The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Petition for Suspension Without Pay and Dismissal from Employment, as clarified at hearing, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida (including, among others, H. L. Watkins Middle School (HLWMS)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. The School Board has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the collective bargaining representative of its instructional staff. Pursuant to Article II, Section M., of that agreement, the School Board "has the burden to prove each and every charge by clear and convincing evidence" in disciplinary proceedings such as the instant one.2 At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was employed as an annual contract teacher by the School Board. The last day for which she was paid by the School Board was March 3, 2010. From March 4, 2010, until June 4, 2010, Respondent was under suspension (without pay) pending the outcome of these disciplinary proceedings. By letter dated March 22, 2010, Respondent was advised by the School Board's Chief of Human Resources that she would not be "reappointed" and that, as a result, her employment with the School Board would terminate "on the last day of [her] current contractual period" (which was June 4, 2010). During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent taught Spanish at HLWMS (to seventh and eight graders during the 2007-2008 school year; and to sixth, seventh, and eighth graders during the 2008-2009 school year). Respondent was responsible, not only for the delivery of instruction to her students, but also for the management of her classroom. Furthermore, she was expected to be a "role model" for her students and to conduct herself accordingly, particularly when on campus. At all times that Respondent was teaching at HLWMS, Ann Wark was the principal of the school, and Respondent's department head was Ann Panse. In each of the two annual evaluations Ms. Wark gave her, Respondent received an "overall" rating of "satisfactory" and was rated "acceptable" in each of the 15 performance categories listed on the evaluation form. In the "comments" section of the 2007-2008 school year evaluation, Ms. Wark wrote: Beth has been such a positive addition to the Watkins Team. She does a great job working with her students. She is also a wonderful team player, assisting others whenever needed. The "comments" section of the 2008-2009 school year evaluation (which Ms. Wark signed on May 13, 2009) contained the following remarks made by Ms. Wark: Ms. Stuglik is a very creative teacher. She always has detailed lesson plans that are effectively presented in the classroom. Respondent was a 22-year-old beginning teacher when she arrived at HLWMS in August 2007. She and her husband had just moved from Indiana, away from the family3 and friends who comprised her "support system." Aside from her husband (who was not supportive of her decision to teach at HLWMS),4 Respondent was not close with anyone at the school or in the area. Respondent's classroom her first year at HLWMS was the "chorus room," which was located in a building (Auxiliary Building) that was separate from the main school building. There were only two other teachers with classrooms in the Auxiliary Building (which also housed the school's cafeteria): an ESE teacher and a band teacher. The ESE teacher was infrequently in her room, having one class there every other day. The remainder of her teaching time was spent servicing the school's exceptional education students in their general education settings. The band teacher was Heath Miller. Mr. Miller taught his students in the "band room." Mr. Miller's classroom (the "band room") and Respondent's classroom (the "chorus room") were connected by an unoccupied office. Mr. Miller was a popular and "well respected" member of school's instructional staff, as evidenced by the multiple "teacher of the year" awards he had received. Before classes started that school year (the 2007-2008 school year), during orientation, Respondent was told by other teachers that Mr. Miller "was the go-to guy; that if [Respondent] ever needed help with students, [Mr. Miller] was the guy to see; that he was just absolutely wonderful." Acting on this advice, Respondent sought out Mr. Miller's assistance on various occasions, and he became her trusted, informal teaching mentor (albeit one without any supervisory authority over her). Over a period of approximately a month, Respondent's relationship with Mr. Miller, which began as a purely professional one, evolved into a sexual relationship, against Respondent's will. From the end of September 2007, until sometime in November that year before the Thanksgiving break, Mr. Miller and an unwilling Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse a handful of times in a large storage closet in the "chorus room." These incidents (numbering approximately three or four altogether) occurred during the morning (sometime between 8:45 a.m. and 9:30 a.m.) before classes started.5 On each occasion, over Respondent's verbal protestations, Mr. Miller, who was "very muscular" and physically stronger than Respondent, forcefully maneuvered Respondent to the desired location in the closet, undid her clothes, and then directed her what to do. At no time did Mr. Miller strike Respondent, nor did he make any express verbal threats of harm to Respondent if she resisted his advances. Respondent, however, did not know what Mr. Miller would do to her if she did resist. She therefore complied with Mr. Miller's demands. Respondent did not tell anyone about these nonconsensual sexual encounters with Mr. Miller until approximately a year and half later, on April 27, 2009, when she was interviewed a second time during the "School Police investigation" described in the Petition. Respondent's post-encounter silence was the product of her wanting to forget about what had happened, coupled with her conviction that, if she did report what had happened, no one would believe her because Mr. Miller was so "well respected." Notwithstanding what Mr. Miller had done to her, Respondent continued to be "cordial" towards him, acting as if, at least to the casual, lay observer, nothing untoward had happened. In addition to conversing in person with Mr. Miller during the course of the school day, Respondent communicated with him by text and telephone, and several times even socialized with him outside of school (but always in a group situation where there were others present). Respondent's conduct following Mr. Miller's transgressions against her (as described above) was not atypical for a sexual assault victim.6 During the 2007-2008 school year and, to a lesser extent, during the 2008-2009 school year (when Respondent occupied the classroom in the Auxiliary Building that the ESE teacher had been in the year before7), an unaccompanied Mr. Miller, on occasion, came into Respondent's classroom while she was teaching a class (towards the end of the period,8 when the students were working, independently, on class assignments) and, with Respondent's permission, removed students from her class, a practice not prohibited by any School Board rule or policy. The students he removed were all female band students. Respondent would let the students go with Mr. Miller only if they were done with their work.9 The students would be gone from Respondent's class for approximately ten to twenty minutes. Allegations were subsequently made that Mr. Miller had (at various unspecified times) engaged in sexual misconduct with three of the students he had removed from Respondent's class (plus another student whom Respondent did not teach), and criminal charges were filed against Mr. Miller based on these allegations.10 Mr. Miller is currently in jail and is being held without bond on these criminal charges. At the time of the removals, however, Respondent had no knowledge, nor even any idea, that Mr. Miller was engaging in any inappropriate conduct with students. She believed (based on what Mr. Miller had told her when he came into her room to get the students) that he was taking them from her class so they could participate in band-related activities.11 Mr. Miller was arrested on April 20, 2009.12 The following day, School Police Detective Vincent Mintus interviewed Respondent as part of his ongoing investigation of the allegations that had been made against Mr. Miller. During this April 21, 2009, interview, Respondent was not forthright with Detective Mintus. She was asked about her relationship with Mr. Miller and, in response, failed to disclose that there was a sexual component to the relationship. Following the interview, Detective Mintus discovered information causing him to question whether Respondent had been entirely truthful with him. He therefore made arrangements to interview Respondent again. This second interview was conducted on April 27, 2009. When told by Detective Mintus that he had reviewed text messages and telephone records and, based upon this review, had doubts concerning how honest she had been during her April 21, 2009, interview,13 Respondent acknowledged that, contrary to what she had intimated in her previous interview, she had had a sexual relationship with Mr. Miller. She added, however, that this relationship had been a nonconsensual one in which she had not been a willing participant. The interview was cut short when Respondent asked for a union representative to be present. Following her April 27, 2009, interview, Respondent, with Detective Mintus' assistance, made contact with the Palm Beach County's Victim Advocate's Office, through which she subsequently received therapy and counseling enabling her to better deal with the emotional and psychological effects of having been sexually victimized by Mr. Miller. Upon being advised by Detective Mintus of what Respondent had related to him during the April 27, 2009, interview, Ms. Wark went to see Respondent. She tried to console Respondent and offered Respondent her support. Aided by newspaper articles on the subject, word quickly spread through the school and the community about Detective Mintus' investigation of Mr. Miller's on-campus sexual activity with HLWMS students and teachers. As a result, "things at the school came to a standstill." Students openly discussed Respondent's having been sexually involved with Mr. Miller and expressed their anger with Respondent for her having engaged in such activity.14 Ms. Wark sensed that Respondent had lost the respect of the student population as a whole, and their parents. Because it was towards the end of the school year, Ms. Wark took no action to have Respondent removed from her classroom assignment while Detective Mintus' investigation was still ongoing; however, she did instruct Respondent not to attend any school functions (including graduation) to which parents were invited. It was not until the beginning of the following school year (the 2009-2010 school year) that Respondent was taken out of the classroom and assigned administrative duties.15 Respondent had left the April 27, 2009, interview with the understanding that Detective Mintus would contact her to make arrangements for a follow-up interview. Detective Mintus, though, expected Respondent to contact him. After not