in an "incident" that had been reported to the police. Ms. Legros was the person who called Mr. Fontana.5 Mr. Fontana called Allyn Bernstein, an assistant principal at North Miami Beach High, into his office and asked her to look into the allegations made by the caller. Dr. Bernstein called Mr. Lefkowitz into her office and, before she could say anything, Mr. Lefkowitz told her that he knew why she had summoned him, that an ex-girlfriend had threatened to make trouble for him because he wouldn't give her money. When Dr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Lefkowitz about his relationship with the student J.D., Mr. Lefkowitz denied knowing her. Dr. Bernstein also called J.D. into her office. In response to Dr. Bernstein's questions, J.D. denied knowing Mr. Lefkowitz. She stated that she did not have a social relationship with any teacher outside of school and that she had never met any staff member outside school. After Dr. Bernstein reported to Mr. Fontana that she believed that there might be "something there,"6 Mr. Fontana reported the matter to the school district personnel, who referred the matter to the Miami-Dade School Police Department, and an investigation was initiated. Once the investigation was initiated, Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on alternate assignment at his home effective May 3, 2002. The investigator, Detective Victor Hernandez, interviewed N.F., Ms. Legros, J.D., H.D., M.D., and Mr. Lefkowitz. During the course of his investigation, Detective Hernandez was told that Mr. Lefkowitz and N.F. had dated and that they had had sexual intercourse. When Detective Hernandez interviewed Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz denied that he knew either J.D. or N.F. In a report dated September 2, 2002, Detective Hernandez described his investigation and set forth the substance of the statements given by the witnesses. Detective Hernandez concluded that the charges that Mr. Lefkowitz had violated Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.109 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 were substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on October 2, 2002, with Paul Greenfield, District Director, presiding. Mr. Lefkowitz attended the Conference-for-the-Record, together with the School Board's Director of Region II and Mr. Fontana. Mr. Lefkowitz requested that his attorney be allowed to attend, but this request was denied.7 Mr. Greenfield reviewed Mr. Lefkowitz's history with the Miami-Dade County public school system and presented the results of the investigation. Mr. Lefkowitz denied having met J.D. and N.F. and denied that they were ever in his apartment. After the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Fontana recommended to the Superintendent of Region II that Mr. Lefkowitz's employment be terminated. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein, to Detective Hernandez, and to the participants in the Conference-for-the- Record about his relationships with J.D. and N.F. because he knew it was improper for the students to be in his apartment and for him to associate with students outside of school. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed remorse at his behavior and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate. J.D. testified that she and Mr. Lefkowitz never dated or had sexual intercourse. Ms. Legros testified that she did not know whether Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. had had sexual intercourse. She claimed, however, to have observed Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and acting like "boyfriend and girlfriend to me."8 Ms. Legros has no personal knowledge that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual relations with N.F., but testified that N.F. told Ms. Legros that she had had a relationship with Mr. Lefkowitz. An 11th-grade student testified at the hearing that he considered Mr. Lefkowitz to be a good teacher, a role model, and a teacher that he would remember after high school. Mr. Fontana testified that he thought Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired because of the "manner in which he dealt with students, having students come to his apartment, dealing with students that are out of the realm of his teaching responsibilities." Mr. Fontana observed that "once you breach that student/teacher relationship and you lose that professionalism I don't think you can ever go back and have the same degree of effectiveness as a teacher."9 In making his decision to recommend that Mr. Lefkowitz be terminated from his employment as a teacher, Mr. Fontana considered Mr. Lefkowitz's employment history with the Miami- Dade County public school system. Mr. Lefkowitz was twice referred for evaluation as to his medical fitness to perform his duties as a teacher and was twice found fit to perform these duties. Mr. Lefkowitz was the subject of three allegations of battery on a student, one in February 1995, one in February 1999, and one in March 1999; the February 1995 charge was substantiated,10 and Mr. Lefkowitz was given a verbal warning; the remaining two charges were unsubstantiated. Finally, in August 1995, Mr. Lefkowitz had an unacceptable annual evaluation, was given a TADS Category VII prescription in the area of Professional Responsibility, and successfully completed the prescription within the specified time. Summary The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is insufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz dated either J.D. or N.F. or that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual intercourse with N.F. The School Board presented no direct evidence establishing that J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a romantic relationship or that N.F. