The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the specific notice of charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Eric Farber, was employed as a psychologist by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida. At the time of his suspension on December 6, 1989, Petitioner served under a continuing contract. In the Summer of 1989, while at Booker T. Washington Middle School in Miami, Florida, Respondent requested, at least, five female students to remove portions of their clothing while he gave them physical examinations. The proof did not indicate that Respondent was qualified to perform physical examinations of the students or that Petitioner had authorized the examinations. In the Summer of 1989, L.B., was a student at Booker T. Washington. L.B. is a fifteen year old female. According to L.B., she was called to Respondent's office by another student for examination by Respondent. When she arrived, Respondent told her to remove her blouse and brassiere. He told L.B. that he was checking her for breast cancer. L.B. was pregnant at the time. Respondent touched both breasts and then asked her to pull up her skirt that he could examine her vagina. He inserted his finger into her vagina. L.B. then dressed herself and left the room. L.B. thought Respondent was a medical doctor and that his examination was appropriate. M.C. was also a student at Booker T. Washington in the Summer of 1989. M.C. is a fifteen year old female. L.B. told M.C. that Respondent was a doctor who was there to see her. M.C., then, went to Respondent's office. L.B. and M.C. had been friends for over two years. According to M.C., Respondent asked her to fill out some forms. He then asked her to go into the part of the room where he could examine her. The room was separated by a divider which prevented the person seated on one side from seeing the activity on the other side. He asked her to take off her underpants. After a short discussion about problems with her menstrual flow, Respondent touched her vagina and asked her to remove her blouse while he also touched her breasts. Although M.C. did not think Respondent's actions were normal or appropriate, she allowed him to touch both her vagina and her breasts. She, then, told him to stop, and she left the room. Another student at Booker T. Washington that same Summer was T.S. She is a thirteen year old female. According to T.S., she was called to Respondent's office by an office aide. When she arrived, Respondent asked her to wait on one side of the room and draw pictures. L.B. was on the other side of the room being examined while T.S. was waiting. T.S. thought,she heard L.B. scream and did see her leave, appearing to be nervous. When T.S. went into the room for her examination, Respondent asked her to take off her blouse and brassiere, told her he was going to check her for breast cancer and questioned her about the onset of her menses. T.S. removed her clothing as requested, and Respondent, then, touched her breast and her anus. He then remarked that he had mistaken her for another male and sent her back to class. The fourth female student of the group is D.E. She is fourteen years old. According to D.E., Respondent visited D.E.'s classroom in the Summer of 1989 and picked D.E. out of a group of students identified as being from a neighborhood called Riverside. Respondent took D.E. to his office. D.E. understood that Respondent was examining the female students from the Riverside area because of some problem there. Respondent asked her to take off her blouse and brassiere for a breast examination. She refused to do so and returned to her class where she informed her teacher what Respondent was asking. Another female student at Booker T. Washington during the Summer of 1989 was J.N. who is fifteen years old. She was approached by Respondent while she was lying on a cot in the attendance office. According to J.N., Respondent asked if he could see her, that he had something for her. He escorted her into a small office and introduced himself as the school doctor. He then asked her to go into the next room and take off her blouse. When he entered the room, he touched both of her breasts and began explaining parts of the vaginal area to her. He told her to turn around and bend over while he examined her vagina. He placed his finger in her vagina and touched her anus. When she put her pants back on, he told her that he had been checking all the girls from Riverside. He found her vagina to be too narrow and suggested that she rub it to enlarge the opening. J.N. allowed Respondent to touch her because she believed that he had been sent by Petitioner to perform the examinations. J.N. was too embarrassed by the incident to tell her parents. Members of the news media came to the school and tried to interview members of the faculty about Respondent's actions, and the news media of the Miami area carried coverage of the incidents. As a result of his action and the notoriety resulting from it, Respondent, the school and the education profession suffered public disgrace. Respondent's colleagues lost respect for him and his abilities as an education professional, impairing his service to the community. For the 1988-89 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation was acceptable. He received several notable professional awards during his tenure in education, including being selected as a finalist for the teacher of the year award offered by the Dade County PTA in the South Central Area. At the hearing, Respondent did not testify, and the testimony of the students about the events at issue is deemed credible. Although Respondent may in the past have been an outstanding teacher, his actions, during the Summer of 1989 were intentional, unethical and inconsistent with the standards of public conscience. They resulted in creating such public disgrace for the education profession that his effectiveness in the school system was impaired and caused unnecessary embarrassment to the students involved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order dismissing Respondent, Eric D. Farber, as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida without back pay or benefits. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 15th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6945 The following represents the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. The ruling reflects the number of the paragraph which addresses the proposed finding of fact, if applicable. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in relevant part in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted as subordinate to the findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire School Board of Dade County, Florida Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33125 Don S. Cohn, Esquire 1504 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert L. Collins has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida as a teacher for the last twenty-four years and is on continuing contract. For approximately the last seven of those years, Respondent has been teaching Industrial Arts at Miami Killian Senior High School. Between late September 1983, and November 23, 1983, Jonathan Wright was a student in Respondent's Plastics class. On November 23, 1983, Wright came into Respondent's Plastics class wearing a hat, which is against school rules. Respondent directed Wright to remove his hat which he did. Later in that same class Respondent saw Wright sitting by the engraver again wearing that hat. Respondent removed the hat from Wright's head and advised Wright that if he put the hat on another time Respondent would send him to the principal's office. At approximately 5 minutes before the end of the class period, Respondent instructed the students that it was time to clean up the shop area. Wright and some of the other students began gathering at the door. Respondent motioned to those students to come back into the classroom and away from the door, which some of them did. Wright, however, did not. Respondent then specifically directed Wright to get away from the door. Instead of obeying, Wright put up a hand and a foot in a karate type posture but clearly in a playful manner. As a normal reaction in the context of the situation, Respondent did likewise. Respondent then turned back toward the class at which time Wright grabbed him by the legs and pulled him down to the floor. Respondent and Wright were rolling around on the floor in a small alcove area, and Respondent was unable to get loose from Wright's grip. Respondent was afraid that he, Wright, or the other students might be severely injured in the small alcove by the door or on some of the machinery located in the Plastics shop classroom. Unable to free himself, Respondent bit Wright on the back. Wright released Respondent and got up off the floor. After the bell rang, Wright left the classroom. Wright was transferred to the Plastics class of teacher Gerald Krotenberg where he remained for the rest of the school year. On several occasions Krotenberg was required to admonish Wright because Wright often resorted to "horse play" with other students. On occasion Wright would come into the classroom and would "bear hug" the girls, "jostle" the boys, and be disruptive so that Krotenberg could not take attendance or conduct the class. Although Krotenberg followed his normal technique of chastising the student in public, and then chastising the student in private, those techniques did not work and Krotenberg was required to exclude Wright from class on probably two occasions, for two days each, due to Wright's inappropriate behavior with other students. During the two months that Wright was in Respondent's class, Wright had come up behind Respondent on one or two occasions and lightly put his arms around Respondent in the nature of a bear hug. Respondent counseled Wright that that was not appropriate behavior. The only touching of Wright that was initiated by Respondent himself occurred in the form of Respondent placing his hand on Wright's shoulder while discussing a project being worked on at the moment or perhaps a light slap on the back in the nature of encouragement or praise for a job well done. Not all teachers, however, agree that it is appropriate to occasionally give a student an encouraging pat on the back. Although Wright had on one or two occasions given Respondent a playful hug and although Respondent had on several occasions given Wright an encouraging pat on the back or touch on his shoulder, no physical combat ever occurred between them. Although Wright often engaged in "horse play" with other students, no "horse play" occurred between Wright and Respondent. None of Respondent's annual evaluations during the years he has been teaching in the Dade County public School, including the annual evaluation for the the 1983-1984 school year, indicates that Respondent has had any problems with either maintaining good discipline in his classes or that Respondent is anything other than acceptable in the area of classroom management.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reversing Respondent's suspension, reinstating him if necessary, and reimbursing him for back pay-if he was suspended without pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire 111 SW Third Street Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Michael D. Ray, Esquire 7630 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33138 Phyllis 0. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent in this proceeding is Lloyd Wright. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, he was a social studies teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District on a professional contract status and assigned to Westwood High School. He holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 395537. On February 17, 1987, Respondent was suspended from his duties as a teacher for the school district. After an administrative hearing on issues relative to his employment, final order dismissing Respondent from his employment was issued by the school district on September 8, 1987. James Andrews is the principal of Westwood High School. Andrews has known Respondent as a friend, and as a member of the teaching staff at the school, for many years. On February 4, 1987, Andrews was at home with his ill son. His secretary telephoned him regarding allegations being voiced against Respondent by a female student. That student's allegations, and statements of other students alleged to be witnesses, were reduced to writing at Andrews' instruction and reviewed by him upon his return to the office on February 5, 1987. That evening he met with the complaining student, Tenecia Poitier, and her father. He assured them that the matter would be taken up with his superiors. On the morning of February 11, 1987, Andrews brought the allegations to the attention of the school district's Director of Secondary Education during a visit by the director to the Westwood Campus. That afternoon, the director telephoned Andrews and requested that additional statements be obtained from the students. Pursuant to those instructions, Andrews met with the students who had given the previous statements and instructed them to provide the additional statements to him. He forwarded these statements to the district school board office. Andrews has been the principal at Westwood High School for seven and a half years. He holds a master's degree in guidance and counseling and has completed course work in the areas of administration and supervision in excess of 30 academic credit hours. He has served in the educational system for approximately 35 years. Service in the positions of classroom teacher, guidance counselor, assistant principal and principal are included in the scope of his experience. Andrews regularly instructed the staff at the school to refrain from using slang in the classroom, becoming familiar with students or putting their hands on students unless necessary to prevent injury to a student or others. This admonishment by the principal was applicable to all students without regard to race or sex. He does not think it appropriate for a teacher to use the word "fuck" or the phrase "I am going to fuck your brains out" in the classroom. Andrews also finds the use of the phrases "Girl, I want that thing" and "Girl, I'm going to take you to the bushes" inappropriate for a male teacher to use in conversation with a female student. He would not want a male teacher who touched female students intentionally on the buttocks or thighs, or used such words or phrases in the classroom, on his teaching staff. Tenecia Poitier graduated from Westwood High School in 1988. In the 1986-87 school year, she was a student in Respondent's World History class. On one occasion, Respondent pushed Poitier against the wall of the classroom with other students present and told her "One of these days, I'm going to fuck your brains out." Once, when she was going to the school cafeteria, Respondent told her "Girl, I want that thing." Respondent touched Poitier on the leg and buttocks on other occasions and made suggestive statements to her. In response, Poitier rejected Respondent's advances by cursing him and, on one occasion, striking him. Another incident occurred when Respondent seated himself in front of Poitier's desk and propped his feet on her desk in a crossed fashion. The result of Respondent adopting this seating posture meant that Poitier had to look between Respondent's legs when she looked up from her desk work. Poitier got out of her desk, struck Respondent with her notebook, cursed him and told him to get his legs off her desk. Poitier did not observe Respondent engage in this seating conduct with other students. JoAnna McGee was a ninth grade student when she had Respondent as her teacher for World History. Respondent saw McGee walking down the street one day. He sounded his automobile horn at her. Later, when he saw her in the classroom, he told her that if he saw her walking on the street again he would take her "in the bushes." Respondent hugged McGee and other female students on occasion. Tony Lee was a student in Respondent's World History class, along with Poitier. Lee was aware of Respondent's joking and bantering with students. Female students would congregate around Respondent's desk when these sessions occurred. On one of these occasions, female students laughingly said they needed some candy to suck, and Lee heard Respondent reply "I've got something to suck on right here." Lee also heard Respondent make the statement "fuck your brains out" during an exchange with students. Lee overheard Respondent using the phrase "pull your clothes down" in a conversation with Poitier. Lisa Frazier was also a classmate of Poitier during the World History class taught by Respondent. She observed Poitier curse Respondent and strike him with her notebook. Frazier also testified that Poitier had a reputation for disruptive behavior and that Respondent used slang language with students. Respondent admitted using slang expressions, including the phrases "take you to the bushes" and "take you to the woods," in classroom settings with female students. Respondent admitted to a practice of hugging male and female students. Respondent also testified that he never told Poitier that he wanted to "F--- her brains out." When confronted with his sworn testimony from a previous proceeding that he did not recall making the statement, Respondent explained that his previous answer was made upon advice of his counsel at that time. Respondent's denial in this proceeding that he never made such a statement to Poitier, along with his testimony that hugging of students was an unintentional result of previous coaching experience, is not credited in view of his demeanor while testifying. Further, his testimony that his use of the phrases "take you to the bushes" or "take you to the woods" resulted from a film observed in the class and were meaningless slang terms devoid of sexual innuendo, is not credible. Also, the testimony of students Lee and McGee corroborates Poitier's version of Respondent's behavior and further discredits Respondent's testimony, including his explanation that Poitier's complaint against him resulted from Respondent writing up Poitier for academic and disciplinary reasons. Other students were also written up as often as Poitier.