hearing from Respondent for a couple of months, he sent Respondent a letter, dated July 1, 2009, asking her to get in touch with him so that he could set up another interview. Respondent did not receive Detective Mintus' letter until July 20, 2009.16 She immediately contacted her attorney and read the letter to her. Respondent's attorney then contacted Detective Mintus. Respondent was interviewed a third time by Detective Mintus on July 29, 2009. She was accompanied to the interview by her attorney. Immediately before the interview began, Respondent's attorney told Detective Mintus, on Respondent's behalf, that Respondent did not want to press charges against Mr. Miller because she desired "to get on with her life and not have any notoriety." During the interview, Respondent gave details regarding her relationship with Mr. Miller. She acknowledged that she had engaged in sexual activity with Mr. Miller on the HLWMS campus, but continued to maintain (truthfully) that she had not willfully participated in this activity. After completing his investigation, Mr. Mintus issued an Investigative Report, in which he found, among other things, that Respondent and Mr. Miller had had "mutually agreed upon sexual intercourse together on multiple occasions" on the HLWMS campus. On August 14, 2009, Detective Mintus' Investigative Report was forwarded to the School Board's Department of Employee Relations. The matter ultimately was brought to the attention of the School Superintendent, who, on February 12, 2010, advised Respondent that a determination had been made that there was "sufficient evidence to warrant [her] termination from [her] position as Teacher" and that he therefore would "recommend her suspension without pay and termination at the March 3, 2010 School Board Special Meeting." The School Board followed the School Superintendent's recommendation, and it suspended Respondent without pay effective March 4, 2010, pending the outcome of termination proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board issue a final order finding that the charges against Respondent have not been sustained and awarding Respondent "back salary" for the period she was under suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Polk County School Board, to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly-constituted governing body charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools within Polk County, Florida. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; and §§ 1001.30 and 1001.33, Fla. Stat. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher at Lake Shipp Elementary School and held a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has spent the last 21 years as a teacher in Polk County. She has taught at Lake Shipp Elementary School since 1998. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary actions by the School Board prior to this matter. On May 26, 2017, School Board Superintendent Jacqueline M. Byrd issued a letter (the “Termination Letter”) notifying Respondent that she was immediately suspending her from her teaching position and that Superintendent Byrd would recommend Respondent’s termination to the School Board. See § 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat., and School Board of Polk County Bylaws and Policies (“School Board Policies”) section 3140. The Termination Letter set forth the basis for Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation as follows: In December 2016, the [School Board] . . . received allegations that you were having inappropriate contact with a student via text messages. In a subsequent letter, dated October 6, 2017, the School Board expounded that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code rules that require a teacher “to make a reasonable effort to protect students from harmful conditions, to not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to not exploit a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 8. At a meeting held on June 13, 2017, the School Board adopted Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation and suspended Respondent, without pay, pending the outcome of this evidentiary hearing. Respondent’s actions that gave rise to Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation of termination occurred in November and December 2016. The student involved in this matter, Z.B., was ten years old at the time. Respondent was Z.B.’s fourth-grade math teacher. Also at that time, Respondent’s son, S.H., was nine years old. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that her son had difficulty making friends. During that fall, Respondent had observed Z.B. in her class. She believed that he would make a good playmate for her son. In October 2016, Respondent wrote a letter to Z.B.’s mother, Alita P., inquiring whether Respondent could get Z.B. and S.H. together to play. Ms. P. welcomed the invitation and supported the prospective friendship. Over the next few weeks, Respondent invited Z.B. on multiple playdates with her son. On one occasion, Respondent took Z.B. to the movies with S.H. Z.B. also joined Respondent and S.H. on a day trip to Legoland for which Respondent paid. Twice, Z.B. spent a weekend at Respondent’s house. During the sleepovers, Z.B. slept with S.H. in his bedroom. Respondent also gave Z.B. a college team sweatshirt, as well as purchased a skateboard and helmet for Z.B. so that he could join in with S.H. at a skate park. Ms. P. and Respondent also became friends during this period. They communicated frequently. Respondent requested all playdates through Ms. P. Respondent regularly texted Ms. P. while Z.B. was in her care. Respondent professed that she never made any plans for Z.B. without notifying Ms. P. Around this time, Z.B. experienced a contentious confrontation with another student. Respondent commented to Ms. P. that Z.B. was distressed and exhibiting disruptive behavior. To help the situation, Respondent offered to bring Z.B. lunch at school. She also allowed him to eat breakfast in her classroom. A few days after the incident, Ms. P. relayed to Respondent that Z.B. expressed that he was excited to return to school. Ms. P. thanked Respondent for helping Z.B. through his difficulties. On November 28, 2016, Respondent gave Z.B. a cellphone. Respondent explained that she had an extra, unused phone left over from a phone plan upgrade. Before Respondent provided the phone to Z.B., however, she expressly asked Ms. P. for permission. Not only did Ms. P. approve, but she was excited at how enthusiastically Z.B. accepted the gift. Respondent arranged for Z.B.’s cellphone to reconnect to her family phone plan so that he could text her and S.H.’s cellphones. Respondent also purchased several games (apps) for Z.B. to download onto the cellphone. One of these apps was a music program that allowed him to post videos of himself singing. Respondent had access to watch Z.B.’s videos. Respondent’s relationship with Z.B. (and Ms. P.) came to an abrupt halt on the evening of December 3, 2016. That night, Z.B. was staying with his father. (Ms. P. is divorced from Z.B.’s father.) Ms. P. called Z.B. just after 11:00 p.m. She asked what he was doing. Z.B. responded that he was texting Respondent. Because of the late hour, Ms. P. immediately became concerned. She instructed Z.B. to show the cellphone to his father. After taking the phone and scrolling through the text messages, Z.B.’s father became even more alarmed. A sample of the text messages Respondent sent to Z.B. from November 29 through December 3, 2016, includes: Just wanted to tell you goodnight. . . . See you in the morning. Love you like you are mine. [Z.B. responded with “Love you too.”] You really are the sweetest boy. . . . You’re a good person but you put on a show for people at school. I want you to be successful. You are very special to me. . . . There’s just something about you and your personality that I have grown very fond of. You know I love these late night talks we have. Love you too, yes I forgive you [for putting the phone away for the night], but you better prove it next week. Love you bunches that should make you smile. How much do you love me? Do I get more love? Gimme some love or I’m going to keep pestering you! Where’s my love? Gimme love or I’m taking [a gaming app] back. You can never have too much [heart symbol]. Call me later if you want . . . just call when you want. Those are some smokin hot videos you posted! [Respondent texted after viewing several videos Z.B. created using a music app.] You being a little hottie. Like a gangsta video. You breaking up with me???? In a number of other texts, Respondent wrote “love you” to Z.B. In an equal number of texts, Z.B. wrote to Respondent that he loved her. (In texts with Ms. P., Respondent wrote that she loved her as well.) Other text messages between Respondent and Z.B. included heart symbols and “face throwing a kiss” and “smiling face with heart-eyes” emojis. The cellphone had also been used to “FaceTime” Z.B. several times. Ms. P. believed that the language Respondent used and the sizable number of text messages she sent to her son were highly inappropriate. Therefore, just after Z.B.’s father confiscated the cellphone from Z.B., Ms. P. immediately texted Respondent and told her that she (and Z.B.’s father) had decided to return the phone. Ms. P. thanked Respondent for her “kindness and generosity.” But, she did not believe that Z.B. was “ready for that right now!” However, as Ms. P. and Respondent texted throughout the night of December 3, 2016, Ms. P. grew increasing disturbed at the content and “AMOUNT” of the text messages Respondent sent to her son. She finally informed Respondent that she felt it was best to return the phone and “squash it.” Shortly thereafter, despite Respondent’s repeated apologies at having caused any problems, Ms. P. wrote: The friendship is over! There are a few inappropriate texts on there that an adult doesn’t have with a 10yr old child not [sic] alone a student. I trusted you! On Monday morning, December 5, 2016, Ms. P. contacted Lake Shipp Elementary School to complain about Respondent’s interaction with Z.B. Ms. P. divulged that she believed that Respondent was carrying on an inappropriate relationship with her son. Immediately after this incident, Ms. P. was allowed to transfer Z.B. to a new school. Ms. P. testified that her son had become increasingly uncomfortable at Lake Shipp Elementary School. She disclosed that his behavior changed both at school and at home during the time he was the subject of Respondent’s attention. Currently, Z.B. is doing much better at his new school. Ms. P. relayed that Z.B. has not exhibited any of the behavioral issues that arose during that fall and is making straight A’s. At the final hearing, Respondent acknowledged sending the text messages to Z.B. Respondent also imparted that, as his teacher, she had grown fond of him. However, she adamantly declared that she had no improper intentions or motives other than to help Z.B. She was only trying to build his self-esteem. Respondent explained that she develops an attachment to the children she teaches. She has always made an effort to help students who have fallen between the cracks. When she finds a child who struggles, she wants to make them successful. Respondent pointed out that she did help Z.B. with math during their relationship. Respondent further testified that she used the word “love” to mean that she loved Z.B. like her own child. Respondent asserted that she cared for Z.B. just as any mother would have. Respondent also remarked that she bought Z.B. the skateboard and helmet only so that he could play with S.H. She denied that she ever FaceTimed Z.B. over the cellphone. Only S.H. and Z.B. used FaceTime. Respondent insisted that she never had anything but the best intentions for Z.B. Respondent asserted that anyone who perceived an improper or intimate relationship between them was jumping to the wrong conclusions and making incorrect assumptions. No evidence was produced at the final hearing indicating any inappropriate physical or sexual contact between Respondent and Z.B. Respondent called Joseph Palmer to testify on her behalf. Respondent taught Mr. Palmer’s son, D.P., in first and second grade. D.P. is currently in high school. Mr. Palmer expressed that Respondent was extremely helpful with his son in elementary school. Respondent was D.P.’s math teacher in first grade. She continued to help him with his math, reading, and speech skills throughout elementary school. Mr. Palmer relayed that, similar to Z.B., Respondent invited his son on a trip with her family to Legoland. Prior to the trip, D.P. spent the night at Respondent’s home. Mr. Palmer maintained that he was never concerned with, nor did he ever observe, Respondent act in an inappropriate manner with his son. Mr. Palmer proclaimed that he considers Respondent “like family.” Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing, the School Board proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed “misconduct in office” in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. Accordingly, “just cause” exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for the School Board to dismiss Respondent during the term of her teacher’s contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Polk County School Board, enter a final order upholding its decision to dismiss Respondent, Kimberly Horbett, from her employment contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2018.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent's employment as a teacher without pay for one day.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County. The School Board hired Respondent on September 1, 1981. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a middle school social science teacher and department head at Whiddon-Rogers Education Center ("Whiddon-Rogers"). At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board has been governed by Florida law and the School Board's policies. The conduct giving rise to the School Board's proposed one-day suspension of Respondent occurred on October 1, 2019, during the 2019-2020 school year. On the morning of October 1, 2019, M.G., an eighth grade male student at Whiddon-Rogers, received a telephone call regarding some family members who had died that morning. Due to the deaths in his family, M.G. was upset and in a "bad mood" throughout the morning and later that day when he arrived in Respondent's fourth period social studies class. During Respondent's fourth period class, M.G. did not want to be disturbed. He had a "hoodie over his head," his head down on his desk, and he was not doing any work. M.G. was often picked on in class by other students. On this particular occasion in Respondent's fourth period class, M.G. was being picked on by other students as he laid his head down on his desk. At some point, M.G. picked his head up from his desk and made a verbal threat to other students that he was going to shoot up the school. Respondent did not hear M.G. make the threat. One of the other students that heard M.G.'s threat went to Respondent during class and told him M.G. had threatened to shoot up the school. Respondent did not report M.G.'s threat to school administration. Respondent did not consider M.G.'s comment to be a dangerous threat. Respondent did not want to embarrass M.G. and told him during his fourth period class on October 1, 2019, that he could not say things like that. M.G., who was angry, did not respond to Respondent and walked out of the classroom. Respondent instructed M.G. to return to the classroom, but M.G. ignored him. On October 2, 2019, M.G. did not attend school. On the morning of October 3, 2019, Assistant Principal Sabrina Smith received a text message from another teacher at Whiddon-Rodgers, N'Kenge Rawls, notifying her of M.G.'s threat on October 1, 2019, to shoot up the school. Ms. Smith notified the other assistant principals of the threat and assembled the mandatory members of the Behavioral Threat Assessment ("BTA") team to collaboratively analyze available data, determine the level of risk, and develop appropriate interventions. As part of the threat assessment, Ms. Smith spoke to M.G. on October 3, 2019, who admitted he had threatened to shoot up the school. Ms. Smith also spoke to Respondent, who admitted he did not report M.G.'s threat to administration on October 1, 2019. Respondent admitted to Ms. Smith that he should have reported M.G.'s threat and that he made a mistake in not reporting the threat. Based on the behavioral threat assessment, the BTA team determined M.G.'s risk level to be "Medium/Serious Substantive." A "Medium/Serious Substantive" risk level means that the student "does not appear to pose a threat of violence at this time but exhibits behaviors that indicate a continuing intent to harm and/or potential for future violence." By all accounts, Respondent is a good teacher and well respected by his colleagues as evidenced by his team leader role at Whiddon-Rodgers. However, on this particular occasion, Respondent used poor judgment and erred in not reporting M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school on October 1, 2019. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent failed to report M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school, which constitutes misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. By failing to report M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school, Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., by failing to make reasonable effort to protect the students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the students' mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Respondent's conduct also constitutes "[i]ncompetency" and "[i]nefficiency," in violation of rule 6A-5.056(3) and (3)(a)1., by failing to discharge the duty to report such a threat as prescribed by law and "[i]nefficiency" in violation of rule 6A- 5.056(3)(a)3., by failing to communicate appropriately with and relate to administrators. Respondent's conduct also violates School Board Policy 2130, which requires School Board employees "to report to school administration any expressed threat(s) or behavior(s) that may represent a threat to the community, school, or staff," and School Board Policy 4008, which requires Respondent to comply with the "Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida," and "all rules and regulations that may be prescribed by the State Board and by the School Board." Respondent has only received prior discipline on one occasion. On September 19, 2007, Respondent received a written reprimand for inappropriate discipline of a student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order upholding the one-day suspension of Respondent's employment without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew Carrabis, Esquire Broward County School Board 600 Southeast 3rd Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Melissa C. Mihok, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, Suite 445 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County Public Schools 600 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed misconduct in office or gross insubordination violating Miami-Dade County School Board policies or other provisions of law, and, if so, whether such conduct constitutes "just cause" for a ten-workday suspension from employment as a teacher with Miami-Dade County Public Schools ("MDCPS").
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Stipulated Facts, Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, Section E. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the duly- constituted school board with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Miami-Dade County School District, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes (2013). In accordance with chapter 120, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3213, Student Supervision and Welfare, are adopted policies of the School Board, which took effect beginning July 1, 2011. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract as a teacher at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary School ("HRES"), a public school in Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between MDCPS and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. Findings of Fact Established at Hearing Respondent has been a teacher with MDCPS for approximately 32 years. During that time she has worked at nine different schools. She is presently employed at HRES and has been working there since 2012. Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach elementary school. During the 2014-2015 school year, she was teaching second-grade students at HRES. Her supervisor, Principal Julian E. Gibbs, testified that MDCPS prohibits corporal punishment and that teachers are never allowed to put their hands on students as a form of discipline. This policy was reviewed with Respondent during openings of the school, as well as faculty meetings held by Principal Gibbs. Also reviewed at these meetings was the School Board policy against sharing confidential student information with parties other than parents. Pet. Ex. 4. Principal Gibbs testified that other than incidents where he has had to discipline Respondent in the past, their relationship has been cordial. For purposes of compliance with progressive discipline and to establish the charge of gross insubordination, three reprimands and an Administrative Review Site Disposition/Conference were included in the Notice of Specific Charges. The record reveals that the first reprimand was issued to Respondent on December 18, 2012, by Principal Gibbs. The reprimand directed Respondent to "refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students" and to adhere to School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics. The directives necessary to correct her conduct were explained to her by Principal Gibbs. Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 13, p. 114.2/ On March 14, 2013, a Conference for the Record ("CFR") was held with Respondent relating to another incident. It also included her union representatives and Principal Gibbs. At this conference, Respondent was directed to "Immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students," adhere to School Board policies, particularly 3210 and 3210.01, and also to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS." Respondent acknowledged receipt of this CFR summary and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 12, p. 107. On May 12, 2014, Respondent received another reprimand regarding her personal cell phone ringing during testing procedures.3/ Moreover, Respondent also received a directive to adhere to School Board policies and to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS." Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 11, p. 97. On February 2, 2015, Respondent received yet another reprimand pertaining to her inappropriate physical treatment of students. Specifically, she was given directives and warnings including, but not limited to, "Refrain from using physical means as a form of disciplining and redirecting students," to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS," and, again, to adhere to School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 10, p. 82. To summarize, prior to the incidents underlying the present case, Respondent was given clear and unmistakable disciplinary directives to refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students on at least three occasions. She had also been repeatedly warned and directed to adhere to School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Allegations of Misconduct on March 3, 2015 On March 3, 2015, a second-grade student, D.L., was running to the bathroom and clapped her hands in the face of another student as she ran past. D.L. admitted that she was misbehaving. Respondent thought that D.L. had hit or tried to hit another student. D.L. testified that Respondent "snatched" her and "slammed" her in the classroom closet where she loudly reprimanded her with the door open. According to D.L., Respondent was "rough" with her, used a "big grip" and a "strong force" that left a mark on her arm. D.L. stated that her being grabbed by the wrist did not hurt her. Also, while being taken into the closet, D.L. was "100% sure" that she hit her head on something in the closet. The incident was observed and corroborated by the testimony of Makiba Burkes. Burkes was an adult co-teacher who was teaching in the classroom with Respondent at the time. Burkes had sent D.L. to use the restroom, because she said she was not feeling well. Along the way, she saw Respondent grab her by the upper arm and take her into the closet. When D.L. came out, she was "crying profusely." Burkes testified that the closet that D.L. was forcefully "pulled" into was a walk-in closet and was full of "stuff," including teacher supplies, desks, a refrigerator, and a microwave cart. She did not see D.L. hit her head on anything. Furthermore, she heard no yelling, but saw Respondent speaking close up to D.L. She witnessed no inappropriate physical contact inside the closet between Respondent and D.L. In Burkes' opinion, the way Respondent grabbed the student's upper arm and pulled D.L. into the closet was not appropriate or necessary, because teachers are not supposed to touch students in that manner. Burkes admits that her professional relationship with Respondent was not the best and that the two did not get along.4/ Respondent came into the class after Burkes had already spent time with many of the students. Respondent wanted to do things her way, and that was not working because the students had already become accustomed to Burkes' style. As a result, the professional relationship became a "pull and tug situation." After a while, the students were not listening to Respondent, and Burkes would have to jump in to "demand control of the whole classroom." According to Burkes, she felt Respondent became frustrated with D.L., and she had seen her become frustrated with other students on other occasions. However, she felt that the frustration she witnessed did not justify putting hands on D.L. Shortly after this incident, Respondent attempted to call D.L.'s father to report her misbehavior to him. Respondent dialed a telephone number using a number contained in the grade book system. However, without first confirming the identity of the person on the other line, Respondent began to discuss D.L.'s misbehavior in detail with the other party. According to Respondent, without asking the name of the person on the other line, she stated, "Mr. L., I'm calling concerning your daughter. And I need you to speak with her." To which the person on the line replied only "Okay." Respondent then went on to explain in detail D.L.'s disruptive conduct that had just occurred. She then gave the phone to D.L. without further conversation. When D.L. got off the phone, she advised Respondent, "That wasn't my dad." The person was actually "Jose," D.L.'s father's boss.5/ D.L.'s father testified at the hearing. He offered hearsay statements from his boss, Jose, pertaining to what he was told on the phone by Respondent.6/ Jose was apparently never asked his name by Respondent and was told the "whole situation" about D.L. that day. D.L.'s father was upset and outraged when he learned of this phone call to his boss. He stated that he was "hurt" and that everyone at his job has learned what happened with D.L. D.L.'s father was so upset by the incident that on March 10, 2015, he sent a letter to the school explaining the situation and his feelings on the matter. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 38. Respondent claimed that the incident with the telephone call was some type of "set up" or conspiracy against her. Yet, she offered no names or other factual details to support her conclusory allegation. Allegations of Misconduct on March 11, 2015 On March 11, 2015, Student A.W. was misbehaving. She was standing up out of her seat and throwing paper. In response, Respondent grabbed her by the shirt collar and pushed her to the wall. A.W. testified that it hurt and that the incident made her mad and sad. D.L. also testified that she saw Respondent "snatch" A.W.'s shirt and "like she just dragged her to the wall" and started talking to her. Student J.F. also saw Respondent grab A.W.'s shirt collar and put her against the wall, when she was misbehaving. According to J.F., you could "hear it" when A.W. was "put up against the wall hard" by Respondent. Burkes was also a witness to this incident. She saw Respondent grab A.W. by the front of her shirt and give her a "moderate" push into the wall. Because she considered this to be inappropriate, she reported what she saw to Principal Gibbs. Respondent testified as to both incidents. Regarding the incident on March 3, 2015, involving D.L., Respondent testified that she was running, passed the classroom table, and she "like hit at a student." She acknowledged that D.L. had likely asked her co-teacher, Burkes, to go to the restroom. Respondent claimed that she "gently" led D.L. into the closet to reprimand her because she did not want her to be embarrassed in front of the other students. Regarding the incident on March 11, 2015, with A.W., Respondent testified that she was standing up out of her desk and throwing paper across the room. She spoke to her and turned back to start working with her group again. She told A.W. to stand by the wall until she was finished because she had been interrupting. She denied grabbing her by the shirt or collar and pushing her into the wall. According to Respondent, she only uses gentle touches with children. Respondent claims that she has received so many reprimands from Principal Gibbs that she cannot remember how many. She also claims that she has been under attack by Principal Gibbs since she has been at the school. Aside from claiming that she has been reprimanded on many occasions by Principal Gibbs, she provided no other facts or details as to how, why, when, or where she has been "under attack" by the principal. She called no witnesses to offer any details or corroboration. Respondent testified that there are unnamed employees trying to "set her up." However, she offered no substantive facts to support this conclusory allegation, and the undersigned finds it unpersuasive.7/ Respondent testified and acknowledged that it would not be appropriate to grab a student by their collar and pull them towards a wall. According to Respondent, she only touches children gently to direct them where she wants them to go and sit. The facts underlying the charge of misconduct and gross insubordination occurring on March 3 and 11, 2015, were testified to by three students. Their testimony regarding these incidents was corroborated by an adult co-worker, Burkes, who was in the room and observed the incidents. She also prepared a written statement. Pet. Ex. 4, p. 44. Having assessed the credibility, demeanor, and interests of the witnesses, as well as the weight of the evidence, the undersigned credits and finds more persuasive the version of the facts testified to by the three female students and Burkes concerning how these incidents occurred, over Respondent's testimony to the contrary. The undersigned finds that Respondent's conduct violated several rules and policies that establish standards of conduct for teachers, namely, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, and 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and several School Board policies. As such, Petitioner has proven that Respondent committed gross insubordination and misconduct in office and violated School Board Policies 3210, 3210.01, and 3213. Despite fair and proper warning, Respondent defied several clear and simple directives that had been issued to her by Principal Gibbs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board discipline Respondent with a ten-day unpaid suspension as previously proposed by the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2016.