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a sexual relationship. The School Board relied exclusively on Ms. Legros's testimony to establish that these relationships existed,11 and most of her testimony was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge. Ms. Legros had no personal knowledge that N.F. had sexual relations with Mr. Lefkowitz, and the only behavior that Ms. Legros testified that she personally observed was Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. in Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and, in Ms. Legros's estimation, acting like boyfriend and girlfriend. Ms. Legros is found not to be a particularly credible witness, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. more likely than not were dating or that the hugging and kissing, if she indeed observed such behavior, was sexual in nature. Both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz denied having a romantic relationship, but it is difficult to credit fully their testimony, given that both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about knowing one another and that Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about being acquainted with N.F. However, on reflection and after a careful review of the evidence, the testimony of J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros. The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. on April 21, 2002, and threatened her or that he went to the apartment shared by Ms. Legros and N.F. on the night of April 21, 2002, and made threats to harm them. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother testified unequivocally that she was with Mr. Lefkowitz from April 19 through the morning of April 22, 2002, and that he was recovering from surgery and sleeping on the night of April 21, 2002. The School Board presented no evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. and threatened her, and Ms. Legros was the only witness to testify that Mr. Lefkowitz came to her apartment and made threats. The testimony of Mrs. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros.12 The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz failed to exercise the best professional judgment, failed to maintain the highest ethical standards, and used his position as a teacher to his personal advantage by recruiting young women students to perform as dancers in the music video he was filming as part of a college assignment. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct: He had had a personal relationship outside of school with both J.D. and N.F.; J.D. and N.F. danced in a music video he made for a college project; J.D. and N.F. were in his apartment several times; and he drove J.D. and N.F. in his car to and from his apartment. The contents and tone of the written statement Mr. Lefkowitz adopted as his testimony supports an inference that he was on very familiar terms with both J.D. and N.F., and with Ms. Legros as well.13 Mr. Lefkowitz's poor judgment in developing significant social relationships outside of school with two female students at North Miami Beach High and his inappropriate behavior in having these students as guests in his car and in his apartment reflect poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. Mr. Lefkowitz also failed to exercise the best professional judgment and to maintain the highest ethical standards with respect to his dealings with the School Board during the investigation of his conduct. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein and Detective Hernandez and at the October 2, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record when he said he did not know J.D. or N.F., and he admitted at the final hearing that he lied because he knew that he should never have involved these students in making the music video, should never have given these students rides in his car, and should never have invited the students to his apartment. Mr. Lefkowitz's lack of truthfulness reflects poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz engaged in one instance of inappropriate behavior involving students M.D. and H.D. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that, on one occasion, he picked up these two students in his car and drove them to his apartment, where H.D. danced in the music video and M.D. observed Mr. Lefkowitz and cohorts filming the music video. Mr. Lefkowitz did not have repeated out-of-school contacts with these two students, as he did with J.D. and N.F., but his behavior with M.D. and H.D. reflected poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board, which consisted only of Mr. Fontana's conclusory and general statements, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is, however, sufficient to permit an inference that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. Mr. Lefkowitz encouraged students to develop personal relationships with him and to spend significant amounts of time with him in his apartment. Even though J.D., the young woman with whom he was primarily involved, was not a student in his class, his willingness to become involved with this student and her friends brings his personal and professional judgment into question and necessarily affects the school administration's assessment of his fitness for supervising high