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. Unnecessary to result reached. 4.-12. Addressed. 13. Unnecessary to result. 14.-15. Adopted in substance. 16. Unnecessary to result reached. 17.-21. Addressed. 22.-24. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result reached. 27.-28. Addressed. 29.-30. Adopted in substance. 31. Unnecessary to result reached. 32.-33. Addressed. 34.-35. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. 3.-6. Unnecessary to result reached. 7.-8. Cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary to result. 9.-13. Unnecessary to result reached. 14. Addressed. 15.-17. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected, contrary to weight of the evidence. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in substance. 24.-25. Unnecessary to result reached. 26.-27. Addressed in substance. 28. Unnecessary to result. 29.-30. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire 208 West Pensacola St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire. General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in humanities at the College's Clearwater campus. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1996. He began as an adjunct professor and has been a full-time instructor since 1998. Respondent works under a continuing contract of employment, which is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent had never been subject to disciplinary proceedings during his employment with the College. At Respondent's July 2004 annual evaluation meeting, Provost Stan Vittetoe and Program Director Anne Cooper expressed concerns about Respondent's failure to keep office hours and the fact that he did not show up for a class he was scheduled to teach. Respondent attributed these problems to his ongoing divorce proceedings. Dr. Vittetoe lectured Respondent on the importance of not allowing "life issues" to affect his work, but did not otherwise discipline Respondent. In the fall semester of 2003, Respondent taught three humanities courses: Humanities I, Humanities II, and East/West Synthesis. Humanities I and II consist of a chronological study of Western civilization. East/West Synthesis focuses on non- Western cultures, such as those of India, China, Japan, Africa, and the Middle East. Pamela Socorro has been a student at the College since 2002. She enrolled in Respondent's East/West Synthesis class in August 2003. The class was scheduled to meet twice a week, on Monday and Wednesday evenings, for the length of the fall semester. Each class period lasted one hour and 45 minutes. Respondent also played keyboards for a local jazz and rhythm and blues band called Bus Stop. Respondent was not a regular member of the band, but sat in for the band when its regular keyboardist was unavailable. Bus Stop played at nightclubs and bars in the Tampa Bay area. In his humanities classes, Respondent would announce the dates of his engagements with Bus Stop and invite the students to come out and hear the band. In response to one such general invitation in late October 2003, Ms. Socorro and a group of friends went to a bar called the Rare Olive in Ybor City to see Respondent perform with Bus Stop. The Rare Olive did not admit persons under 21 years of age. Ms. Socorro was 19 years old at the time, and her friends were also under 21. Respondent intervened with management, asking if Ms. Socorro could come into the bar provided she did not drink alcoholic beverages. Ms. Socorro was allowed to come into the bar, though at least one of her friends, Rian Salmun, was not admitted. During a break from playing, Respondent spoke with Ms. Socorro for five-to-ten minutes. This was their first one- to-one conversation. During this conversation, Respondent asked Ms. Socorro her age. She told Respondent that she was 19 years old, and he told her that he was 33 years old. In November 2003, Ms. Socorro and Respondent had a conversation on the College campus during which Respondent mentioned that Bus Stop would be playing at the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg on November 21, 2003. Because Respondent was sitting in with the band on short notice, he did not have an opportunity to announce this performance to his humanities classes. On November 21, 2003, Ms. Socorro went to the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg with her mother, her aunt, and a group of friends. Ms. Socorro used a friend's identification card to obtain admittance to the bar. Respondent joined Ms. Socorro and her party during a break. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro if she wanted a drink, and she told him that she liked "fruity drinks" and shots. Respondent walked to the bar and came back with two shots. They downed the shots together.2 After about an hour at the Rare Olive, Ms. Socorro's mother wanted to leave. Respondent did not want Ms. Socorro to leave and asked what she would be doing later, after she took her mother home. Respondent gave Ms. Socorro his cellular telephone number, and she said she would call him later. She entered the number into her mother's cellular telephone directory. Ms. Socorro and her group left the bar. Once outside, Ms. Socorro realized that she had neglected to save Respondent's phone number into her mother's cell phone directory. Maria Albornoz, one of Ms. Socorro's friends, went back into the bar and obtained Respondent's cell phone number again for Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro did not call Respondent later on the night of November 21, 2003. She did call him on the afternoon of November 22, 2003, and left a message on his cellular telephone. Respondent returned the call that evening. From this point forward, Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of that evening's events differ in several particulars. According to Ms. Socorro, Respondent asked her if she would like to attend the Fall Dance Concert at the College with him that evening. Respondent testified that he had mentioned the concert in class that week, and asked Ms. Socorro whether she was planning to attend, but did not ask her to go with him. Ms. Socorro testified that they arranged on the telephone to meet outside the theater, met as planned, went in together, and sat together in the back row of the theater. Respondent testified that they happened to arrive at the same time and that they sat together in the back of the theater because the recital had already started when they entered. Ms. Socorro testified that, after the recital, she and Respondent arranged to meet at the Marble Slab, a local ice cream shop. Respondent testified that he mentioned that he was going for ice cream but that he did not ask Ms. Socorro to join him. Before proceeding to the ice cream shop, Respondent spoke to several performers of his acquaintance, while Ms. Socorro went across the street from the College to the residence of her friend, Mr. Salmun, and spoke with him for a few minutes. At the hearing, Mr. Salmun testified that Ms. Socorro told him she was meeting Respondent for ice cream at the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro recalled walking past Respondent's car in the Marble Slab's parking lot and seeing two child car seats in the back. At the time, she was unaware that Respondent was involved in divorce proceedings or that he was the father of twin three-year-old daughters. Respondent was already seated at a table in the Marble Slab when Ms. Socorro entered. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Socorro ordered ice cream. They sat at the table and talked about their families, their astrological signs, Pilates and dance teachers they had in common, yoga, and Latin dance. They eventually felt self- conscious about sitting at the table in the ice cream shop without making a purchase, and they continued their conversation outside the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she was a good student and was doing very well in his class. He asked Ms. Socorro not to "announce" that she had seen him play at the Rare Olive or had gone with him to the dance recital, "because he could get in trouble." He told her that he should not see her again while she was in his class, but he did not tell her that he was forbidden to see her. Respondent urged Ms. Socorro to complete her class assignments and exams as quickly as possible, the implication being that they could begin dating once she had completed the class and received a final grade. Despite his cautionary statements, Respondent also discussed going out to a Latin club with Ms. Socorro so that she could help him with his dance technique. Respondent testified that he was surprised to see Ms. Socorro arrive at the Marble Slab, especially given that she did not order ice cream. He stated that this was the first clear signal that Ms. Socorro might have a romantic interest in him. Respondent recalled that Ms. Socorro asked him to go out with her to a dance club, but that he told her that was "out of bounds." However, he also told Ms. Socorro that he was interested in pursuing a relationship once she was out of his class. To the extent that Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of events on November 22, 2003, differ, Ms. Socorro's version is credited. Even in his own version of events, Respondent agreed that he returned Ms. Socorro's telephone call. He denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the dance recital. However, Respondent admitted telling Ms. Socorro that he was going to the recital and asking Ms. Socorro if she was going. Similarly, Respondent denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the Marble Slab, but there could be little other reason for him to tell her that he was going there. Finally, Respondent admits that he made it clear to Ms. Socorro that he was very much interested in pursuing a relationship with her, as soon as the formality of having her as a student in his class could be dispensed with. On the evening of November 29, 2003, Ms. Socorro attended a performance of the play "Miss Saigon" at Ruth Eckerd Hall in Clearwater. When she came home after the play, she learned that Respondent had telephoned her. She returned the call the next day, while shopping in Orlando with her mother. Ms. Socorro talked to Respondent about "Miss Saigon," because the play was related to the East/West Synthesis course Respondent was teaching. They discussed the Thanksgiving break, then made plans to see the movie "Gothika" that evening at the AMC Woodlands 20 theater complex in Oldsmar. Respondent and Ms. Socorro attended a late showing of "Gothika," then sat and talked in the theater's parking lot until approximately 5:30 a.m. Respondent testified that this was his first "real talk" with Ms. Socorro and that they began to get to know each other at this time. They also shared their first kiss, described by both principals as a "French kiss." Ms. Socorro was scheduled to report to her job as a nanny at 5:45 a.m. on December 1, 2003. She went straight to work from the movie theater parking lot, but arrived late to her job. Because she was unable to change clothes before work, she ended up reporting to Respondent's class that evening wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date the night before. When she arrived at class, Ms. Socorro noted that Respondent was also wearing the same clothes he had worn the previous evening. While Respondent agreed that he went with Ms. Socorro to see the movie "Gothika," and accepted her version of what happened that night after the movie, Respondent contended that this date occurred on December 9, 2003, the day after he gave out the final grades for Ms. Socorro's East/West Synthesis class. Respondent contended that he did not speak with or see Ms. Socorro on November 30, 2003. He denied any recollection of seeing Ms. Socorro in his class wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date. Ms. Socorro testified that she did go to the movies again with Respondent on December 10, 2003, but that they saw "The Last Samurai." Respondent denied ever having seen "The Last Samurai." Ms. Socorro's version of the chronology of these events is more credible and is accepted. Ms. Socorro's recollection of the events of November 30, 2003, was precise in its detail, belying Respondent's contention that she was somehow confused or mistaken as to when they saw "Gothika" together. On December 8, 2003, Ms. Socorro took her last exam in Respondent's class. The exam was a multiple choice "fill in the bubble" test that Respondent machine graded that evening while the students waited. Respondent was able to tell Ms. Socorro that she had made an "A" in his class before she left his classroom on December 8th. However, Respondent did not officially post the grades for his class until December 16, 2003. The semester officially ended on December 19, 2003. Prior to the end of the fall semester, Ms. Socorro told Respondent that her friends Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun knew that she and Respondent were dating. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she should tell Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun not to speak to anyone about their relationship. Ms. Socorro and Mr. Salmun were best friends. They saw or spoke to each other every day, and they prepared their schedules for spring semester together before the end of fall semester. Mr. Salmun told Ms. Socorro that he intended to take a class from Respondent, because he needed one more humanities course and Respondent's class fit into his schedule. Ms. Socorro explained to Mr. Salmun that she had discussed this matter with Respondent, who had told her that they could not socialize with any friends of Ms. Socorro's who were taking classes from Respondent. Mr. Salmun nonetheless signed up for the class, though he dropped it for a humanities class taught by another instructor prior to the close of the fall semester. Ms. Socorro told another friend, Teona Gogoladze, that she should not enroll in Respondent's class for the spring semester, due to Respondent's concerns about his relationship with Ms. Socorro becoming widely known. Ms. Gogoladze registered for Respondent's class anyway, because it fit her schedule better than any other humanities class, and she had done well in a previous class taught by Respondent. Ms. Gogoladze told Ms. Socorro that it would not be "the end of the world" if she had to avoid seeing Ms. Socorro with Respondent for one semester. As it happened, Respondent and Ms. Socorro did socialize with Ms. Gogoladze once during the spring semester, attending a party at her house for the airing of the last episode of the television show "Friends." During the Christmas break between fall and spring semesters, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went out to clubs at least twice. On December 19, 2003, they went with a group of College students to an "end of semester" party at Terra, a Latin club in Ybor City. The next weekend, they went to 10 Beach Drive, a piano bar in St. Petersburg. The couple spoke on the telephone on Christmas Day, exchanged Christmas gifts, and spent New Year's Eve together. Respondent introduced Ms. Socorro to his sister and his father. Respondent and Ms. Socorro continued to see each other during the spring semester of 2004. Ms. Socorro had registered for classes, but withdrew from the College for the semester in order to visit her sick father in Venezuela. Ms. Socorro testified that, although Respondent did not press her to withdraw from the College, their relationship improved when she was not in school because Respondent felt less stress about students seeing him on his dates with Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent "constantly" bought her alcoholic beverages during their relationship, though he knew she had not reached the legal drinking age. Ms. Socorro went to the bars at which Respondent was playing with Bus Stop. Respondent would "hang out" with Ms. Socorro during breaks and buy her drinks. At a bar called J.B.'s in Sarasota, Respondent used his credit card to open a tab for a group of people, including Ms. Socorro. At the end of the evening, Respondent was startled at the amount of the bill. Everyone in the group except Ms. Socorro reimbursed Respondent for their drinks. Ms. Socorro did not register for classes at the College for the 2004 summer semester. She cited her relationship with Respondent as her main reason for staying out of school: I knew that when I went back to school, I knew it was going to be a little difficult, because when we would go out to anywhere around town, restaurants, Gary knew everyone. His students were everywhere. He felt uncomfortable. He always asked if the person knew me. So, I knew it was going to be difficult. * * * At that point, by the summer, we were a couple and we had been together for months. I knew it was going to be stressful again and I was working at-- I believe I was beginning to work at a bank and the bank, if I was there long enough, was going to pay for school. And I decided that, putting all these things together, that I would not go in the summer, either. Respondent taught classes during the 2004 summer semester. Margaret Gunn was a student enrolled in one of his classes. Once while Ms. Gunn was in his office, Respondent asked her to come out to a bar to hear his band play. Ms. Gunn declined the offer. Respondent asked her again in September 2004, and Ms. Gunn again declined. Ms. Gunn testified that Respondent's requests made her somewhat uncomfortable, but that she nonetheless maintained a cordial relationship with him. During the annual fall semester orientation in 2004, College president Dr. Carl Kuttler spoke about sexual harassment during a faculty and staff meeting attended by Respondent. Dr. Kuttler stressed that relationships