The Issue In DOAH Case No. 97-5828, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed. In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges dated July 30, 1998, and, if so, whether he should be dismissed from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). The Department of Education is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida teachers' certificates for violations of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Section 231.262, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Sections 231.261(7)(b) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, the Educational Practices Commission is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in Section 231.28(1). Richard V. Powell holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 585010, which covers the subjects of journalism and English- as-a-Second-Language ("ESOL"). His teacher's certificate has an expiration date of June 30, 1999. Mr. Powell was first employed as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system in August 1985. From 1989 through August 1996, Mr. Powell was assigned to Jose Marti Middle School as an ESOL teacher; in August 1996, he was assigned to John F. Kennedy Middle School ("JFK Middle School") as an ESOL teacher; in August 1997, he was given a new assignment as the facilitator of JFK Middle School's School Center for Special Instruction. On November 26, 1997, Mr. Powell was temporarily assigned to the Region II office. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Powell was employed by the School Board under a professional service contract. November 1995 incident On the evening of November 19, 1995, at around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., Mr. Powell was driving his Ford Bronco on Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. Mr. Powell's fourteen-year-old son was sitting in the front passenger seat, and he and his father began arguing about his school behavior and progress and about his failure to do his chores around the house. Mr. Powell became angry and punched his son in the mouth with his fist and then pulled the Bronco off the street, into a vacant lot. Mr. Powell got out of the Bronco, walked around the back of the vehicle to the door on the passenger's side, opened the door, and pulled his son out of the vehicle. After the child was outside the vehicle, Mr. Powell punched his son once in the face and, when the child fell to the ground, Mr. Powell kicked him at least once in the ribs. 8/ The child broke away and ran to a convenience store about twenty-five yards from the vacant lot, where a witness to the incident had already called the police. When he arrived at the convenience store, the child was sobbing and holding his side; blood was pouring from his lip. 9/ After the altercation with his son, Mr. Powell was not feeling well and, believing that his son had run the short distance to his home, Mr. Powell drove home. He waited a few minutes for his son and then walked from his home to Pembroke Road. He saw his son, a police car, and an ambulance at the convenience store, and he walked up to the police officers and identified himself as the child's father. Mr. Powell's son was taken to the hospital and treated and released with a split lip and a bruise in the area of his ribs. Mr. Powell was taken to the Pembroke Pines, Florida, police station. Mr. Powell is a diabetic, and, while he was at the police station, he asked to be examined by a doctor because he did not feel well. He was taken to the hospital, where he remained for about an hour. After his release from the hospital, Mr. Powell was arrested and charged with child abuse. On July 29, 1996, after a bench trial on child abuse charges, the court found Mr. Powell guilty but withheld adjudication, sentenced him to six months' probation, and required him to complete a parent counseling course. 10/ Mr. Powell successfully completed the course in December 1996 and was released early from probation on January 8, 1997. In August 1996, Mr. Powell was transferred from Jose Marti Middle School to JFK Middle School, where Raymond Fontana was principal. In a letter dated August 1, 1996, Seth A. Levine, an assistant state attorney in Broward County, Florida, notified the superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system that Mr. Powell had been tried on the charge of child abuse, and he advised the superintendent of the resolution of the case. The letter was forwarded to James E. Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, who reviewed the letter and transmitted the information contained therein to Mr. Fontana at JFK Middle School and to the state Department of Education Educational Practices Services. Mr. Monroe was not aware of the November 1995 incident involving Mr. Powell and his son until on or about August 14, 1996, when he received the copy of Mr. Levine's letter. In a letter dated October 10, 1996, the Education Practices Services notified Mr. Powell that it had received a complaint against him related to the charges of child abuse, and an investigation was begun which led to the filing of the original Administrative Complaint dated January 21, 1997. The disciplinary action taken against Mr. Powell by the School Board with respect to the child abuse charges consisted of a Site Disposition in the case, which the School Board referred to as Case No. A-17734. In a memorandum to Mr. Powell dated October 15, 1996, Mr. Fontana summarized the substance of a conference which was held on October 15, 1996, with Mr. Powell, Mr. Fontana, and William McCard, an assistant principal at JFK Middle School, in attendance. In the memorandum, Mr. Fontana indicated that "[t]he purpose of the conference was to establish a final disposition through administrative review of the above indicated case." Mr. Fontana further stated: Upon review of all the records and talking with you, it is determined that the incident in question happened in Broward County, no adjudication of guilt was established, and legally the case was closed. However, you have agreed to counseling in order to forestall any future problems. The case in question dealt with your own family member and alleged child abuse. We reviewed my expectations of you in regards to your teaching position at John F. Kennedy Middle School and your professional treatment of all your students. We reviewed the State Code of Ethics guidelines dealing with the same subject. Thus, I am directing you to follow the established State Code of Ethics Rules, School Board Policy, and Site Rules dealing with conduct becoming a teacher and subsequent teaching relationships with students. I feel that this will adequately bring closure to this incident and that in the future your teaching behavior will always be of the highest professional standard. In his annual evaluation for the 1995-1996 school year, Mr. Powell was rated "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. Likewise, in his annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year, Mr. Powell was assessed "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. This annual evaluation followed a Teacher Assessment and Development System Post-Observation Report completed on April 16, 1997, by Mr. McCard, in which he found that Mr. Powell's performance satisfied every indicator subject to evaluation. 11/ November 1997 incident On November 25, 1997, Mr. Powell was the teacher in charge of the School Center for Special Instruction ("SCSI") at JFK Middle School. The SCSI is an indoor suspension program for children who are being disciplined for behavior violations; SCSI is an alternative to sending these children home for the duration of their suspension. The SCSI class was held in the school cafeteria at JFK Middle School from 9:00 a.m. until the end of the school day at 3:40 p.m. Two sets of double doors provide access to the cafeteria. One set, those on the right, were locked from the outside and not normally used; the students entered and left the cafeteria by the set of doors on the left of the building. At approximately 3:20 p.m. on November 25, 1997, the SCSI students were returning to the cafeteria after cleaning up an area outside the cafeteria. Mr. Powell was outside supervising the students as they returned to the cafeteria, and there was no adult supervising the students who had already moved inside the cafeteria. During this hiatus, a seventh-grade student named M. M. got into an altercation with several other boys in the class whom he suspected of taking his book bag. The boys began pushing and shoving M. M. and encouraging him to fight with one specific boy. M. M. refused to fight; he became angry and upset and left the cafeteria by way of the set of double doors on the right side of the cafeteria. Because he was angry and upset, M. M. pushed the door open quite forcefully. Mr. Powell had had surgery on his right foot the previous day; his foot was in a cast, and he used a cane to assist him in walking. At the time M. M. pushed open the cafeteria door, Mr. Powell was standing outside directly in the path of the door as it opened. M. M. could not see Mr. Powell because there were no windows in the door. As it swung open, the door hit Mr. Powell's injured foot, and Mr. Powell raised his cane and struck M. M. on his right arm. 12/ M. M. ran back inside the cafeteria, in tears. He rushed through the cafeteria and exited through the set of doors on the left side of the cafeteria. He went directly to the office of Sandra Clarke, one of the guidance counselors at JFK Middle School. When he arrived at her office, M. M. was agitated and crying, and he told Ms. Clarke that Mr. Powell had hit him on the arm with his cane. M. M. showed Ms. Clarke the mark on his arm, which was located on the outside of his right arm, midway between his shoulder and his elbow. Ms. Clarke observed that M. M. had a red welt on his arm, and she took him to the office of Patrick Snay, who was at that time the principal of JFK Middle School. Mr. Snay called in Assistant Principal McCard and told him about the allegations M. M. had made against Mr. Powell. Mr. Snay directed Mr. McCard to call the school police and to take statements from the students in the class who witnessed the incident. Mr. McCard took a statement from M. M. and observed the red mark on his arm. A school security guard went into the SCSI class right before school ended for the day and asked that any students who had seen the incident involving Mr. Powell and M. M. stay after school and write a statement telling what they had seen. Several students remained and prepared statements. 13/ Mr. Powell reported for school the next morning but was told to report to the School Board's Region 2 office. Mr. Powell worked at that office for one day, and then, beginning on the Monday after Thanksgiving, he was assigned to work at Highland Oaks Middle School. He worked at that school until he was suspended by the School Board on May 13, 1998. His duties at Highland Oaks Middle School included taking care of disabled students, accompanying them to their classes and to lunch, sitting with them, and taking notes for them, all under the direct supervision of the school's media specialist. At the direction of James Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Practices, a personnel investigation was initiated on December 6, 1997, with respect to M. M.'s allegations against Mr. Powell. A preliminary personnel investigation report was submitted on February 13, 1998, in which the investigator concluded that the charge against Mr. Powell was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on March 25, 1998, attended by Mr. Snay; John F. Gilbert, Director of Region 2; Ms. Falco, Mr. Powell's union representative; Dr. Monroe; and Mr. Powell. Several issues were discussed during the conference: Mr. Powell was allowed to review a copy of the School Board's investigative report regarding the incident involving M. M., and he was allowed to comment on the report. Mr. Powell denied having hit M. M. and advised the School Board personnel that he knew of an eye witness to the incident who would support his denial. Mr. Powell was also allowed to review a copy of the October 15, 1996, memo to Mr. Powell from Principal Fontana, discussed in paragraph 16, supra, memorializing the discipline imposed with respect to the charges that Mr. Powell had committed child abuse on his son. Dr. Monroe advised Mr. Powell that he had failed to comply with the directives included in that disposition. /14 During the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Powell was told that a recommendation would be made to the School Board that his professional services contract not be renewed and that a decision would be made whether to take disciplinary measures against him, which could include suspension or dismissal. In a letter dated April 29, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools recommended to the School Board that