school students. It may also be inferred that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was also impaired because he lied to the principal and assistant principal of his school and to the regional superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system about even knowing J.D. By not being truthful with the school system administrators, Mr. Lefkowitz diminished his credibility as a professional educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order; Finding that Neil D. Lefkowitz is guilty of having committed misconduct in office and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.09 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21; Suspending Mr. Lefkowitz without pay for a period of 24 months, retroactive to the date on which the School Board suspended him from his employment without pay; and Imposing such conditions on Mr. Lefkowitz upon his return to employment as the School Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner's, Orange County School Board, suspension without pay of Razzi Lee Smith from his position of classroom teacher is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing briefs and memoranda, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During times material to the allocations herein, Respondent, Razzi Lee Smith, was employed by the Petitioner, School Board of Orange County, Florida, as a classroom teacher at Rock Lake Elementary School. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay from his position as a teacher pending a hearing. Respondent requested a hearing pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 120.57(1) and 231.36, Florida Statutes (1979). The charges upon which the suspension is based are, in summary fashion, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office. The specific charges are based upon the following grounds: On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent twice refused a lawful and reasonable order of his Principal. On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent threatened his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent evidenced in the presence of others, a continuing belligerent and hostile attitude towards his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent failed to follow the established written procedures for calling in if he was to be late or not present. 5. On September 2, 19, 22, 24 and 25, 1980, Respondent failed to report to the school by 8:00 o'clock a.m. as required in the Faculty Handbook. Additionally, Respondent was charged with misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty based upon the following grounds: On August 29, 1980, Respondent was absent from his assigned work location at Rock Lake Elementary School. On September 12, 1980, Respondent took sick leave for one half day claiming that he was too sick to finish the school day at Rock Lake Elementary School but later attended a football game in Tampa, Florida. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave claiming to be too sick to teach at Rock Lake Elementary School but attended football practice at Jones High School as a coach. On September 26, 1980, Respondent provided the Superintendent with a false oral statement, to wit, that he did not leave to go to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, until approximately 7:00 o'clock p.m., arriving at the game around half time at 8:30 p.m., when in fact Ice left to go to the game with the Jones High School football team. Lois Begley has been the acting principal at Rock Lake Elementary School since approximately February, 1980. Upon assuming the duties of acting principal, Ms. Begley immediately advised teachers at Rock Lake to report for work at 8:00 o'clock a.m. and leave at 3:30 p.m. Petitioner has a policy whereby teachers who find it necessary to be absent must report such intentions by 6:30 a.m. by notifying either Ms. Begley or an office employee at Rock Lake, Caroline Johnson. Respondent was advised of this policy; was warned of his breach of said policy on two occasions during February and March of 1980, and admitted that he was aware of the policy. (Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5) Ms. Begley stressed the need to know of a teacher's intended absence prior to 7:00 o'clock a.m. in order to recruit a substitute teacher. Subsequent to March, 1980, Respondent was again advised of Petitioner's policy respecting timely reporting for duty at Rock Lake Elementary School. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6) During a faculty meeting held during the afternoon of the last day of preplanning, August 29, 1980, Ms. Begley observed that Respondent was not present. She inquired of Respondent's whereabouts and was advised by an office employee that Respondent had called and reported that he was experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley observed Respondent at Jones High School later that same afternoon. During the last week of August, 1980, Respondent advised Ms. Begley that he had been leaving Rock Lake approximately one hour early each day during the preplanning week to assume coaching duties at Jones High and that this was cleared prior to Ms. Begley's tenure as acting principal at Rock Lake. Ms. Begley reluctantly agreed to Respondent's early departure during that school year, however, she made clear to Respondent that he would be expected to teach a full day the following year. Respondent and Ms. Begley made an agreement whereby he would report to work one half hour early, i.e., at 7:30 