between instructors and students were not allowed if the instructor could in any way affect the student's grade, academic progress, or academic environment. Ms. Socorro described Respondent's reaction to Dr. Kuttler's presentation: He was upset and that was the first time I heard the name "Dr. Kuttler." I remember him saying that they had emphasized the subject of teacher and student relationships. And it was kind of like, "you see, I told you" kind of thing. He said that now he needed to be very, very careful. He was actually concerned, because me and Rian [Salmun] were having problems in our friendship and he was concerned that now Rian was going to be upset and he might say something to people out of spite. He was just-- he was scared. He was paranoid. He told me about a teacher that was fired. And he said, you know, they don't even know if he did it, they just think he did it and he was fired or he left or something happened and he was just scared. Ms. Socorro, who was planning to return to the College in fall 2004, offered to take her classes at a different campus, or at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, to assuage Respondent's fears. Despite the offer, she eventually registered to take classes at the College's Clearwater campus. Ms. Socorro also asked Respondent why their being seen together remained a concern, given that she was no longer his student. Ms. Socorro stated, "And he kept saying that it just looked bad, it just looked bad that I was his student at the school, because people would wonder how we met. It would be too much of a coincidence that we met, where we met or how." Respondent and Ms. Socorro agreed to give a false story to anyone curious about how they met. Ms. Socorro testified: He would ask me, please, just tell people that you met me at the bar or we would come up with kind of like a script of what I was going to say to [Respondent's] friends. It was usually I met Gary while he was playing out [with the band]. That's what I told everybody. * * * I was protecting him from anyone at all finding out. I don't know if-- I don't know. I don't know if he felt bad himself about it and he just didn't want people to know. He said people don’t-- he would say people don't know our relationship, they don't know us, they don't know how we are, and it doesn't look good that you're so young, it doesn't look good that I was your teacher and people perceive things differently, so let's not let them do that. Throughout their relationship, Respondent stressed to Ms. Socorro that she should not befriend students enrolled in his classes. Respondent testified that he did so not out of fear for his job but because he wanted to keep his professional and personal life as separate as possible. More credibly, Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that he was "risking everything" to continue his relationship with Ms. Socorro. During the 2004 fall semester, Ms. Socorro met and befriended Ms. Gunn, who had taken a class from Respondent during the summer semester and was taking a second class from Respondent in the fall. When they discussed their classes and teachers, Ms. Socorro pretended she did not know Respondent. Respondent became concerned that Ms. Socorro was seeing too much of Ms. Gunn, because he was afraid Ms. Gunn might "put things together." Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to stay away from Ms. Gunn. Ms. Gunn testified that it took only a few weeks for her to determine that Respondent was the "boyfriend" that Ms. Socorro described in their conversations. Respondent told Ms. Socorro that she should just go to her classes, sit through the lectures, then get in her car and leave the campus. Respondent demanded that Ms. Socorro decide between her relationship with him and the life of a "typical student," because he was "risking too much" to have Ms. Socorro jeopardize it by "hanging out" at school. Ms. Socorro testified that "things got really bad" between Respondent and her during the 2004 fall semester, due to their conflicts concerning Ms. Gunn and the pressure of hiding their relationship. They had "a lot of fights," some so bad that they would decide to "take breaks from each other" for as long as one week. Ms. Socorro recalled three such "breaks" before their final breakup in late November and early December 2004. On November 30, 2004, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went to the AMC Woodlands 20 movie complex to see a movie, but never made it past the parking lot because an argument commenced. Ms. Gunn had told Ms. Socorro that Respondent had quizzed her regarding her whereabouts on certain evenings, with the idea of ascertaining whether Ms. Socorro had lied to him when she promised to stop seeing Ms. Gunn. Ms. Socorro confronted Respondent about his questioning of Ms. Gunn. Respondent called her a "compulsive liar" and said that he was "torn" about their relationship and needed time to decide what to do. Ms. Socorro described this fight as "sad" and "horrible." Respondent testified that, despite her promise not to see Ms. Gunn during the fall semester, Ms. Socorro had surreptitiously gone over to Ms. Gunn's house on at least one occasion of which he was aware. He agreed that the confrontation over Ms. Gunn occurred on November 30, though he placed it at a Ruby Tuesday's restaurant.3 Respondent assured Ms. Socorro that they would talk things over the next day, but testified that he also made it clear to her that the romantic relationship was over. On December 1, 2004, Ms. Socorro repeatedly phoned Respondent, who did not answer her calls.4 She sent several e- mail messages to which Respondent did not respond. Respondent was staying at his father's house because relatives were visiting from out of town. That evening, Ms. Socorro went to Respondent's father's house. Respondent did not want a confrontation with Ms. Socorro because his children were with him. He promised to speak with her the next day. On the morning of December 2, 2004, Ms. Socorro drove over to Respondent's house. She had concluded that her relationship with Respondent was over, and she wanted to retrieve some possessions that she kept at his house. Respondent was not at home, but Ms. Socorro knew that the lock was broken on Respondent's sliding glass back door, and she let herself in the house.5 While looking for some of her jewelry on Respondent's bedroom dresser, Ms. Socorro found a letter from and photographs of one of Respondent's former girlfriends, a former College student named Marianna Csongova. She read the letter, and concluded that Respondent was having a relationship with Ms. Csongova at the same time he was dating Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro recalled having seen an e-mail exchange between Respondent and Ms. Csongova earlier in 2004. Respondent had explained away this e-mail, but Ms. Socorro now wondered if there were more e-mails between Respondent and Ms. Csongova. She went into Respondent's computer room and checked his e- mails. She found "tons and tons" of e-mails from Ms. Csongova, and responses from Respondent.6 Ms. Socorro continued searching Respondent's e-mail and found correspondence between Respondent and several other female students at the College. She printed "tons" of the e- mails. Respondent's printer ran out of paper before all of the e-mails printed. Ms. Socorro began forwarding the e-mails to her own e-mail account, but then got worried that Respondent would come home and catch her. She turned off Respondent's computer and left the house, taking a half-inch thick stack of printed e-mails with her. Respondent had spent the night at his father's house. He woke up on the morning of December 2, 2004, and drove to his own house to shower and dress for work. He noticed that the sliding glass door had been opened. He went to check his e-mail and noticed that the printer was out of paper. Respondent surmised that Ms. Socorro had been in his house and on his computer. As he had promised Ms. Socorro the previous evening, Respondent phoned Ms. Socorro and arranged for her to come over to his house early in the afternoon to discuss their relationship. Ms. Socorro had a doctor's appointment that afternoon to which Respondent had planned to accompany her. During their phone conversation, Respondent told Ms. Socorro that he would not accompany her to the appointment because he was driving to Orlando to see his brother, who was down from Atlanta on business. Ms. Socorro arrived at Respondent's house at approximately 12:30 p.m. She went in and they sat down to talk. They talked for nearly an hour about Ms. Gunn and the other issues between them. They did not discuss Ms. Socorro's having gone into Respondent's house that morning and printing his e- mails. Ms. Socorro testified that they both "pretended" not to know what she had done. At about 1:15 p.m., Respondent reminded Ms. Socorro of her doctor's appointment at 1:30 p.m. Respondent was also anxious to begin his trip to Orlando. Ms. Socorro again asked Respondent to accompany her to her doctor's appointment, but Respondent again declined. Ms. Socorro told Respondent that she still wanted things to work out. Respondent said that he did not think it would work, but agreed to talk with her again. Respondent walked Ms. Socorro out of his house and to her car. Respondent was the first to reach Ms. Socorro's car. He looked inside. Ms. Socorro then recalled that she had placed the stack of e-mails on the back seat of her car and that they were plainly visible from outside. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to unlock the car so that he could retrieve a CD that he claimed to have left in her car. Ms. Socorro used her keyless entry device to open the front door. Before Ms. Socorro could get in the car, Respondent reached in and opened the back door. He grabbed the stack of e- mails. Ms. Socorro threw herself onto Respondent's back, and they struggled over the e-mails on the back seat of the car. The papers were falling to the ground outside the car.7 Ms. Socorro pressed the "panic" button on her keyless entry device, setting off the car's alarm system. Respondent took the keys from her, stopped the alarm, and threw the keys outside the car. They continued to struggle inside the car, until Respondent managed to get out of the car. Neighbors were beginning to notice the struggle. Respondent told Ms. Socorro to calm down, that they both needed to act normal. They stopped fighting and picked up the e-mails. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to go back into the house and talk about matters.8 They walked to the front door. Respondent opened the door, slipped part way into the house, then tossed his stack of e-mails into the house, with the apparent attempt to deny entry to Ms. Socorro. She ran inside the house before Respondent could close the door. They began yelling at each other again. Respondent demanded to know what Ms. Socorro intended to do with the e- mails and threatened to kill her if she tried to "do anything to destroy everything I've worked for all of my life." Respondent tried to force Ms. Socorro out of the house. He pushed her against the wall near the front door and hurt her arm. As Ms. Socorro held on to the jamb of the open front door, Respondent hit her in the chest with his head and shoulder, shoving her off the front porch and into a bush below.9 Respondent took advantage of Ms. Socorro's fall to lock his front door from the outside. Ms. Socorro became hysterical. She began to laugh, unnerving Respondent, who tried to calm her down. As Ms. Socorro quieted, they discussed the e- mails. Respondent explained that he stayed in touch with Ms. Csongova because he needed to keep his options open. She asked him about the e-mails to the other girls. Respondent replied that the College would not care if he "flirted" with a couple of his students. Ms. Socorro asked Respondent why he went to such lengths to keep their relationship a secret, if the College didn't care. According to Ms. Socorro, the exchange proceeded as follows: He said, why do you want to do this? You're going to hurt my kids. . . . He said, you have to understand that I'm 34 years old. I'm not a child like you. You have your whole life ahead of you and I need to find a role model. I need to find a good woman for my kids to marry. And I knew that you and I were rocky and I had to do this and I was leading more than one life, more than one relationship and if I had to do it, I did it for my kids, that they need a mother. He said, I can't be alone when I'm 44. I remember telling him that he was sick. I said that you're just sick. That's sick. He said, do you want me to tell you the truth. He said, from the moment you told me that you had an eating disorder, I knew that you and I weren't going to work. And I kept yelling at him, if it was that long ago, why didn't you stop the relationship, because you have known that forever. He said, I thought you would change, but you never did. Ms. Socorro got into her car and started to drive away. Believing that Ms. Socorro was in no condition to drive, Respondent tried to talk her into waiting while he called her mother or some other person to come over and help her. Ms. Socorro declined any assistance from Respondent. She told him that she was hurt and needed to get to the hospital. She drove away. From her car, Ms. Socorro phoned her doctor's office, because she had missed her appointment. The doctor's receptionist was so alarmed that she stayed on the phone with Ms. Socorro until she reached her mother's office. Ms. Socorro's mother, Patricia Mills, drove Ms. Socorro to the emergency room of Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, where she was treated for scrapes, an injured wrist, and a slightly cracked rib. Due to the injured rib, Ms. Socorro had to take time off from her job as a waitress at Applebee's. She also wore a splint on her wrist for a time. The emergency room staff at Morton Plant Hospital notified the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which dispatched deputies to interview Ms. Socorro while she was still at the hospital. The Sheriff's deputies also interviewed Respondent. No arrests were made and no charges were filed in the matter. The Sheriff's Office reported the incident to the College. Ms. Mills phoned the College's security office to inform the College of the altercation between Respondent and Ms. Socorro. The security office passed the complaint to Clearwater campus Provost Dr. Stan Vittetoe. The College's standard procedure is to lock the computer of any instructor who is the subject of a complaint. Dr. Vittetoe locked Respondent's computer. On December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent to inform him that Ms. Socorro had lodged a complaint against him and to provide Respondent with an opportunity to give his side of the story. Respondent told them that during the physical confrontation with Ms. Socorro, he was merely trying to protect himself. He showed them a scratch on his cheek and stated that he had been trying to retrieve some papers that belonged to him. Respondent admitted that he had been involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro. This initial meeting with Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper lasted only about 15 minutes, because Respondent had a class to teach. Also on December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe met with Ms. Socorro and her mother. Ms. Socorro told Dr. Vittetoe that she began dating Respondent during the fall semester of 2003, when she was a student in his class. She told Dr. Vittetoe that she and Respondent often discussed the need to hide their relationship, because of its impropriety. She told Dr. Vittetoe that Respondent often bought alcoholic drinks for her when they went out to bars. Ms. Socorro admitted that she had printed e- mails from Respondent's computer and that it was Respondent's seeing those e-mails that triggered their physical altercation. Dr. Vittetoe requested a formal written statement detailing the facts of her relationship with Respondent. Ms. Socorro furnished a written statement to the College on December 8, 2004. On December 7, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent again. At the outset of the meeting, Dr. Vittetoe made clear the gravity of the situation, letting Respondent know that his job was in jeopardy. Dr. Vittetoe questioned Respondent about his involvement with female College students other than Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted that he had been involved with Ms. Csongova. Dr. Cooper, as Respondent's immediate supervisor, expressed concern at what appeared to be a pattern of romantic involvement with students.10 Dr. Cooper noted that Respondent was not following college procedures and appeared to view the female student population as potential candidates for relationships. Dr. Cooper recounted the meeting as follows: I raised questions with him in regards to his ability to maintain his professional boundaries and expressed great concern over the fact that he didn't seem to recognize that, in his position as an instructor, he had a position of authority and power and could easily use that to influence students' decisions. I remember that he said that, well, they weren't students in my class at the time that he had become involved with them. My concern was that if you say to a young, impressionable individual, well, I don't date students if they're in my class, well, then what you're saying is, well, just get out of my class and then we can have a relationship. And I tried to express that concern over the fact that he was not maintaining his professional boundaries. And then he shared that, well, he didn't want students to dislike him and, you know, he didn't know how to respond when a student came on to him. Dr. Cooper attempted to explain that the student/teacher relationship should not be a matter of "liking" or "disliking," but a matter of respect based on the teacher's knowledge of his subject matter and ability to foster the student's quest for knowledge in the teacher's field of expertise. Dr. Cooper was extremely concerned that Respondent seemed unable to understand or respect basic professional boundaries established between students and teachers. Dr. Cooper was also concerned that Respondent issued invitations to students to come watch his band play in bars that served alcoholic beverages, when most of those students were underage. She did not agree with Respondent's contention that a band playing in an Ybor City bar constituted a "cultural event." She suggested that, if Respondent wanted to share his music with his classes, then he should have the band come to the class and play. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to defend his relationship with Ms. Socorro, first by denying that it commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, then by pointing out how careful he had been to instruct Ms. Socorro not to discuss their relationship with other students and not to make friends with students on the Clearwater campus. At the conclusion of this meeting, both Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper concluded that Respondent had breached College rules and could not be trusted with the safety of College students. Dr. Vittetoe gave Respondent the option of resigning before completion of the investigation and a possible recommendation for termination. Respondent declined the offer of resignation. On December 14, 2004, Ms. Socorro met with associate provost Maria Edmonds. Because she was also an Hispanic female, Ms. Edmonds believed that Ms. Socorro might be more comfortable discussing the issues with her than she had been with Dr. Vittetoe. After the meeting, Ms. Edmonds drafted a memorandum summarizing her conversation with Ms. Socorro, the substance of which was consistent with the findings of fact above. Ms. Socorro executed a sworn affidavit attesting to the accuracy of Ms. Edmonds' memorandum, which was forwarded to Dr. Vittetoe. Dr. Vittetoe investigated Respondent's relationships with Socorro and other female College students. Associate Provost Jeff Davis interviewed students at the Clearwater campus to determine their knowledge of Respondent's relationships with various female College students. The investigation disclosed that Respondent had been involved with College students other than Ms. Socorro and Ms. Csongova. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Harmony Holt, who had been a student in his class during the 1999 fall semester. However, Respondent's romantic relationship with Ms. Holt did not commence until 2002, after she had graduated. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Kimberly Kimball. Ms. Kimball was in Respondent's class twice, first in the 2004 spring semester, then in the 2004 summer session. The summer session ended in July 2004, then Respondent dated her for a short time in September 2004, during one of his periodic breakups with Ms. Socorro. Respondent testified that he stopped dating Ms. Kimball because he was not over Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted to a "friendly, casual" dating relationship with his former student Kelly McGill in 2003. Respondent testified that, although there was a mutual attraction, no sexual relationship occurred with Ms. McGill. On December 13, 2004, Respondent submitted to Dr. Vittetoe his written statement concerning his relationship with Ms. Socorro. This document is a remarkable mixture of rationalization, self-pitying emotional immaturity, and self- centered moral obtuseness.11 Respondent commences with an irrelevant narrative of his divorce proceedings. He next describes his first contacts with Ms. Socorro. Respondent states that there was a "decision to meet and get to know each other on a more personal level." Though he "can't remember exactly how or when it happened," he is absolutely certain that it occurred after the conclusion of the 2003 fall semester. Respondent notes that he stopped dating other women after he had sexual intercourse with Ms. Socorro, on "about the 5th date." Respondent writes that he was concerned about the age difference, but that such differences are the norm in Ms. Socorro's Latin American culture. Respondent states, "Ultimately I was able to handle it because she seemed mature for her age." Respondent devotes a long passage to a discussion of Ms. Socorro's bulimia, notable for its emphasis on the impact her disease was having on its real victim, Respondent: "She could tell the bulimia was putting a strain on me to know what she was doing to herself everyday and that it was hurting me." Respondent writes that he accompanied Ms. Socorro to a therapist whose name he could not recall. This therapist, whom Ms. Socorro never saw again, apparently introduced the concept of "borderline personality disorder" to Respondent. The therapist also commended Respondent on how well he was dealing with Ms. Socorro. Respondent now realized that the borderline personality disorder was responsible for Ms. Socorro's "pathological lying," the fact that she could not hold a job, and the fact that she spent all her money on "binge foods and/or shopping." Respondent described the impetus for the final breakup as follows: The relationship problems came to a head this past month when she continued to socialize in the student population instead of with friends outside the school which was a boundary we set in the relationship and it made it uncomfortable for us to go out. I was too worried someone would see the two of us together. Eventually she met someone in a class that was in one of my classes and I asked her not to pursue the friendship until after the class was over so that there would be no possible problems. She continued to pursue a close relationship with the woman and lied about it on at least a couple of occasions. I wanted to look beyond it and even began to question why I asked her to do it and felt guilty that I might be negatively affecting her college experience and knew it needed to end quickly. Once again I was being manipulated and didn't realize it. I also was having difficulty because although this would only be an issue until she graduated in May of '05, I still felt it was something she knew was important to me but she didn't see it and just ignored it and lied to me about it. I couldn't see being in a relationship where a set boundary was ignored. Respondent concludes by alleging that Ms. Socorro "is retaliating against me for ending our eleven month long relationship and this retaliation is a form of sexual harassment." From the beginning to the end of the relationship, Respondent claims he was victimized, manipulated, and finally smeared by Ms. Socorro. Respondent claimed his only failing was being too nice for his own good. On December 16, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe issued a memorandum to Dr. Kuttler, the College president, stating as follows, in relevant part: The evidence, which we have received to date, causes us to have great and immediate concerns for our female students' safety and freedom from sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships. We have evidence that he has been assisting under age students with unlawful drinking, which is a serious violation of the law. With the evidence presented thus far, I have no choice but to recommend his suspension, effective immediately. Because of the above matters, I further recommend he not be allowed to come on campus or have any contact or conversations with students. Any retaliation by Mr. Rodriguez should be a separate cause for disciplinary action. I further recommend his dismissal be presented to the Board of Trustees. On December 17, 2004, Dr. Kuttler issued a memorandum adopting Dr. Vittetoe's recommendations. Respondent was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Dr. Kuttler anticipated that he would petition the College's Board of Trustees for the suspension without pay and dismissal of Respondent at the Board's next meeting, on January 18, 2005. Dr. Kuttler filed the Petition for Dismissal on January 12, 2005. By Order dated January 18, 2005, the Board of Trustees voted to suspend Respondent without pay and to forward the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, should Respondent request a hearing. Through counsel, Respondent filed an Answer on January 20, 2005, asserting his right to a hearing. As noted above, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 24, 2005. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did aid and abet at least one student under the age of 21, Ms. Socorro, in the unlawful drinking of alcoholic beverages. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did improperly use his position and abuse his power to encourage and induce female students to come to a nightclub in an attempt to establish a personal relationship, by giving female students inappropriate attention, which Respondent knew could lead to romantic and/or sexual relationships. The evidence established that Respondent would make blanket invitations to his entire class, male and female. However, Respondent would also select individual females, such as Ms. Socorro and Ms. Gunn, for personal invitations. The evidence established that Respondent knew, or should have known, that he was using his position as an instructor to manipulate impressionable young female students into attending his performances, whereby he hoped to impress them sufficiently to make them susceptible to his romantic overtures. As Dr. Cooper said to Respondent at one of their meetings, "[I]t seems like what's more important is for you to organize a set of groupies to follow your band," than to maintain the proper professional relationship with students. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did cause a female student, Ms. Socorro, with whom he had a romantic and sexual relationship, to stop her academic progress by inducing her not to continue her schooling at this College, adversely affecting the student's academic progress for Respondent's sole benefit. The evidence did not establish that Respondent made a direct demand that Ms. Socorro quit school. By her own testimony, Ms. Socorro did not attend classes during the 2004 spring semester because she wanted to visit her father in Venezuela. However, she also testified that her relationship with Respondent was much improved when she was not in school, because Respondent felt less pressure about students seeing him on dates with her. Ms. Socorro also testified that her relationship with Respondent was her main reason for not enrolling during the 2004 summer session. Respondent testified that he encouraged Ms. Socorro to complete her education, but only on his terms: that she stay on the campus only long enough to attend classes and that she socialize with none of her classmates. The unreasonable pressure placed on her by Respondent was unquestionably the cause of Ms. Socorro's decision not to attend classes for at least one semester during their relationship. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did have a sexual and/or romantic relationship with a female student, Ms. Socorro, during a time when the student was enrolled in Respondent's class or when Respondent was in a position to determine the student's grade or otherwise affect the student's academic progress or environment. The weight of the evidence leads to the finding that the romantic relationship between Ms. Socorro and Respondent commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, when Ms. Socorro was a student in Respondent's class. By the time the semester ended, Respondent and Ms. Socorro had attended a dance recital and a movie together. Their romantic relationship was well underway while Ms. Socorro was still a student in Respondent's class. Even if Respondent's testimony were fully credited, the couple went on their first "date" (not counting the dance recital and the Rare Olive meeting) on the night after Ms. Socorro took her final exam in his class. This fact, coupled with Respondent's admission that on November 22, 2003, the night of the dance recital, he told Ms. Socorro that he was very interested in pursuing a relationship with her, indicates that the romantic relationship between Respondent and Ms. Socorro did not blossom suddenly after she completed Respondent's class. Respondent's rationalization appears to be that it was perfectly acceptable for him to use his classes as a dating service, planning romantic relationships with his female students while they were in his class, so long as the actual dating did not begin until the semester ended. The College naturally and reasonably disagreed with Respondent's reading of the applicable rule, discussed in the conclusions of law below. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed an assault and battery upon Ms. Socorro. While their testimony about the events of December 2, 2004, differed in many particulars, both Ms. Socorro and Respondent agreed that she initiated the physical confrontation by jumping on Respondent's back as he attempted to get the e-mails out of the back seat of her car. It could be reasonably contended that matters then cooled off and that the second physical altercation at the front door of the house was initiated by Respondent and did constitute assault and battery. In any event, the facts of the situation were ambiguous enough that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office did not charge either party after completing its investigation. Though Respondent's conduct during the events of December 2, 2004, was an embarrassment to himself and the College, the specific allegation of assault and battery was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated that Respondent made untruthful or deceitful statements to College representatives during the investigation. At worst, Respondent appeared to suffer convenient lapses during which his memory became "fuzzy" or "foggy" when the thrust of his testimony varied from that of other witnesses. The evidence established that Respondent was deceitful to the various women in his life, but failed to establish that he said anything to College officials that he did not believe was true. The College's allegation that Respondent was married while some of the alleged misconduct occurred was technically proven but should have no bearing on the discipline imposed. Respondent had been separated from his wife for well over a year at the time he met Ms. Socorro and was in the process of finalizing his divorce and custody arrangements. For all the good reasons Respondent had to avoid a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro, remaining faithful to his wife was not one of them.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from any and all employment by the Board and/or the College and canceling his contract status retroactive to January 12, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 8th day of February, 2006.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Polk County School Board because of the matters alleged in the letter of intent prepared by the Superintendent of Schools.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Polk County School Board, (Board), was the county agency responsible for providing public primary, secondary and adult education in Polk County, Florida, and operated Haines City High School, (HCHS), in Haines City. Respondent had been employed at HCHS for eight years, and in the last two years prior to the incidents herein taught in the school's Diversified Cooperative Training Program, (DCT) under a continuing contract of employment. DCT students are allowed to leave campus before the end of the school day to work at jobs in the local area. However, Respondent allowed some students to leave school during the morning hours for the purpose of getting breakfast and, coincidentally, to bring items back to school for her to eat. There is also allegation that Respondent would solicit students to run personal errands for her during school hours but would not give them a pass to allow them to lawfully leave the campus. Allegedly, she advised them that they were on their own and she would deny responsibility or knowledge if they were caught. Taken together, the evidence establishes that Respondent did allow students to leave class on personal business and did not give them passes to be off campus. It also appears that she solicited them to pick up items for her while they were away, but not that she solicited students to leave class to run errands off campus for her. Even so, her actions are in violation of the Board policy regarding student absence from campus, a policy about which Respondent had been briefed. In addition, some time during the Autumn of 1994, Respondent overheard a student on the school's football team, Bradford Parton, discussing with his girlfriend the fact he was having cramps. Respondent advised him he should take potassium and on at least one occasion, during a class session, gave Parton a pill which, she said, would give him energy and take away his cramps. She believed the pill was the functional equivalent of one banana. Respondent was aware that it was a violation of Board policy for anyone other than the school nurse to administer any form of pill or medication to a student. When the Principal learned that Respondent had given Parton the pill, he directed an investigation into the matter. On November 17, 1994, after he had heard that Respondent was making comments in class to the effect that the students were getting her in trouble with the administration, the Principal gave her verbal instructions not to discuss these matters with the students and to limit her conversations with them to matters related to class work. His comment to her included, "Just teach the class. Just don't bring yourself down to their level." The following day, on November 18, 1994, after receiving word that Respondent had again spoken to Parton after he had warned her not to do so, the Principal reduced his prior comments to writing and again instructed her not to discuss the matter with any students, warning her that he considered her doing so a matter of insubordination which, if repeated, would result in severe disciplinary action. There is some indication Respondent, in early December, 1994, advised several students after the warning she was going to have them removed from her class She subsequently advised the school's guidance counselor that several of the students involved should be removed from her class because they appeared to be "unhappy" in it. The students denied being unhappy in class and urgently resisted being removed because they needed the credit to graduate. Respondent's comments to the students constituted insubordination, and her action in urging removal of the students was considered by the administration to be an attempt at retaliation against them because of their allegations made against her. There is also indication that while the investigation into the allegations against her was under way, Respondent spoke with Ms. Denmark, another teacher, who was in the room when Respondent gave the pill to Mr. Parton, in an effort to get her to change her statement. School Board officials consider Respondent's blatant violation of school rules and policies by allowing students to leave campus without a pass and by improperly administering a pill to a student combine to severely impair her effectiveness as a teacher. Under the circumstances established here, this appears to be the case. Prior to the initiation of this action, Respondent had received a verbal warning regarding drinking in front of students at a conference and regarding making untoward comments about Blacks. Her personnel record, commencing with the teacher evaluation of her performance in the 1988-1989 school year, reflects positive comments and no substantial criticism. However, in July, 1994, the Superintendent advised Respondent of his intention to suspend her without pay for five days for making improper comments of a sexual nature toward students and for allowing students to grade papers, to average grades and to have access to her grade book. Respondent requested hearing on this proposed action. That hearing was held consolidated with the instant hearing and no final action has been taken by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Mary L. Canova's, suspension without pay pending hearing be sustained and that she be dismissed from employment as a teacher with the Polk County School Board because of misconduct in office and gross insubordination as described herein. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-2599 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted in so far as Respondent allowed students to leave campus and periodically suggested those who did run errands for her. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein with the understanding that the term, "no further details regarding the allegations were provided" refers to the charging letter, and that Respondent was provided with specific allegations of misconduct prior to hearing. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. See Partain's December 2, 1994 letter to Chapman. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Lane, Tron, Clarke, Bertrand, Vreeland & Jacobsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1578 150 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 24650 U. S. Highway 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 John A. Stewart Superintendent Polk County Schools Post Office Box 391 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Milton Aaron Wetherington, holds Florida teacher's certificate number 035136 issued by the State Department of Education covering the areas of physical education, history and administration/supervision. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1991. This proceeding involves an administrative complaint filed against Wetherington by petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education. The complaint stems from various complaints lodged with the Volusia County School Board by several students and parents who alleged that Wetherington engaged or attempted to engage in improper relationships of a romantic nature with female high school students assigned to his classes. The filing of the administrative complaint precipitated the instant action. Wetherington, who is 57 years old, has been a teacher for some twenty seven years, the last seventeen in the Volusia County school system. From 1975 until 1984 Wetherington was a teacher at Spruce Creek School in Port Orange, Florida. Because of the pending disciplinary proceeding, he was reassigned to a non-instructional position as an assistant manager of purchasing and property for school year 1984-85. However, after the charges came to light in early 1984, Wetherington was allowed to continue as a teacher for the remainder of the school year, and was a chaperone on the senior class trip to Walt Disney World. In his twenty seven years of teaching, he has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him. In school year 1983-84 Wetherington taught a political systems course to first semester seniors. Two of his students were Lisa and Tammy, both seventeen years of age at the time, and the best of friends. Seven of the specific charges in the complaint involve respondent's relationship with Lisa, and to a lesser extent, Tammy. Lisa lived at home with her mother and step father for a part of her senior year. Because of problems with her stepfather, who beat her, she moved out at the end of January, 1984, to live with a girlfriend. She was involved with drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, and was experiencing financial problems. Lisa needed a social studies course to graduate, and transferred into Wetherington's class about two weeks after the semester started. She had not met or known Wetherington prior to that time. Wetherington immediately took a special interest in Lisa, and selected her to assist him during office hours with grading papers and the like. Lisa spotted an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and began cultivating the relationship in an assiduous manner. Her testimony reveals she had two goals in mind: to obtain money from Wetherington and to get a good grade without studying. She also saw the opportunity to get her friend Tammy a good grade since she had access to Wetherington's grade book. The relationship was non-sexual, and all parties agree that Wetherington made no sexual advances or demands upon Lisa. One evening during the fall of 1983, Wetherington asked Lisa if she and Tammy wanted to get a pizza after a football game. Lisa agreed and Wetherington gave her $20 to purchase the food. The three met briefly in separate cars at a local Pizza Hut, but after the girls saw other students there, they all drove in Wetherington's car to the Breakers Restaurant and Lounge, an establishment in New Smyrna Beach. They arrived around 12:45 a.m. or so, and after being seated in a booth next to the stage on which a band was playing, they placed an order for pizza. Because of the lateness of the hour, the waitress informed there the kitchen had closed. They then departed the premises and returned to Daytona Beach where all went their separate ways. The two girls claimed Wetherington purchased them an alcoholic drink at the Breakers, but a member of the band, who happened to be a teaching colleague of Wetherington disputed this and observed the three had no drinks during their five to seven minute stay at the restaurant. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and it is found respondent did not "purchase alcoholic beverages for both students" as alleged in the administrative complaint. At some point in the first semester, Wetherington gave Lisa a key to his house in Holly Hill where he lives alone. According to respondent, he did so since he wanted Lisa to have a place to go in the event she suffered a beating from her stepfather. Lisa visited his house approximately five times in the company of a girlfriend when Wetherington was home, and an undisclosed number of times when he was not at home. One of Wetherington's sons lives at Bunnell, and visited his father regularly. The son kept a stash of marijuana at the house which the son used when he visited. Wetherington acknowledged that this was true, but maintained he did not know where it was hidden at the time. Indeed, he claimed he never used drugs himself, and objected to their use by other persons. Wetherington gave Lisa instructions to use the key only when she had problems with her stepfather, but Lisa ignored these instructions. While at Wetherington's home, she used both alcohol and marijuana on at least one occasion in his presence. The alcohol (wine) was taken from Wetherington's refrigerator while the marijuana was either brought onto the premises by Lisa, or came from the son's hidden stash. 1/ There is no credible evidence that Wetherington himself used "marijuana and alcohol at his residence with female students" as charged in the complaint. During the school year, Wetherington gave Lisa a friendship ring valued at $12, some $500 in cash, between $400 and $500 worth of clothes, and lent her an Amoco gasoline credit card for gasoline purchases to get her to and from the part-time job she held. Lisa charged some $120 worth of gasoline on the card as well as $247 in auto repairs. With her mother's consent, and after clearing it with the school principal, he also paid Lisa's mother $500 for the equity in Lisa's car, transferred the title to his own name, and financed it with a Miami bank. Lisa got to use the car with the understanding that she would pay him $125 a month, which was Wetherington's obligation on the bank note. Wetherington considered all this to be a "loan," and kept a book detailing the total amount advanced to Lisa. As a part of the social studies course, Wetherington required each student to prepare a term paper. Wetherington gave fourteen students, including Lisa and Tammy, copies of term papers written in the prior year with instructions to use them as a "format" or "guideline" in preparing their own. Lisa and Tammy simply changed the title page, and turned the papers back in as if they were their own. They each received a grade of 25, which was the highest grade in the class. Lisa claimed she simply did what Wetherington told her to do, and Tammy corroborated this claim. Although Wetherington was negligent in failing to detect that the papers turned in by Lisa and Tammy were identical to those previously given them to be used as a "formats" the evidence does not support a finding that Wetherington gave them the papers for the purpose of evading any academic requirements. The final charge concerning Lisa and Tammy is that Wetherington "[o]n at least one occasion kissed and hugged a female student." This charge apparently stems from Wetherington kissing Lisa on the cheek one day and giving her a paternal hug. Wetherington does not deny this, but contends it was not romantic in nature but done in a fatherly way. Wendy was a seventeen year old senior at Spruce Creek High School in school year 1983-94. She is the source of some four separate charges against respondent in the administrative complaint. Wetherington approached her at the beginning of the year and asked if she wanted to be his teacher's aide. She said yes, and he accordingly rearranged her schedule so that she worked in his office or classroom during first period as an aide, and was a student in his social studies class the following period. During the first nine weeks, Wetherington gave Wendy two rings, one for her birthday and the other to simply keep till the end of the school year. He also gave her $230 in cash over this period of time. He kept a log detailing each amount of money given to her, and considered the payments to be a loan. While working in Wetherington's classroom one day, Wendy walked by Wetherington who pulled her onto his lap and began rubbing her upper thigh. He also approached her one day in his office and put his arms around her waist and pulled her towards him. After she told him, "I don't want this," he released her. She then pulled away and claimed she immediately reported the incident to the principal. The principal could not recall such a conversation. The next day Wetherington apologized to her in his office, but he then turned off the lights in the room and began hugging her. She pushed him away and ran out of the room. Although Wendy again claimed that she immediately reported the incident to the school principal, the principal could not recall such a meeting. In any event, Wendy went to her parents, disclosed the various incidents and gave them the two rings given to her by Wetherington. The parents were understandably irate, and went to the principal demanding that Wendy be transferred out of Wetherington's class. A meeting was held by the principal, with Wetherington and the two parents in attendance. At the meeting Wetherington simply acknowledged that he admired Wendy very much, that she was a good student, and that the cash given to her ($230) was a loan for car payments and voice lessons because he trusted her. However, Wendy does not own a car, and her another paid for all voice lessons. Moreover, her father is a physician who has provided well for his family. The mother then wrote Wetherington a check for $230 to repay the "loan." Wendy was also transferred out of respondent's class. Wendy acknowledged that she "took advantage" of Wetherington, and characterized their relationship as simply a friendship. In a note written to him in a school yearbook at the end of the year, she apologized for "putting (him) through hell" and wished she "could erase it all." Wetherington denied any romantic involvement with Wendy, and acknowledged only that he had kissed her twice on the cheek, once at a football game and another time outside his house. He attributes Wendy's story to emotional problems she was experiencing that fall caused by her relationship with a married man. Wetherington portrayed himself as a teacher genuinely interested in his students. He estimated he has given financial aid in the form of loans and gifts to students over the years in excess of $10,000. Because he has raised seven children of his own, he vigorously denied having any illicit or sinister purpose in his dealings with Lisa and Wendy. Instead, he contended he was merely helping them overcome personal and financial problems so that they would be better persons after graduation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found GUILTY of violating Rules 6B- 1.06(3)(a) and (e), and Subsection 231.28(1)(c), as set out more specifically in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be placed on probation for three years and that he be retained by the school board during his probationary period only as a non- instructional employee. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission may revoke or suspend John T. Guzalak's Florida teaching certificate, or otherwise discipline Mr. Guzalak, for violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint entered September 21, 1992?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the EPC, is authorized to discipline individuals holding Florida teaching certificates. The Respondent is John T. Guzalak. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Guzalak held Florida teaching certificate number 615516. Mr. Guzalak is certified to teach English and Speech. Mr. Guzalak's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. From approximately August of 1987, until June of 1992, Mr. Guzalak served as a teacher for the Okaloosa County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Mr. Guzalak's Attendance at Choctawhatchee Senior High School. Mr. Guzalak attended, and graduated from, Choctawhatchee Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Choctaw"). Mr. Guzalak graduated from Choctaw in 1981. Choctaw is a high school located in Okaloosa County, Florida. Choctaw has approximately 2,000 students, 117 to 120 teachers and a total of approximately 160 employees. While a student at Choctaw, Mr. Guzalak was active in debate and drama. His drama teacher was Mary Jo Yeager. Ms. Yeager was so impressed with Mr. Guzalak's acting ability that she cast him in the male leading role of essentially every play produced at Choctaw while Mr. Guzalak was a student there. Ms. Yeager and Mr. Guzalak developed a friendship and still remain friends. Mr. Guzalak's Employment by the School Board. After Mr. Guzalak had graduated from Choctaw and was attending college, Mr. Guzalak informed Ms. Yeager that he was interested in becoming a teacher. Ms. Yeager, who was planning to retire in a few years, talked to Richard G. Bounds, the Principal at Choctaw, about the possibility of Mr. Guzalak replacing her when she retired. Prior to August, 1987, Mr. Guzalak applied for a teaching position with the School Board as a teacher at Meigs Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Meigs"). Ms. Yeager recommended that Mr. Guzalak be hired. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Meigs and began his employment with the School Board in August, 1987. Mr. Guzalak taught speech/drama and English during the 1987-1988 school year at Meigs. The Stage Crafters' Party. In January, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a local theatre group known as Stage Crafters. The group presented a play in which Mr. Guzalak participated during that month. Mr. Guzalak organized and gave a party for the cast of Stage Crafters after the presentation of the play. The party was held at the home of Mr. Guzalak's parents, where Mr. Guzalak lived until approximately August, 1991. Mr. Guzalak invited all students in his speech/drama classes at Meigs to attend the Stage Crafters' party. Mr. Guzalak invited his students because he thought it would be beneficial for his students to meet and talk to individuals who were involved in drama and who had more experience with acting. Mr. Guzalak had alcoholic beverages available for his guests during the Stage Crafters' party. A table was set up where guests were able to obtain alcoholic drinks. Adults drank alcoholic beverage in front of Mr. Guzalak's students during the party. Alcohol was consumed in the presence of students who were under the legal age required to consume alcoholic beverages. The evidence failed to prove that students who were not legally old enough to drink alcohol who were at the Stage Crafters' party were encouraged or allowed to drink alcoholic beverages. The evidence also failed to prove that underage students were in fact drinking in the presence of Mr. Guzalak or that Mr. Guzalak drank alcoholic beverages in front of any underage students. The testimony of Chris Hutcherson, a student at Meigs at the time of the party, concerning the party was contradicted by the testimony of Aaron Utley, another student at Meigs at the time, and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak testified that the underage students who attended the Stage Crafters' party were mainly relegated to half of the house and the adults and alcohol were located, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages took place, in the other half of the house. Mr. Guzalak testified that this separation of his underage students from the adults consuming alcohol was deliberate and intended to mitigate the extent to which alcohol would be consumed in front of his underage students. This testimony contradicts the purpose for which Mr. Guzalak indicated the students were invited to the Stage Crafters' party and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak simply failed to exercise good judgement when he allowed his underage students to attend a party without also inviting their parents when he knew that alcoholic beverages would be consumed. Mr. Guzalak was counseled by Bobby Smith, Principal at Meigs and Mr. Guzalak's supervisor, after Mr. Smith learned of the party. Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Smith that he had not consumed alcohol in the presence of his students at the party. Mr. Guzalak did admit that alcoholic beverages had been consumed in front of his students, although he minimized the extent to which alcohol had been consumed. Mr. Smith counseled Mr. Guzalak about his lack of judgement in allowing his underage students to attend a party where alcohol was being consumed. Meigs Student-Cast Dinner. In May, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a play presented at Meigs. The cast of the play consisted of Meigs students. After the play, Mr. Guzalak took the cast of the play to dinner at a restaurant. Some parents also attended the dinner. Mr. Guzalak failed to inform Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Meigs administration about the dinner. During the dinner Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of the students, who were too young to legally consume alcoholic beverages, and the parents who attended the dinner. After the dinner about five students stayed to talk to Mr. Guzalak after everyone else had departed. When Mr. Guzalak was ready to take the students home who had stayed, he let one of the students drive his automobile. The student driver was 15 years of age at the time. The student driver had a learners' driving permit which allowed her to drive with an adult in the automobile. The student driver took the other students home and then drove to her own home. Mr. Guzalak then drove himself home from the home of the student that had driven his automobile. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had allowed the student driver to drive his automobile because he was concerned about the fact that he had consumed a glass of wine. This testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not give the drinking of the glass of wine with dinner in the presence of the students any thought, one way or the other, and is not credible. Mr. Guzalak allowed the student to drive his automobile that evening because Mr. Guzalak wanted to be accepted by students as a friend and not just a teacher. Consuming alcoholic beverages in front of students is against the policies of the School Board. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guzalak had previously discussed the inappropriateness of a teacher consuming alcohol in front of students as a result of the Stage Crafters' party. Despite this prior warning, Mr. Guzalak again exercised poor judgement and failed to adhere to School Board policy. Mr. Smith was informed of the dinner and spoke to Mr. Guzalak about it. Mr. Smith admonished Mr. Guzalak for drinking alcohol in front of his students. A few days after their discussion, Mr. Guzalak was given a formal, written reprimand by Mr. Smith. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Guzalak was specifically reprimanded for drinking alcohol in front of his students. He was also informed that he was required "to discuss any and all school sponsored activities with [Mr. Smith] before they occur." See Petitioners' Exhibit 2. During Mr. Smith's conference with Mr. Guzalak, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Smith about why it was improper for him to consume alcohol in front of students under the circumstances of the cast dinner. Mr. Guzalak found it difficult to understand why the drinking of a glass of wine with dinner in the presence of students by a teacher was inappropriate. Mr. Guzalak's Employment at Choctaw. Ms. Yeager decided to retire from Choctaw after the 1988-1989 school year. She recommended that Mr. Bounds hire Mr. Guzalak to be her replacement. Mr. Bounds questioned Mr. Smith about Mr. Guzalak's performance at Meigs. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Bounds of the dinner incident when Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of students and provided Mr. Bounds with a copy of the written reprimand, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, that Mr. Smith had given to Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Bounds, Mr. Guzalak's supervisor at Choctaw, discussed Mr. Smith's written reprimand with Mr. Guzalak prior to, or soon after, Mr. Guzalak's employment at Choctaw. Mr. Bounds cautioned Mr. Guzalak about consuming alcohol in front of underage students. This was the third time that Mr. Guzalak had been cautioned about the inappropriateness of consuming alcohol in front of underage students. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak began his employment at Choctaw in August of 1989. Mr. Guzalak taught at Choctaw during the 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 school years. Part of his duties included coaching the forensic teams. The 1990-1991 School Year--Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak developed and maintained relationships with several Choctaw students which went beyond the appropriate and acceptable teacher- student relationship. Those relationships were more typical of the relationships that students develop among themselves. During the 1990-1991 school year students would go to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit. Students who went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year included Sarah Stimac, David Barron, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul, Kevin Mock, Richard "Matt" Schoditsch, David Hodges, Thomas Ignas and Ross Foster. Sarah Stimac, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were seniors at Choctaw during the 1990-1991 school year. David Barron was a sophomore at Choctaw. David Hodges and Thomas Ignas were juniors at Choctaw. Matt Schoditsch and Ross Foster were also students at Choctaw. Initially, students began going to Mr. Guzalak's home for school- related purposes. They went for assistance from Mr. Guzalak with school subjects, to practice for plays and to practice for forensic team competitions. Students eventually began visiting Mr. Guzalak's home primarily for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak allowed students to come to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit without invitation, without informing Mr. Guzalak they were coming and without asking for Mr. Guzalak's permission. While at Mr. Guzalak's home, students would watch movies, listen to music, play music, play chess, talk and "just hang out." Mr. Guzalak's characterization of student visits as tending to be "academic in nature" is rejected. At some time during the Fall of 1990, Mr. Guzalak invited a group of students who had formed a rock band to come to his home to practice for an upcoming pep rally. Bobby Arnold was one of the first students to be invited to practice at Mr. Guzalak's home. Eventually, the students included Steve Bucci, Kevin Foster and John Randall. A few other students would join in on occasion. At some point, students, including those mentioned in the foregoing finding of fact, would go to Mr. Guzalak's home and just play music as opposed to practicing for some upcoming event. Other students, including Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock would listen. The music sessions were social in nature and were not school related. Bobby Arnold's suggestion that the students and Mr. Guzalak, in addition to playing music, would talk about books is rejected to the extent that Bobby Arnold was suggesting an academic purpose for his visits. As Steve Bucci described the visits, they were "jam sessions." Bobby Arnold went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least five to seven times during the 1990-1991 school year. Steve Bucci indicated that the music sessions at Mr. Guzalak's home took place two times a month and more often if he was getting ready for a talent show. Matt Schoditsch went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least six times. Matt Schoditsch's testimony that he only went to Mr. Guzalak's home for academic purposes and not for social reasons was contradicted by many of the other witnesses in this proceeding, including Mr. Guzalak, and is rejected. Mr. Schoditsch's suggestion that students would "be sitting there reading a book or something . . . Magazines" is rejected. Even Mr. Guzalak admitted that students came for social reasons. David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home more than twelve times and less than twenty times. During three to five of those visits by David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home, beer was consumed by underage students in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Matt Schoditsch, Kevin Foster, Patrick Peavy and others were at Mr. Guzalak's home at times that David Barron saw beer consumed by underage students in front of Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak also consumed beer in David Barron's presence and the presence of other underage students. The beer consumed by David Barron was either provided by Mr. Guzalak or Mr. Barron brought his own beer. On one of the occasions where Mr. Guzalak provided beer to David Barron at Mr. Guzalak's home, it was a type of beer that David Barron had not seen before. Mr. Guzalak said that he got the beer when he had gone north to visit his parents. On one occasion Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in front of Kevin Mock. This took place despite the fact that Mr. Guzalak had previously been counselled by Mr. Smith (twice) and Mr. Bounds about the impropriety of drinking alcohol in front of students. Mr. Guzalak offered Kevin Mock a drink of the wine and Mr. Mock took it. Sarah Stimac also went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year. Patrick Peavy started taking Ms. Stimac to Mr. Guzalak's. Mr. Peavy was Ms. Stimac's boy friend during the 1990-1991 school year. Mr. Peavy and Ms. Stimac had started doing things with a group of their friends during the summer of 1989 and by the end of the summer they had developed a relationship. Sarah Stimac began going to Mr. Guzalak's home because Patrick Peavy and his friends, primarily Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock, liked to go there and they went there often. On one occasion during the 1990-1991 school year, Sarah Stimac saw Mr. Guzalak and Eric Gaul smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home in the guest rest room. They used a "bong", a pipe-like device used for smoking marijuana. Ms. Stimac also witnessed Patrick Peavy and Kevin Mock smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Mock admitted to Martha Clemons, his girl friend during part of the 1990-1991 school year, that he had smoked marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Sarah Stimac also saw marijuana smoked and alcoholic beverages consumed on at least one other occasion at Mr. Guzalak's home. Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock visited Mr. Guzalak's home more frequently than other students. By their own admissions, they went to Mr. Guzalak's home, on average, from two to three times a week. Contrary to Mr. Guzalak's testimony that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock were rarely at his home at the same time, Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's together or were at Mr. Guzalak's home at the same time often based upon their own admissions. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis. Sarah Stimac substantiated the fact that Patrick Peavy went to Mr. Guzalak's home frequently. She went with him approximately six times. She also picked him up at Mr. Guzalak's and she telephoned Mr. Peavy at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Peavy told Ms. Stimac and his parents that he was going to Mr. Guzalak's home more often than he actually went. Mr. Peavy lied to Ms. Stimac and his parents so that he could do other things without Ms. Stimac or so that he could do things that his parents would not let him do if he told them the truth. This gave Ms. Stimac the impression that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home more often then he actually was. Despite this fact, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis for non-academic purposes. The 1990-1991 School Year Initiation Night. At some time during the Fall of 1990, an annual event, referred to as "Initiation Night," took place at Choctaw. Groups of students at Choctaw traditionally go out together on Initiation Night. On Initiation Night during the Fall of 1990, Sarah Stimac drove Angie Smallwood to Mr. Guzalak's home at approximately 9:00 p.m. to pick up Patrick Peavy. Mr. Peavy had told Ms. Stimac that he would be there. Mr. Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were at Mr. Guzalak's home and were picked up by Ms. Stimac. After Sarah Stimac picked up Patrick Peavy, he told Ms. Stimac that he had been drinking and that he had smoked marijuana and taken LSD. The evidence, however, failed to prove where these events took place. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was present when these events took place or that he was aware of what had happened. After leaving Mr. Guzalak's home, Ms. Stimac and the students she picked up went to a local pizza restaurant and met other students, including Matt Schoditsch. The students then went to a bayou where they built a fire. Eric Gaul had a bottle of spiced rum. At some point during the evening Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies appeared. When they did, despite the cold evening, Patrick Peavy, who had been swinging on a rope swing over the water, fell into the water. Whether Mr. Peavy did so because he was startled (as he testified) or because he was trying to get rid of the marijuana and LSD he had in his pocket (as Ms. Stimac testified) need not be decided. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was directly involved in this incident. It is also not necessary to decide whether Mr. Peavy had drugs in his pocket because the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak had anything to do with any such drugs. After Eric Gaul admitted that the bottle of spiced rum he had, and which the deputies had found, was his and he had convinced the deputies that he had a stranger buy the rum for him at a liquor store, the students were allowed to leave. Although Mr. Gaul, after getting into Ms. Stimac's automobile, stated that he had been given the rum by Mr. Guzalak, the evidence failed to prove the truth of this hearsay statement. After the incident at the bayou the students went back to Mr. Guzalak's home. The 1990-1991 School Year Senior Prom. The day of the 1990-1991 school year senior prom, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy had a fight and broke off their relationship. They did, however, go to the prom together that night. The prom was held at a local motel. Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy rented a room at the motel. At some time before the prom was over, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy went to the room they had rented. Mr. Guzalak came to the room to visit. Mr. Peavy had invited Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak left after Ms. Stimac gave Mr. Peavy an ultimatum that either Mr. Guzalak leave or she would, and Mr. Peavy asked Mr. Guzalak to leave. Mr. Guzalak stayed approximately five to fifteen minutes. Although there was alcohol in Ms. Stimac's and Mr. Peavy's room, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was aware of the alcohol or that anyone was drinking while Mr. Guzalak was there. The 1990-1991 Spring Break Canoe Trip. During the spring break of April, 1991, a student party was organized. The party consisted of a canoe trip down a local river. The party was not a school-sponsored event. Mr. Guzalak was invited to come on the 1991 canoe trip. Although Mr. Guzalak remembered that he was invited by one or more students, Mr. Guzalak, who had an excellent memory for most details, could not remember the names of any student that invited him. Mr. Guzalak spent most of the trip with Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock. There were about 120 students who participated in the canoe trip. They met at the Choctaw parking lot the morning of the trip. During the canoe trip, underage students were drinking beer. They did so openly and in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Mr. Guzalak was offered beer at least ten times by underage students. Kevin Mock admitted that he drank beer in front of Mr. Guzalak during the trip. Mr. Guzalak did not make any effort to stop any of the underage students from drinking alcoholic beverages. Mr. Guzalak's testimony that there was nothing he could do about students drink beer on the trip is not credible. Mr. Guzalak had a duty and responsibility to attempt to stop underage students from drinking beer. Even if Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not attempt to stop the drinking because of the number of students involved was credible (which it is not), his testimony did not explain why he did not say something to those students who were bold enough to offer him a beer and then students who he came into contact with that were drinking beer By allowing the consumption of alcohol in his presence by students who were under the legal drinking age, Mr. Guzalak condoned their illegal behavior. When a teacher allows the violation of one law, it becomes difficult for the teacher to enforce other laws and rules governing student conduct. Mr. Guzalak failed to report the incident to Mr. Bounds or any other administrative employees at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak should not have just ignored the fact that students, some of whom were his students, had blatantly violated the law in his presence. The 1991-1992 School Year--Mr. Bounds Second Warning. In approximately August of 1991, Patrick Peavy's father spoke to Mr. Bounds about his belief that his son was drinking alcohol and using drugs at Mr. Guzalak's home. The evidence failed to prove what basis, if any, Mr. Peavy had for his suspicions at the time he made his complaint. As a result of the concerns raised by Patrick Peavy's father, Mr. Bounds spoke to Mr. Guzalak. The conversation took place on approximately September 19, 1991. Among other things, Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that a parent had reported that students were frequenting Mr. Guzalak's home and that alcohol and drugs were being used there. Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that the parent had followed his child to Mr. Guzalak's home. While Mr. Guzalak admitted to Mr. Bounds that students were frequenting his home, he denied that alcohol was being consumed or that drugs were being used. Mr. Bounds explained to Mr. Guzalak why it was not a good idea to allow students to come to his home. Mr. Guzalak, however, did not agree with Mr. Bounds' concerns over the possible pitfalls of forming personal, social relationships with his students. On September 24, 1991, Mr. Bounds wrote a memorandum to Mr. Guzalak "to reiterate my position regarding our conversation in my office on Thursday, September 19, 1991." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also stated the following in the memorandum: During our conversation you related to me that students from our school were invited and allowed to visit your home for non-academic reasons. Furthermore, you related to me that students from our school are not discouraged by you to establish a personal friendship with you. These personal friendships are encouraged by your participating in non-school related activities. You are hereby notified that all future contact with students from our school should be exclusively of a professional and academic nature. Moreover, meetings with our students should be held on our school property exclusively unless express permission is obtained from me. Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also arranged for Mr. Guzalak to meet with Annette Lee (formerly, Annette Francis), Personnel Director of the School Board. Ms. Lee, who was Assistant Superintendent, Human Resource Division, at the time, met with Mr. Guzalak. On October 9, 1991, Ms. Lee wrote Mr. Guzalak a letter memorializing this meeting and provided him with a copy of a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching," a form containing some School Board expectations for teacher conduct. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Ms. Lee also discussed the inappropriateness of Mr. Guzalak's behavior and stressed to him the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with students. Mr. Guzalak again admitted that he had developed friendships with some of his students and that he had seen them on occasion socially. Among other things, Ms. Lee stressed the following portions of the "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching" form she had provided to Mr. Guzalak: Interaction with Students: Maintain a professional barrier between you and students. You are the adult, teacher and the professional; act like the expert not like another one of the "kids." . . . . 3. Refer students to the appropriate resource person for counseling and/or discussions about personal matters. . . . . 5. Do NOT discuss your personal life or personal matters with students. Do NOT discuss your husband, boyfriend, dates or controversial issues with students. . . . . 10. Chaperone only school sponsored functions. Do NOT socialize with students. If you chaperone a field trip, put in writing what your responsibilities will be. Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages in front of students. Do NOT take children home with you. . . . . C. Reputation in the Community. . . . . Communicate with parents and document your communications. Dress and act appropriately but professionally. You are a role model in the community as well as in the school; be a good example for students. Use common sense and good judgement. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain, or justify your behavior or actions. Avoid putting yourself in a position where it's your word against another person's word. . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Continued Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak was very concerned about what Mr. Bounds had told him about students coming to his home. Mr. Guzalak thought that he was being watched (by a parent) and he was concerned because some of the allegations about alcohol and drug use were true. Initially, Mr. Guzalak told students who dropped by or who asked if they could come by, not to come or that they could not stay. For example, Mr. Guzalak told Thomas Ignas and David Hodgson they should not come to his home. On at least one occasion, however, Mr. Guzalak allowed students to visit him at his home during the 1991-1992 school year after Mr. Bounds had instructed Mr. Guzalak to stop such visits. The incident took place during the first three months of 1992. Aaron Utley was told to come to Mr. Guzalak's home by either David Hodges or Thomas Ignas. When Mr. Utley arrived at Mr. Guzalak's home, Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ignas were there with Mr. Guzalak. There were empty beer cans on the coffee table. Mr. Hodges was drunk. Mr. Guzalak did not request that any of the students leave. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that alcohol was consumed by Mr. Guzalak in front of the students or that the students consumed alcohol in front of Mr. Guzalak. The Florida State University Trip--September, 1991. At some time after Mr. Guzalak spoke to Mr. Bounds in September 1991, Mr. Guzalak took a group of students who were participating in the forensic program to Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, for a forensic competition. Among others on the trip were Chris Hutcherson, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey. These Choctaw students stayed in the same motel room while on the trip. One evening, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey came into the motel room where they were staying and smelled marijuana smoke. Mr. Hutcherson was in the room. Mr. Hutcherson had smoked marijuana just before the other students came into the room. Mr. Guzalak came into the motel room shortly after the students arrived and he smelled the marijuana smoke also. Mr. Guzalak asked what was going on, but no one admitted anything at that time. At some point during the trip, Chris Hutcherson admitted to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana in the motel room. At no time did Mr. Guzalak report Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Hutcherson's family, Mr. Bounds or any other administrative official. Nor did Mr. Guzalak take any disciplinary action against Mr. Hutcherson. Failing to report the use of illicit drugs was against school policy. Mr. Guzalak did not even explain to Chris Hutcherson why he should not have been using marijuana. Instead, Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Hutcherson that he had put Mr. Guzalak in an untenable position by his actions. Because Mr. Bounds had spoken to Mr. Guzalak only a few days before this incident, Mr. Guzalak's concern was not for Mr. Hutcherson or even the forensic team--"[i]t was for myself." See line 11, page 595, Transcript of the Final Hearing. Mr. Guzalak, by his use of marijuana and alcohol with students prior to this incidental, had placed himself in a position of action in a manner similar to that of Mr. Hutcherson. Therefore, it became difficult for Mr. Guzalak to carry out his responsibility as a teacher to report Mr. Hutcherson's admission. The Pensacola Trip--November, 1991. In November, 1991, the Choctaw forensic team went to Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, to participate in a competition. Since the competition was out of Okaloosa County, students were prohibited by School Board policy from driving their own vehicles. Students who participated in the competition were required to have their parents sign a form granting permission for their child to travel on the trip. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. On the permission form it indicated that "students' may not drive themselves to out of county school-sponsored activities . . . ." The students who were going on the Pensacola trip were told to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. They were scheduled to leave at 6:30 a.m. Chris Hutcherson, who was to participate in the Pensacola competition, did not want to get up as early as he would have to arise to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. Therefore, Mr. Hutcherson asked his mother, Sharon Philbrook, if he could drive his automobile to Pensacola. She told him no. She also spoke to Mr. Guzalak who confirmed the School Board policy that students were not allowed to drive their own vehicles on the trip and that transportation would be provided for students for the trip. The morning of the Pensacola trip, Ms. Philbrook found a note from Chris Hutcherson indicating he had taken his stepbrother's automobile despite her instructions to the contrary. Ms. Philbrook reported the incident to Mr. Bounds who suggested that she go to Pensacola and get Mr. Hutcherson. She did so. Upon arriving at the competition site, Ms. Philbrook introduced herself to Mr. Guzalak and explained what had happened. She also told him that she had reported the incident to Mr. Bounds and that Mr. Bounds wanted Mr. Guzalak to telephone him. Mr. Guzalak was very upset about what Ms. Philbrook told him and told her he wished she had not telephoned Mr. Bounds. In light of Mr. Bounds' admonishment of Mr. Guzalak in September and Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana on the Florida State University trip (which Mr. Guzalak had not reported), Mr. Guzalak's reaction is understandable. Mr. Guzalak's reaction and the other evidence presented by the EPC concerning this incident, however, failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was responsible for Chris Hutcherson's violation of School Board policy against students driving their own vehicles out of the county. As a result of Mr. Hutcherson's actions, Mr. Guzalak informed Mr. Hutcherson that he could no longer travel with the forensic team. Mr. Hutcherson's testimony concerning whether Mr. Guzalak told him that it was okay to drive his own automobile to Pensacola was not credible and is rejected. The Rush Concert--February, 1992. In February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak was responsible for the production of a play at Choctaw. During the week before the play was to begin, Mr. Guzalak cancelled a rehearsal. The rehearsal was cancelled because Mr. Guzalak and several students involved in the play wanted to attend a concert by a musical group, Rush, in Pensacola. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak went to the concert with any students from Choctaw, although he did see and speak to at least one student at the concert. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak acted improperly or violated School Board policy in cancelling the rehearsal. Matt Schoditsch's Party--February, 1992. On a Friday evening in February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak spoke to Matt Schoditsch on the telephone. Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak to come to his home. Mr. Schoditsch told Mr. Guzalak that there would be other students at his home, students that Mr. Guzalak knew, and that they would be grilling food. Mr. Guzalak knew that Mr. Schoditsch was having a student get-together. Mr. Guzalak's and Mr. Schoditsch's testimony that Mr. Guzalak was invited and came to Mr. Schoditsch's home only to discuss his participation in a play is not credible. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak for social reasons, and that Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation and went to a student's house contrary to Mr. Bounds' directive to him and contrary to Ms. Lee's advice. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had assumed that Mr. Schoditsch's parents would be there. Mr. Guzalak also testified that it was not until after students starting showing up with beer that he realized that Mr. Schoditsch's parents were not there. This testimony is not credible. In light of Mr. Bounds' directive, which Mr. Guzalak indicated he was very concerned about, a reasonable person would have inquired. Additionally, a reasonable person, especially a teacher and one who had previously been accused of being too friendly with students, would seek out a student's parents soon after arriving at their home to introduce himself or to say hello if the teacher thought the parents were home. Even if Mr. Guzalak did not know that Mr. Schoditsch's parent would not be home before he arrived, he should have realized soon after arriving that they were not there and left. Shortly after arriving at Mr. Schoditsch's home, Mr. Guzalak saw students start to arrive with beer which they began drinking. According to Mr. Guzalak and Mr. Schoditsch, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Schoditsch about students drinking in front of him. They also testified that Mr. Schoditsch attempted to stop the drinking, but too many students started coming, and there was too much beer. This testimony is not credible. According to Mr. Barron, who also attended the party, there were only fifteen to twenty people at the party. If Mr. Schoditsch had really wanted to, he could have stopped the drinking. Mr. Schoditsch had no intention of stopping the beer drinking. And Mr. Guzalak did not expect him to. Even after Mr. Guzalak saw students drinking beer he did not leave immediately. According to his own testimony, he stayed another twenty-five to thirty minutes after he saw students drinking and even took time to go speak to a student, Jodie Brooks, before leaving. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether Mr. Guzalak drank alcohol while at Mr. Schoditsch's home. Although Mr. Barron thought Mr. Guzalak was drinking a mixed drink because he was drinking out of Mr. Schoditsch's cup or glass, Mr. Barron did not testify about how he knew that Mr. Schoditsch was drinking a mixed drink. Use of Profanity. It is against the policy of the School Board for a teacher to use profanity in the presence of students. Mr. Guzalak used the term "fucking" in front of several students when he became angry about their use of squirt guns on a forensic competition trip. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak used profanity in the classroom. Supervision of Students on Trips. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak failed to provide adequate or required supervision of students while on school trips. Mr. Guzalak's Resignation from the School Board. Ultimately, several teachers became aware of various rumors about Mr. Guzalak and some of his inappropriate behavior with students. Those comments were reported to Mr. Bounds, who spoke to a few students and then reported the problem to Ms. Lee. The Superintendent of Okaloosa County Schools met with Mr. Guzalak in March 1992, and discussed the various allegations against him. Mr. Guzalak subsequently resigned, effective at the end of the 1991-1992 school year. Credibility of the Witnesses. Mr. Guzalak and the students who were most involved in the incidents at issue in this proceeding denied that most of the more serious accusations against Mr. Guzalak are true. In addition to denying the accusations against him, Mr. Guzalak also suggested that he is the victim of unfounded rumors. Finally, Mr. Guzalak questioned the credibility and motives of some of the witnesses who testified in this proceeding. The denials of Mr. Guzalak and those students who supported his version of events have been rejected. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Guzalak's testimony was not convincing. The denial of the accusations by several (but not all) of the witnesses called by Mr. Guzalak was also not credible and has been rejected. Many of those witnesses are young men who have developed a close relationship to Mr. Guzalak. They consider Mr. Guzalak to be their "friend." Their testimony reflected their desire not to betray their "friend" and has been rejected in large part based upon the weight of all of the evidence. The efforts to suggest that Mr. Guzalak is merely a victim of rumors also failed. Rumors were caused, in part, because of the perception that Mr. Guzalak was different or eccentric, and, in part, because of the incidents described in this Recommended Order. While there were no doubt rumors concerning this matter and Mr. Guzalak, the incidents which have been found to have occurred in this Recommended Order are based upon the specific knowledge of those witnesses found to be credible. Many of those incidents were confirmed or substantiated by more than one witness. Finally, the efforts of Mr. Guzalak to discredit some of the witnesses also failed. Most of those efforts were directed at Sarah Stimac, Chris Hutcherson and Aaron Utley. The testimony of Ms. Stimac, Mr. Utley and most of the other witnesses called by the Petitioner was credible. It is true, however, that Mr. Hutcherson's testimony contained inconsistencies and that Mr. Hutcherson evidenced an extremely bitter and judgemental attitude against Mr. Guzalak. Consequently, Mr. Hutcherson's testimony has not been accepted except to the extent that it has been corroborated by other evidence. Attacks on Ms. Stimac's credibility are rejected. The suggestion that Sarah Stimac was not credible fails to consider, among other things, the fact that Ms. Stimac's actions in this matter were taken at some personal expense and aggravation. Mr. Guzalak, during the investigation of this matter by the EPC, allowed several students to read confidential statements that Ms. Stimac and other students had given during the investigation. He did so without regard to the consequences to Ms. Stimac or the other students. As a result, Ms. Stimac has faced hostility and ridicule from those misguided students who believe that not telling, or "ratting," on a friend is admirable. Despite such hostility, Ms. Stimac refused to compromise her integrity. The weight of the evidence proved that other students, such as Aaron Utley and David Barron made the same choice that Sarah Stimac made. Rather than lacking credibility, Ms. Stimac's testimony, Mr. Barron's testimony, and the testimony of most of the other students who spoke out about Mr. Guzalak's inappropriate conduct is admirable. The Impact of Mr. Guzalak's Actions on His Ability to Perform His Duties Effectively. There was no direct evidence to prove that Mr. Guzalak was not effective in the classroom. Most of the witnesses agreed that Mr. Guzalak was very effective in the classroom. Several of the witnesses spoke of Mr. Guzalak's intelligence and ability with some admiration. Unfortunately, Mr. Guzalak, by his own admission and based upon the facts presented in this case, has evidenced a lack of the judgement necessary for him to be entrusted with the education of young people. This fact is based upon the nature of the improper acts which Mr. Guzalak has been found to have committed in this case and by his attitude about the warnings he received from Mr. Smith, Mr. Bounds, Ms. Lee and even Mr. Guzalak's coworkers. A teacher that drinks alcohol in the presence of students and provides alcohol to, or condones the use of, alcoholic beverages by students has lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher because of the high standard of conduct expected of teachers. A teacher that uses marijuana in the presence of students or allows students to use marijuana in his or her presence has also lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's conduct was, therefore, contrary to the conduct expected of him by the School Board and the community. Mr. Guzalak's conduct is sufficiently notorious in the community that he has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's inability to follow the directions of his supervisors has also reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak probably has begun to take too much stock in the praise he has received concerning his intelligence and abilities. He has begun to believe his "reviews." As a result, Mr. Guzalak believes that he knows more about how to be an effective teacher than his supervisors and fellow teachers. Mr. Guzalak was asked during the hearing why he had a problem with Mr. Bounds' directive concerning his student friendships. Mr. Guzalak's response, which evidences his attitude about the appropriate role of a teacher with his or her students, was as follows: Because I was used to the idea at that point of having some social contact with students. It was important to me. I was, basically, disturbed because I felt that Richard Bounds was asking me to suddenly make some sort of major capitulation, not in my life-style, but in my mode of thought, in the way I viewed my relationship with students. He wanted me to be an authoritarian clone, if I must. Lines 18-25, Page 627 and Lines 1-2, Page 628, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Additionally, Mr. Guzalak answered the following questions: Q. [Mr. Bounds is] your principal. Shouldn't he be allowed to tell you how you should behave with your students? A. No. Q. He shouldn't be able to tell you how you conduct yourself with your students? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I'm an adult and because I'm a professional. And I'm capable of making those decisions on my own. . . . . Lines 17-25, Page 628 and Lines 1-2, Page 629, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Rather than being an "authoritarian clone," Mr. Guzalak attempted to reach some of his students by being their friend on their level. To some extent, he was influenced by Ms. Yeager, who developed friendships with her students. Ms. Yeager, however, was more mature, married, had a family and had been teaching for some time. As Ms. Yeager put it: . . . . Of course, I have an advantage, being an old, married woman. I mean, I had a husband. I had a family. I had a track record when I came here, Ms. O'Sullivan. I taught seven years junior high and two more years in high school. So I think age -- Not all people are respected because they're older, as you know. But, I'm saying I sort of had an edge there on John [Guzalak], plus experience. Lines 19-25, Page 375 and Lines 1-2, Page 376, Vol. III of Transcript. More importantly, Ms. Yeager, by her actions, her character and her good judgement, was able to develop a certain level of friendship with her students while maintaining her distance and her professionalism. Mr. Guzalak has not evidenced the ability to do the same because of his lack of judgement and his inability to heed the advice and experience of his supervisors and peers.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lawrence Brennan, holds Florida teaching certificate number 250648, issued by the State Department of Education. The Respondent is certified in the area of English and his certificate is valid through June 30, 1988. The Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System in which he has taught since September 8, 1969. The Respondent has taught at Paxon Junior High School since 1984-84, and has taught compensatory education in Paxon Junior High School during school years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Compensatory education is a special program for children with low test scores. Many of the students also have disciplinary problems. The Respondent received satisfactory evaluations for the last three full years of his employment, to include his years at Paxon. The Respondent was removed from the classroom and Paxon Junior High School following the altercation with a student on February 27, 1986, which gave rise to these charges. The Respondent is currently assigned to one of the media centers of the Department of Education in Duval County. The Respondent was informed in writing of the various requirements and responsibilities of teachers in the Duval County School System. Bresha Woods was a student of the Respondent's in November 1985. Ms. Woods had received six to eight referrals to the Principal's office through November 1985 for disrupting class and for not performing assigned duties. Subsequent to the incident described here, Woods was suspended and transferred to the Darnell Cookman Alternative School in March of the 1985-86 school year. On November 7, 1985, the Respondent told Woods to take her things and to go to the Principal's office for not doing her work and disrupting class. Woods delayed, slowly gathering her books, purse and other belongings. The Respondent approached Woods from the rear as she was at her desk, grasped her by the shoulders, pulled her to her feet alongside the desk, turned her toward the door of the classroom and told her to go to the school office. Woods' statement that she was "marked up" is not credible and the fact that she visited a physician on March 29, 1987, is not relevant because of the passage of time. No report of the physician's findings was offered. Woods' report to Atkinson that Respondent had choked her was contrary to Woods' sworn testimony. Atkinson accepted Woods' version of events as opposed to the explanation of Respondent. See T 179, 180. In January 1986, Delilah Elliott, a new student at Paxon, was late for class and cut across a grassy area between the wings of the classroom building which was closed to walking students. Between classes the Respondent was performing monitoring duties outside the classroom as do many of the teachers and staff and observed Ms. Elliott crossing the prohibited area. The Respondent called for Elliott to stop. Although Elliott heard the Respondent call for her to stop, she ignored him, attempting to go to her next class. The Respondent approached her, grabbed her by the shoulders to restrain her, and pushed her toward the sidewalk. She attempted to walk around him and continue on to her class. Elliott refused to tell the Respondent her name. The Respondent herded Elliott to the Principal's office, sometimes pushing her in the back when she stopped walking. Ms. Atkinson, the Assistant Principal in charge of disciplining girls, having seen the incident, followed the Respondent to the office. Atkinson told the Respondent not to be so physical with the children. The Respondent advised Atkinson that he knew what the rules were. Atkinson advised the Respondent that she would take care of the problem, and that he should return to class. Atkinson took no action against Elliott because, according to Atkinson, walking on the grass was not a referral offense. As the Respondent exited the office, Atkinson heard the Respondent say to Elliott, "You little tramp." The Respondent was frequently in physical contact with students in his class. Craig Monasco and Frank Lane were students in the Respondent's class. The Respondent grabbed their buttocks on several occasions when they were leaning over getting books. This practice, called "scooping" by the students, was a form of horse play engaged in by the students. The students were embarrassed by this. On other occasions, the Respondent pulled students out of their seats in the process of disciplining them within the classroom. Leopolean Spikes was a 13 year old black student in the Respondent's 7th grade comp. ed. English class. Spikes had a history of disruptive behavior in class and had been sent to the Principal's office several times during the school year. On February 26, 1986, Spikes was disruptive in class and the Respondent escorted him to the Principal's office. On this occasion, Spikes had refused to accept the referral, and Spikes said he was going to have his father come out and talk with the Respondent. The Respondent added Spikes' additional comments to the referral regarding Spikes' behavior and escorted Spikes to the Principal's office. Upon re-entering the class, the Respondent stated to the class that had Spikes hit him, the Respondent would have knocked him through the wall. The Principal gave Spikes an in-school suspension for his conduct of February 26, 1986. However, based upon the general school policy, a child with the number of referrals that Spikes had had would have been subject to general suspension. On February 27, 1986, Spikes reported to the Respondent's first period comp. ed. class. Spikes exhibited additional disruptive behavior during the class period of approximately 50 minutes in length. During this time, the Respondent warned Spikes on several occasions that he was going to refer him again if his behavior did not change. Shortly before the class was over, Spikes' continued disruptive conduct caused the Respondent to write a referral of Spikes to the Principal. The Respondent told Spikes to go to the Principal's office. Spikes delayed in getting his personal effects together to go to the Principal's office, and the Respondent went over to Spikes and told him to hurry up and leave the class. Spikes told the Respondent that he would not go to the Principal's office. At this point, a conflict exists in testimony regarding what occurred next. The one non-involved adult observer, Ms. Morkin, the co-teacher, stated that she observed six "acts" to the incident: (1) Spikes stood around reading the referral and not doing anything; (2) Respondent guided Spikes to the door by the shoulder; (3) Spikes ran around her desk to his own desk by the windows and wall; (4) Books were thrown in the direction of her desk from the vicinity of Spikes' desk; and (5) A struggle ensued between Spikes and Respondent, which came to an end with the Respondent kneeling next to Spikes and restraining Spikes on the floor. The various student witnesses had more dramatic versions of the incident, but one can trace the activity by its location. Their versions began with: (1) Spikes refused to go and told Respondent that he was not going to the office at or around Spikes' desk; (2) Spikes or Respondent threw books; (3) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the desk; (4) Spikes threatened Respondent with a desk; (5) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the wall and Spikes' head hit against the wall; and (6) The fight ended with Respondent pinning Spikes to the floor. The following findings are based upon a most credible evidence and testimony presented: The Respondent was standing in the aisle alongside Spikes' desk and between Spikes' desk and the front of the room where Ms. Morkin's desk was located. Spikes, when confronted by the Respondent and told to hurry, told Respondent he refused to go, and threw his books at Respondent, who was standing between Spikes and Morkin. Spikes adopted a combative stance and the Respondent grabbed Spikes' arms, fearing that Spikes was going to strike him. Spikes began to struggle and both Spikes and the Respondent fell to the floor. Respondent let go of Spikes and regained his feet and Spikes pulled himself to his feet using the back of a school desk which he raised in front of him and advanced toward the Respondent saying, "I'm going to hit you with this desk. See T-70. The Respondent pushed the desk out of the way, grabbed the writing portion of the desk, then grabbed Spikes and a second struggle ensued, during which Spikes hit the Respondent, who grabbed Spikes in a bear hug. Spikes and the Respondent were by the windowed wall of the classroom, and the Respondent attempted to pin Spikes against the windowed wall to stop his struggling and prevent Spikes from hitting him. In doing so, Spikes' head was banged against the window once. Spikes continued to hit the Respondent all this time. The Respondent and Spikes again fell to the floor where Spikes ceased fighting after Respondent pinned him down. After the struggle ceased, Ms. Morkin left to seek assistance as the Respondent requested. After he was at the office, a knot came up on Spikes' head. Spikes parents were called and they took Spikes to the emergency room where he underwent a complete examination, to include X-rays of his head. This examination revealed no abnormal findings except tenderness and swelling in the left occipital area of the head. Subsequent medical problems which Spikes has suffered were related to an injury to the right occipital area. No evidence of such an injury was revealed in the examination or reported by Spikes. See Petitioner's Exhibit The Respondent is approximately 6' tall and weighs approximately 200 pounds. Spikes is approximately 4'6" tall and weighs 72 pounds. Mr. Randolph and Ms. Atkinson, the persons in charge of disciplining children at the school, gave their opinions concerning the appropriateness of the Respondent's actions. In their opinion, the Respondent's actions were inappropriate. The record reflects that both Atkinson and Randolph had failed to apply the requisite disciplinary standards to students by taking action to remove them from the school system permanently, based upon continued disciplinary problems. Atkinson, who observed the Elliott incident, described the Respondent as "striking the student" and was of the opinion that a person who touches another person with their hand is striking the person. Mr. Larry Paulk, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Affairs for the Duval County Schools, interviewed the Respondent after the altercation. To Paulk, the Respondent appeared hostile and was sarcastic in his dealings and approach to students. Paulk offered his opinion that the Respondent's conduct regarding discipline and leadership was inappropriate. The Respondent has attended psychiatric counseling for the past year to deal with his hostility and to improve his effectiveness as a teacher. There is no evidence of the Respondent receiving progressive discipline for prior acts involving physical contact with students, although he received several written reprimands for inappropriate conduct towards students to include physical conduct, language, and attitude. Mr. Randolph, the principal in charge of boys, advised that the school's solution for the removal of an unwilling child from class was to call the Principal. The Principal would come to the room and ask the student to come out of the classroom and, if the student refused, the Principal would then call a uniformed policeman who would arrest the child for trespassing. In Randolph's experience they had never had to take the final step of calling for a uniformed policeman.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