Mr. Powell be suspended from his position as a teacher and that dismissal proceedings be initiated against him. The School Board accepted this recommendation on May 13, 1998. On October 29, 1998, Mr. Powell was tried by a jury on the criminal charge of battery arising out of his striking M. M. A number of students testified at the trial, and Mr. Powell was found "not guilty" of the charge. On September 5, 1997, Mr. Powell was honored by the Florida House of Representatives with a Certificate of Appreciation for "his contributions and accomplishments in the National Association of Black Scuba Divers." As a member of that association, Mr. Powell was recognized and commended for his work with the sunken slave ship Henrietta Marie and for his lectures and seminars on the history of this ship. On May 28, 1998, an article about the Certificate of Appreciation appeared in The Miami Times, together with a picture of Mr. Powell and Representative Larcenia Bullard. Nowhere in the certificate or in the news article is Mr. Powell identified as a teacher or former teacher in the Miami-Dade County public schools. Mr. Powell is mentioned and quoted in an article which was published in the South Florida edition of the Sunday Sun Sentinel newspaper on February 1, 1998. The article discussed the celebration of Black History Month by the descendants of slaves who are living in South Florida. Mr. Powell is identified in the article as the person who led members of the National Association of Black Scuba Divers in a dive to the site of the Henrietta Marie. Mr. Powell also gave a lecture on the Henrietta Marie in February 1997 at the Miami-Dade County Community College, as part of a special African-American history course. Summary The evidence presented herein clearly and convincingly establishes that Mr. Powell struck and kicked his son on November 19, 1995, and that he struck M. M. with his cane on November 25, 1997, while carrying out his duties as an SCSI teacher. Mr. Powell's testimony that he did not strike either his son or M. M. is rejected as not persuasive, as is the testimony of those witnesses who testified that Mr. Powell did not strike M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude when he dragged his fourteen-year-old son from the passenger seat of his Ford Bronco, struck his son in the face twice, and kicked his son in the ribs at least once, causing him to suffer a split lip and bruised ribs. This act of violence is not only inconsistent with the public conscience, it is an act of serious misconduct which was in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence against children. The seriousness of Mr. Powell's act is only exacerbated by the fact that he acted in anger. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the November 1995 incident and from Mr. Powell's subsequent trial on the charges of child abuse is the testimony of Dr. Monroe. Dr. Monroe's testimony that there "was considerable notoriety via the print and the electronic media of Mr. Powell's action which resulted in his arrest" was not based on his personal knowledge but was based on information he received in August 1996 from an assistant state's attorney in Broward County. Dr. Monroe's testimony is not only hearsay unsupported by any other evidence in the record, it is not credible to prove that Mr. Powell's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Powell's service in the community. Moreover, Mr. Powell presented evidence that, subsequent to the November 1995 incident, he was publicly recognized for his contributions to the community through his work with the slave ship Henrietta Marie. The evidence presented is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude with respect to the November 1997 incident involving M. M. When Mr. Powell lashed out at this student and struck him with a cane, albeit after the student pushed a door into his injured foot, he demonstrated a flagrant disregard of public morals and of society's condemnation of violence against children, and he committed an act that betrayed the special trust placed in teachers. However, there was no persuasive evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's conduct involving M. M. was sufficiently notorious to expose either Mr. Powell or the education profession to public disgrace or disrespect or that Mr. Powell's service in the community was impaired with respect to the November 1997 incident. The most the evidence demonstrates is that the school received inquiries from parents about the need for their children to give statements regarding the incident, but these inquiries do not rise to the level of notoriety. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to infer notoriety and public disgrace and disrespect from the fact that Mr. Powell was tried and found not guilty of the charge of battery on M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which Mr. Powell struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell violated several provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida because he did not exercise professional judgment; because he inflicted physical injury on M. M. rather than protecting him from such injury; and because he exposed M. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by striking him and causing him to cry in front of his fellow students in the SCSI class. There was, however, no persuasive direct evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. This direct evidence consisted solely of the opinion testimony of Dr. Monroe, which was conclusory and was based exclusively on information he obtained from Mr. Powell's records and from discussions with school administrative personnel charged with monitoring Mr. Powell's conduct and teaching performance. No parents or students or members of the community testified that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and as an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of this incident. Under the circumstances of this case, however, it can be inferred from the record as a whole that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a School Board employee and as a teacher was seriously diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. Mr. Powell stuck a student with a cane during school hours, and the incident was witnessed by a number of students, who were asked to testify both in this proceeding and in Mr. Powell's criminal trial. In addition, the allegations against Mr. Powell with respect to the November 1997 incident were of such a serious nature that it was necessary to relieve Mr. Powell of his teaching responsibilities and to transfer him from JFK Middle School to the Region 2 administrative offices and, from there, to another middle school in which his contact with students was closely supervised. Finally, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which he struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell did not conduct himself in a manner which reflected credit on himself or on the school system, nor did his conduct conform to the highest professional standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that In DOAH Case NO. 97-5828, the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes, and revoking his teacher's certificate for a period of two years, followed by three years' probation, subject to reasonable conditions to be determined by the Commission; and In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of misconduct in office pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes, and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 4-1.09; sustaining his suspension; and dismissing him from employment as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a high-school assistant principal made inappropriate remarks to two female students on campus during school hours, and then later harassed one of them, thereby entitling the district school board to suspend the administrator for 30 workdays without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Anthony C. Brooks ("Brooks") had been employed as either a teacher or administrator in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 23 years. At all times relevant to this case, Brooks was an assistant principal at Miami Jackson Senior High School, where his primary responsibility was discipline. The operative contract of employment between Brooks and the School Board required Brooks to "observe and enforce faithfully the state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and School Board Rules insofar as such laws, rules, regulations, and policies are applicable to the position of employment." Pursuant to the contract, Brooks agreed "to become familiar and comply with state and federal laws, rules, regulations and policies of the School Board and of the Department of Education for which [he] w[ould] be held accountable and subject to[.]" The agreement entitled the School Board to suspend or dismiss Brooks for just cause including "the failure to fulfill the obligations under this Contract." The Alleged Inappropriate Remarks The School Board alleges that on February 12, 2004, Brooks told M. D., a female student, that she should consider becoming a model, and that he would take pictures of her at the beach. The School Board alleges further that, the same day, Brooks separately encouraged another female student, F. J., to think about modeling. The evidence presented at hearing failed persuasively to substantiate these charges. The findings that follow in this section, based on evidence that is in substantial conflict, depict the likeliest scenario derivable from the instant record,1 though the undersigned's confidence in the accuracy of some aspects of this historical narrative is relatively limited.2 On the morning of February 12, 2004, a security monitor called Brooks to a classroom where some students were creating a disturbance. Upon his arrival, the teacher pointed out to Brooks the four students who had been causing problems. Brooks asked them to step outside. One of the four was M. D. Brooks told the students, in effect, to straighten up. In the course of lecturing the students, Brooks said to M. D., "You could be a model or something like that." Brooks was not attempting to proposition M. D. His remark was intended to boost her self-esteem and encourage M. D. to set higher standards of personal behavior for herself. Later that day, Brooks ran into M. D. outside the cafeteria. M. D. was talking to a security monitor, and Brooks overheard her say, "Mr. Brooks said I could be a model." The security monitor loudly and rudely scoffed at that idea. Thereafter, Brooks took M. D. aside, to the doorway of the SCSI (indoor suspension) room, and warned her not to discuss her personal business with everyone. Sometime later (perhaps the same day), Brooks was walking in the cafeteria, and F. J., a friend of M. D.'s, stepped on his foot. F. J. continued on her way without pausing and sat down at a table outside the SCSI room. Brooks walked over to her and invited an apology. F. J. declined. Brooks informed her that he would "model" good manners for her and proceeded to deliver an apology. Then, he left. Soon M. D. and F. J. reported to their cheerleading coach that Brooks had expressed interest in taking them to the beach for