a.m., in order to make up for one half of the time lost due to his early departure from Rock Lake to coach at Jones High School. Respondent failed to report for duty at 7:30 a.m. as was his agreement with Ms. Begley. September 2, 1980, was the first school day for students at Rock Lake. Respondent reported for work at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980, and several students were observed milling around in the hallways attempting to find Respondent to enter their homeroom class. Respondent called the office at Rock Lake at approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 2, and advised that he was again experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley offered to assist Respondent in getting a ride to school. Within minutes, Ms. Begley had located a ride for Respondent. Ms. Begley called to so advise Respondent, whereupon Respondent told Ms. Begley that he had found a ride. As stated, Respondent reported for duty at 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980. Ms. Begley counselled Respondent regarding his claimed transportation problems again and stressed the reasons for her need to be alerted when he would be reporting late for work. Respondent generally discussed his problems with Ms. Begley on September 12, indicating that he was encountering personal problems that he did not care to divulge and that there were rumors about him being circulated around the school amongst other faculty members. Ms. Begley later discussed the problem regarding that fact that he had failed to make up 150 of the 300 minutes that he owed the School due to his early departure to coach at Jones High Sclcool during the week of preplanning. Ms. Begley did not take disciplinary action against Respondent due to his lateness in reporting for duty on the first day of school. Respondent requested the services of a substitute teacher to "fill in" for him during the afternoon of September 12, 1980, because he was ill. Respondent initially refused to divulge to school officials the nature of his illness. He attended and coached a football game between Jones High School and a local high school in Tampa that night. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. As late as 8:30 a.m. on that day, several students were unable to get in class and Respondent failed to call to advise Ms. Begley or the designated official that he would report for work late. When questioned as to the reason for his tardiness by Ms. Begley, Respondent replied that he had earlier advised her that he was having transportation problems. Ms. Begley again counselled Respondent regarding his continued tardiness in reporting to work. At that time, he was also directed not to use school supplies to photocopy football plays for use at Jones High School without proper authorization. On September 19, office aides, Ann Green and W. Oliver, work situs was in the immediate area where Respondent was counselled by Ms. Begley and were in earshot of the conversations. Respondent balked and became vocal about being counselled by Ms. Begley for reporting late. Ms. Begley reported the incident to Dr. Skaggs, Superintendent in charge of employee relations and Ron Blocker, Area Superintendent, who serves as a liaison between the superintendent and individual school principals. During the conference with Ms. Begley on September 19, Respondent voiced displeasure about the working conditions at Rock Lake and expressed a desire to transfer when Ms. Begley reported what she termed to be threatening remarks by Respondent to Dr. Skaggs. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. and was summoned for a conference with Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. During the conference, Respondent expressed disagreement or displeasure regarding the atmosphere in which he was being questioned and indicated that he preferred to leave. Respondent was warned of the consequences that might flow from his acts and conduct which could include either disciplinary action by way of a suspension or a failure to be reappointed for another term should he not heed the advice and warnings given him by his Principal, Ms. Begley. 2/ On September 22, 1980, Respondent reported for duty at approximately 8:14 a.m. Respondent did not call to advise Ms. Begley or the other designated official. Ms. Begley spoke to Respondent about his reporting tardy at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 22, 1980. Present during the conference were Respondent, Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. Respondent was invited to offer and explanation or statement with reference to his continued pattern of reporting for duty late, however, he refused to make any verbal response. Ms. Begley reduced the oral reprimand to writing and delivered it to Respondent who failed to accept or verify that he was issued a reprimand. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave and, therefore, did not report for work at Rock Lake. On that same day, however, Ms. Begley observed respondent at the football field at Jones High School between the hours of 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. working with a small group of football players. On the following day, September 24, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:07 a.m. Ms. Begley summoned Respondent to a conference, explaining to him at the outset of the possible consequences that might result from the conference. Given the gravity of the possible consequences, Ms. Begley inquired if Respondent cared to bring a witness or other representatives to be present with him during the conference. During the conference, Ms. Begley advised Respondent that she regreted having to give him a written reprimand but that his acts and conduct gave her no alternative. A copy of a reprimand was then given Respondent which he refused to sign acknowledging acceptance (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). The parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that written reprimands respecting lateness or failure to report for work be documented by a letter to that effect (Petitioner's exhibits Nos. 8 and 9). Ms. Begley, then, during the conference, asked Respondent if she could be of any further assistance to him, whereupon, Respondent in a hostile manner advised that he did not need or want any assistance and began pointing his finger at Ms. Begley telling her to "leave him alone." Respondent was told by Ms. Begley that that kind of conduct (vocal and belligerent outbursts) could result in disciplinary action to him. Ms. Begley inquired of Respondent what type leave he took on September 23, 1980, whereupon, Respondent advised that he went to see a doctor. Ms. Begley then asked Respondent to provide her with a doctor's statement to document that claim. Respondent never provided Ms. Begley with a medical excuse for his absence as requested. Ms. Begley considered that Respondent's demeanor and mannerism during the conference of September 24, 1980, constituted a threat based on the tone of his voice and the message, i.e., "quit messing with me. Stop bothering me--I'll do more than threaten you" (when Ms. Begley asked Respondent if he was threatening her). She also considered that Respondent's failure to signify acceptance of the reprimand constituted a compromise of her authority. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, pages 22, 23). Respondent later discussed the decision to discipline Respondent and ultimately decided to recommend his dismissal to Superintendent Skaggs and Area Superintendent Blocker during the evening of September 25, 1980. The possibility of a transfer was considered by Ms. Begley but rejected inasmuch as she was of the opinion that a transfer would not serve any useful purpose in correcting the problems evidenced by Respondent's erratic work habits. Ms. Begley considered that her attempt to reprimand Respondent was ineffective and incomplete based on his refusal to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the reprimand plus the combination of the insubordinate attitude displayed by him in the presence of his peers, his neglect of duty and tardiness in reporting for work, when combined, warranted a recommendation to the Superintendent that Respondent be dismissed as opposed to a transfer or some other lesser form of reprimand or discipline. Ron Blocker, the area administrator and liaison between the Superintendent and the Principal were summoned to Rock Lake Elementary School to assist Ms. Begley in what was once thought to be a possible teacher resignation. During the conference on September 24, 1980, Administrator Blocker advised Respondent that his failure to sign for receipt of a written reprimand could have grave disciplinary consequences in view of the gravity of the charges and Respondent's hostile conduct as manifested throughout the conference. Administrator Blocker recalled the forceful tone used by Respondent in telling Ms. Begley that he was "doing more than threatening her." Administrator Blocker also recalled Respondent's refusal to advise Begley of the reason for his absence the day prior to the conference indicating instead that she would know at the end of the work day. During the conference, Administrator Blocker recalled that he twice cautioned Respondent that his (Respondent's) refusal to follow an administrative directive may be interpreted as "gross insubordination" which could lead to possible termination or failure to be reappointed (as a teacher) the following school year. Calvin Perry is Director of Drivers Education and is the head football coach at Jones High School. As head football coach, Coach Perry is familiar with the duties of Respondent, a paid assistant coach assigned to coach the defensive team at Jones High School. Coach Perry confirmed that Respondent was present at the September 12, 1980, game in Tampa indicating that Respondent was present during the pre-warm ups and was present throughout the entire game. Coach Perry credibly testified that Respondent was present for football practice on September 23, 1980, having reported at the start of practice at approximately 3:00 p.m. and remained throughout the practice session which lasted until approxiately 5:15 p.m. However, Coach Perry also acknowledged that Respondent indicated that Respondent was ill at the game in Tampa. James L. Schott, Petitioner's Superintendent was shown copies of the letters sent to Respondent bearing the dates September 26, and October 4, 1980, respecting his suspension of Respondent without pay. Superintendent Schott explained that a conference was called to hear the nature of the charges; to hear both sides; to evaluate the evidence and determine the nature of, if any, recommended penalty he would make to the School Board, prior to making any recommendation based on the subject charges. Superintendent Schott recalled that while Respondent explained that he was ill on September 12, 1980, he was able to attend a football game in Tampa although he arrived during halftime because he was not feeling well and was uncertain