a photo shoot. The coach passed this allegation along to the administration, which in turn called the school police and the State Attorney's Office. The prosecutor declined to press criminal charges against Brooks; the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") requested a personnel investigation. Detective Pedro Valdes conducted the investigation. He interviewed M. D., F. J., Brooks, and Trust Counselor Patricia Manson (who disclaimed personal knowledge of the events in dispute). The detective evidently did not believe (or at least gave little weight to) Brooks's denial of wrongdoing, for he determined that the students' statements were sufficiently credible to support the conclusion that Brooks had violated a School Board rule prohibiting improper employee/student relationships. The detective's report announcing that this charge had been "substantiated" was released in July 2004. Having effectively been found guilty by the detective, Brooks was summoned to a conference-for-record ("CFR"), which was held on August 11, 2004. There, Brooks was given an opportunity to deny the charge (but not to confront M. D. and J., whose statements comprised the "evidence" against him). He failed to persuade the administrators that the detective had reached the wrong conclusion. The administrators issued several directives to Brooks, including the following: Refrain from contacting anyone involved in this investigation at any time. Refrain from inappropriate contact and/or comments with students. The Alleged Harassment On August 25, 2004, F. J. came to school dressed inappropriately, in a short skirt and tank top. At the beginning of second or third period, a security monitor named Frantzy Pojo noticed that F. J. was in violation of the dress code and attempted to remove her from class. The teacher refused to let F. J. leave with the security monitor. Faced with the teacher's obstructiveness, Mr. Pojo called Brooks, the assistant principal in charge of discipline whose portfolio included dress code enforcement. Mr. Brooks came to the classroom and spoke with the teacher. He asked that the teacher instruct F. J. to put on a jacket to cover up. The teacher——and F. J.——complied. The very next day, Mr. Pojo spotted F. J. and saw that she was, once again, not dressed appropriately. Mr. Pojo called Brooks to handle the situation. Brooks found F. J. in the library and agreed that she was in violation of the dress code. He observed that two or three other girls were also dressed inappropriately. Mr. Pojo and Brooks escorted these girls to the SCSI room and left them there. Brooks instructed the teacher-in-charge not to suspend the students but rather to let them call their parents and request that appropriate clothes be brought to school. F. J. called her mother and complained that Brooks was harassing her. F. J.'s mother became angry and arranged to meet with the principal, Deborah Love, that afternoon. When F. J., her mother, and Ms. Love met as scheduled, F. J. accused Brooks of having followed her to classes and singled her out unfairly for discipline in connection with the dress code violations. At Ms. Love's request, F. J. submitted written statements concerning the events of August 25 and August 26, 2004.3 Ms. Love believed F. J. and apparently had heard enough. Without investigating F. J.'s allegations or even asking Brooks to respond to them, Ms. Love prepared a memorandum, dated August 27, 2004, in which she charged Brooks with insubordination. Specifically, Ms. Love alleged that Brooks had violated the directive, given at the recent CFR, to refrain from contacting anyone involved in the investigation stemming from the allegation that Brooks had made inappropriate remarks to M. D. and F. J. On or about August 27, 2004, Ms. Love ordered Brooks not to return to campus but instead to report to an alternate worksite pending further action on the charges against him. At its regular meeting on December 15, 2004, the School Board voted to accept the recommendation of OPS that Brooks be suspended without pay for 30 workdays. Ultimate Factual Determinations Brooks's conduct was not shown to have been outside the bounds of accepted standards of right and wrong. He is therefore not guilty of immorality, as that offense is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2). Brooks did not fail to make a reasonable protective effort to guard either M. D. or F. J. against a harmful condition; had he neglected such duty, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not intentionally expose either M. D. or F. J. to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not harass or discriminate against M. D. or F. J. on the basis of any improper consideration, such as race, color, or religion; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not exploit a relationship with either M. D. or F. J. for personal gain or advantage; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not constantly or continually refuse intentionally to obey a direct and reasonable order, which willful defiance, had he shown it, would have constituted "gross insubordination" under Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 4.009(4). Brooks did not violate School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, which prohibits unseemly conduct and abusive or profane language. Brooks did not violate School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.09, which prohibits unacceptable relationships and/or communications with students. Accordingly, it is determined that Brooks is not guilty of the charges that the School Board has brought against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order (a) rescinding its previous decision to suspend Brooks without pay and (b) awarding Brooks back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period of 30 workdays, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 17th day of October, 2005.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to uphold the dismissal of Tirso Valls ("Respondent") from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board" or "Petitioner").
Findings Of Fact Based on the record and the evidence presented, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact: At all times relevant to this case, Petitioner was charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, § 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Cutler Ridge Elementary School ("CRES"). Respondent first arrived at the school in August 2017 at the start of the 2017/2018 school year. Shortly after his arrival, Respondent began exhibiting odd behavior, which was noticed by the administration and other staff members. The principal, Wright-Mullings, found that it was difficult to communicate with Respondent and he appeared disheveled in his dress and appearance at times. Early in the 2017/2018 school year, fifth-grade students also began complaining about Respondent's behavior. In response, three separate investigations were initiated into Respondent's conduct based on specific reports by several students. The first concerned allegations that Respondent was making insulting comments, screaming, and poking students; the second concerned Respondent allegedly snatching a jump rope from a female student, injuring her hand; and the third allegation concerned Respondent referring to a female student in a demeaning manner and calling her derogatory names. Pet. Exs. 3-5. These allegations gave the principal cause for concern because she wanted students and their parents to feel comfortable with teachers at the school. She also felt that these allegations raised safety concerns. After investigation by the school police, probable cause for three separate violations of School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, were found.2/ Taking exception to the investigative results, Respondent requested that a supplemental investigation be conducted. This was done. However, the outcomes of the initial investigations did not change. Pet. Exs. 6 and 7. Respondent was not formally disciplined for the allegations or findings made in these investigations, since the disciplinary process was never fully completed. However, as a result of these investigations, Respondent was removed from CRES and placed in an alternative assignment at the regional office on September 1, 2017, followed by placement at the District's Federal and State Compliance Office on September 19, 2017. The principal remained concerned that despite completion of the three investigations and disciplinary process, the safety of the students could still be in jeopardy if Respondent returned to the school. Suffice it to say, that in addition to these three investigations, multiple and repeated instances of odd and bizarre behavior by Respondent occurred at school and around the students he was charged to protect and educate. These are outlined in detail in Petitioner's Exhibit 14. They occurred primarily from August 18 through September 1, 2017. Some of the odd and abnormal behavior by Respondent was witnessed by the principal herself. Other behavior was reported by staff members and supplemented or explained what the principal had seen. For several months, and during the course of the investigations, the principal had expressed her ongoing concerns about Respondent to Pina, district director of the Office of Professional Standards. They also discussed the need to refer Respondent for a medical fitness for duty evaluation. Pina shared the principal's concerns regarding Respondent's odd behavior and conduct. This was based, in part, on her own observations of Respondent. She too was concerned for the safety of the students. When Pina brought the results of the investigations regarding Respondent before the Disciplinary Review Team for review and action, it was decided that discipline would be deferred while the School Board proceeded with a fitness for duty evaluation of Respondent. Pina instructed the principal to monitor and record Respondent's behaviors and maintain the results in writing. Wright-Mullings contacted her staff and had some of them write statements regarding their observations of Respondent. Pet. Exs. 10-13. Wright-Mullings compiled her own written summary containing her observations of Respondent's conduct, as well as conduct and actions by Respondent that her staff had observed and reported. Pet. Ex. 14. These observations by her and the staff included, among other things, Respondent's inability to understand directives and to communicate; repeatedly asking the same questions or asking for clarity on points made to him; the inability to understand sample lesson plans; a disheveled appearance that included holes in his shirts and body odor; suppressed anger when questioned about uncompleted tasks; illogical explanations concerning his actions; a nervous laugh; odd facial expressions; staring blankly at coworkers; speaking very close to people in their personal space and becoming agitated. These behaviors and the incidents giving rise to the investigations were carefully evaluated, weighed, and considered by Wright-Mullings. They gave the principal reasonable cause for concern, and she was uneasy with the prospect of Respondent coming back to work at CRES. Other teachers and staff members at CRES also expressed