as to whether he would attend the game at all. Respondent maintained his "story" to Superintendent Schott about attending the Tampa game during halftime. When Respondent advised Superintendent Schott that he also took sick leave on September 23, 1980, Superintendent Schott reminded Respondent of the similar situation by him on September 12, and, therefore, asked that he bring any documentary evidence of illness that he had so that it could be considered prior to his making any decision on the pending charges against him. Therefore, Superintendent Schott counselled Respondent regarding his failure to follow what he considered to have been lawful and reasonable requests regarding his attendance and timely reporting to work. During the Superintendent's conference with Respondent on September 26, 1980, he determined that Respondent was late approximately 50 minutes on September 19; approximately 14 minutes on September 20th and several minutes late on September 21 and 22. On September 23, respondent was absent for work claiming sick leave. According to Superintendent Schott, Respondent acknowledged that he might have made a threat to Ms. Begley during the conference on September 24, 1980. Superintendent Schott was able to independently determine from an investigation of the charges that Respondent had offered false information regarding his attendance to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, inasmuch as other credible evidence indicated Respondent's presence at that game throughout its entirety. After considerable deliberation, Superintendent Schott determined that termination was the only appropriate remedy that he should recommend to the full School Board to discipline Respondent. In making this decision, Superintendent Schott reflected on the facts that Respondent had obviously been terminated for failure to report to work as assigned and that to transfer Respondent would merely pass the problem to another Administrator to grapple with. Superintendent Schott, after much consideration, made the decision to recommend Respondent's termination without animosity and with much sensitivity to the problem based on the rapport that Respondent appeared to have with the youth and his peers at Rock Lake Elementary School. Superintendent Schott offered that teaching was more by example than by class room actions and that the responsibility of a teacher included getting to work promptly and was more than the usual duties expected once a teacher gets to class such as adding columns, deciphering words, reading etc. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent is a 1975 graduate of South Carolina State College and as stated, has been employed as a sixth grade teacher at Rock lake since the 1979- 80 school year. While so employed, Respondent has been involved in several school related activities outside his normal teaching duties, including Chairman of the Student Council; contact or liaison for Career Education; Chairman of the Safety Patrol; Scout leader and CTA representative. 3/ Respondent admits to not returning for duty on August 29, 1980, as charged. However, he exclaimed that he encountered car trouble enroute to his mother's home for lunch and consequently had to walk a distance of approximately two miles. Respondent also reported late for duty on September 2, due to transportation problems and did not arrive until approximately 8:45 a.m. Respondent also left school on September 12, 1990, at approximately 12:50 p.m. due to illness. Respondent admitted that he attended the game in Tampa on the evening of September 12, 1980. Respondent explains that this was possible because his health improved from the nauseated condition that he had suffered earlier during the day. Respondent rode to the game in Tampa with scouting coaches Smith and Robertson and arrived at the stadium in time for program warm-ups. 4/ Respondent also admitted reporting for work late on September 19 and 22, 1980. Respondent refused to sign a statement acknowledging acceptance of the written reprimand by Ms. Begley on September 24, 1980, based on his claimed "lack of trust" for Ms. Begley. In this regard, however, Respondent admits that Ms. Begley explained to him that signing the statement attached to the reprimand in no way signified agreement with the contents of the reprimand. Respondent claimed to have felt pressured to tell the Superintendent that he left Orlando at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the evening of September 12, 1980, and arrived at the game at halftime but that there was no willful attempt by him to misstate or otherwise misrepresent the facts to Superintendent Schott. The facts do not evidence a basis for Respondent's feeling. In this regard, Respondent admitted that he arrived at the game on September 12, 1980, before it started and remained for the duration of the game. Respondent did not verbally respond to inquiries by Ms. Begley during the conference with Ms. Begley and Area Superintendent Blocker because he considered Ms Begley's inquiry to be a form of harassment and an attempt by her to treat him as a "child." Finally, Respondent considered that by telling Ms. Begley that he was initially experiencing transportation problems excused his reporting requirements when he subsequently reported for work late.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be dismissed as an instructional employee of the Orange County School System. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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