discomfort regarding Respondent's odd and abnormal behaviors.3/ Pursuant to School Board Policy 3161--Fitness for Duty--and Article XXI, Section (2)(F), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the United Teachers of Dade Labor Union and the School Board ("UTD Contract"), Pina held a Conference for the Record ("CFR") with Respondent on April 11, 2018, to address concerns about his fitness for duty. Pet. Ex. 19. At the conference, Respondent was advised of the troubling nature of his behavior and conduct, and the need of the School Board to do a fitness for duty evaluation of him. Pet. Ex. 19. On April 16, 2018, Respondent was again advised of the basis for a fitness for duty evaluation in writing. He signed a release to have the results of that evaluation sent to Pina. Pet. Exs. 16 and 17. As permitted by School Board policy, Respondent reviewed and selected a licensed psychologist from a list provided to him. Thereafter, a request for an evaluation of Respondent was sent to the doctor he selected, Dr. Theodora "Teddy" Tarr, on April 17, 2018. Pet. Exs. 18 and 19. Dr. Tarr had two clinical sessions with Respondent. She also reviewed Respondent's work history at Miami-Dade County, as well as Respondent's prior written responses to the complaints at the elementary school. Respondent also completed an intake form and a self-inventory on certain issues that were of concern to the doctor, both of which were reviewed and considered by her. Pet. Ex. 20, p. 57. After an examination and testing of Respondent, Dr. Tarr prepared a confidential assessment report. In essence, her report concluded that Respondent was not fit for duty as a teacher. More specifically, the report from Dr. Tarr stated: Refer Mr. T.V. for therapy. He needs social skill training and further assessment. He is incapable or unwilling to correct negative behaviors evidencing poor communication skills for self-control. It is not advisable he return to a teaching environment without identifying inappropriate behaviors and correct boundary, communication and social skill issues. Mr. T.V. is not qualified to return to his position in the MDC School System due to poor insight, poor boundaries, difficulty communicating, and confusing body language. (Emphasis added). Pet. Ex. 20, p. 57. Dr. Tarr provided the report to Pina. Subsequently, Pina held another conference with Respondent on April 30, 2018. At the conference, it was explained to Respondent that he had the option to seek a second fitness medical opinion pursuant to the UTD Contract, and that he could take a medical leave of absence, resign, or retire. Pet. Ex. 21. Respondent was required to give Pina his decision by May 3, 2018. Respondent gave no response by the May 3, 2018, deadline. He also never sought a second medical opinion despite having the rest of the school year and summer months to do so. On August 1, 2018, Pina held another meeting with Respondent and advised him that since he had not exercised any of the options available to him, and based on the doctor's report and his conduct and actions to date, the School Board would be dismissing him at the School Board meeting of August 15, 2018. Pet. Exs. 22 and 23. On August 16, 2018, Respondent was sent a final memorandum informing him that he had been dismissed by the School Board. Pet. Ex. 25.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Miami-Dade County School Board upholding Tirso Valls' dismissal from employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether respondent should be suspended or dismissed on grounds of immorality and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Incident Ms. Block and Ms. Mason Invited to Principal's Office At all times material to this proceeding, Francis DeLaurier was principal and respondent was assistant principal of Devon Aire Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. Sandra Block was the school librarian in charge of the videotape equipment; Emma Mason was the school secretary, and Rosalie Luis, a counselor. (Testimony of Wieber, Block, Luis, Mason.) At approximately 9:00 a.m. on a school day at the end of September, 1980, Respondent telephoned Librarian Block and asked her if she had a copy of "the Marshall tape," a videotape on individual educational plans ("IEPs"). 2/ She replied that she had the tape. (Tr. 37.) He then asked her what time she ate lunch; she said "about noon" (Tr. 38). At his request, she agreed to set up the videotape machine in the principal's office at noontime so that the Marshall tape could be shown; 3/ she also agreed to join him for lunch in the principal's office. (Testimony of Block.) At 11:55 am. that morning, respondent called Ms. Block again to check on when she would be coming to the principal's office. She replied that she couldn't come yet because her library clerk was not back from lunch. Respondent then came to her office to get the film and videotape equipment. Just as he arrived, Ms. Block's clerk returned, so, together, they wheeled the videotape equipment to the principal's office. After setting up the equipment, she went to the teacher's lounge to get her lunch and a coke from the vending machine. She stopped at Emma Mason's desk where she learned that Ms. Mason had also been invited to watch the Marshall tape and have lunch in the principal's office. At the coke machine, Principal DeLaurier asked Ms. Block when she was coming to watch the tape; when she replied that she wasn't going to watch it, he encouraged her to come and watch it, saying it could be an interesting film. 4/ (Testimony of Block.) At that time, it was not the habit of Ms. Block or Ms. Mason to eat lunch in the principal's office. However, in the past, teachers and staff, including Ms. Block and Ms. Mason, had frequently eaten lunch there; for the convenience of his staff, the principal had salt, pepper, catsup, and similar items available in his office. (Testimony of DeLaurier, Wieber, Block, Mason.) The subject matter of the Marshall tape--education for exceptional children--was not directly related to the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Mason or Ms. Block at Devon Aire Elementary School. (Testimony of Mason, Block.) Finding of Videotape Cassette Under a Portable Classroom At approximately 11:00 a.m. that morning--prior to Ms. Block's and Ms. Mason's arrival in the principal's office--the principal sent respondent to investigate a bee problem; they had received complaints about children being stung by bees in the portable classroom area. While poking around under one of the portable buildings, respondent found a bag with a videotape inside. It was a black cassette, unlabeled except for a small white tab with a number on it. He returned to the principal's office and showed him the videotape. Principal DeLaurier asked him what was on it; respondent replied that he didn't know. Principal DeLaurier then said, "Well, put it on the machine and [let's] see what is on it." (Tr. 683.)(Testimony of Wieber, DeLaurier; R-16.) Showing of Sexually Explicit Tape Cassette By this time, Ms. Block and Ms. Mason had entered the principal's office. Ms. Block had her lunch with her; Ms. Mason was busy assembling hers. Respondent, pursuant to Principal DeLaurier request, inserted the black cassette (which had been found under the portable classroom) and turned on the videotape machine. (Testimony of Wieber, Mason, Block, DeLaurier.) What then appeared on the screen was undisputed. The videotape depicted sexual activities between nude men and women. 5/ (Testimony of Block, Mason, Wieber, DeLaurier.) The videotape surprised and offended Ms. Block; she reacted immediately. Within 45 seconds from the film's inception, she asked Ms. Mason, who was absorbed in making a sandwich, "Are you sticking around for this?" (Tr. 42.) Ms. Mason, who had not yet looked up at the screen, answered, "Yes, why not?" (Tr. 42.) Ms. Block then walked out of the the principal's office. Approximately three minutes later, Ms. Mason, also offended by the film, exited the office and the two women went to a nearby office to finish their lunches. (Testimony of Mason, Block; P-1.) When the videotape machine was turned on, DeLaurier --who was at his desk -- could not see the screen. Respondent alerted him to what was being shown, after which DeLaurier came over and joined respondent. The two men then watched the sexually explicit film for approximately ten minutes. No one else was present during this interval. No children were in the principal's office at any time during which the sexually explicit videotape was played. (Testimony of DeLaurier, Wieber.) The sexually explicit videotape was seen by at least one other person on that day -- Rosalie Luis, a school counselor. Principal DeLaurier had asked her to come by his office after she finished lunch to see the Marshall tape. She complied. After watching the Marshall tape in the principal's office -- the sexually explicit videotape was shown. 6/ No warning was given or comments made prior to it being shown. Ms. Luis thought it humorous but left shortly after it began. DeLaurier was present at the time. Although respondent was present when the Marshall tape was shown, it is unclear whether he was present at the time the follow-up sexually explicit tape was shown. (Testimony of Luis.) Thereafter, Principal DeLaurier instructed respondent to take the tape cassette and "Get rid of it fast." (Tr. 689.) Respondent complied, disposing of the cassette in a garbage chute behind the school cafeteria. (Testimony of Wieber.) Respondent's Knowledge and Intent When, at the principal's request, respondent turned on the videotape machine, he did not know that the cassette portrayed explicit sexual acts. When, at the principal's request, he asked Ms. Block to set up the videotape equipment and have lunch in the principal's office, he had not yet found the offending cassette and could not have known that it would be shown at noontime. He had no intent to lure or trick Ms. Block into seeing a sexually explicit film. 7/ (Testimony of Wieber.) When the offending videotape was shown in the principal's office, Respondent was insensitive to Ms. Block's, Ms. Mason's, and Ms. Luis's presence and the possibility that such a film might upset or offend them; he was oblivious to their presence. The film did not offend him; he chose to continue watching the film for approximately ten more minutes. (Testimony of Block, Mason, Wieber.) II. The Aftermath After the September incident involving the offending videotape, Ms. Block, Ms. Mason, and Ms. Luis continued to work at Devon Aire Elementary School. Respondent continued to perform his duties; there is no evidence that the film incident adversely affected his job performance or his relationship with the school staff and teachers. Indeed, between September, 1980, and January, 1981, the teachers offended by the film (Ms. Block and Ms. Mason) did not report or complain about the incident to other school personnel. In January, 1981, Ms. Mason reported the incident to Renee Kachman, a person generally known to be critical of Principal DeLaurier; soon thereafter, the School Board launched an investigation. In May, 1981, the allegations against Principal DeLaurier and Respondent became a matter of public interest because of a series of news articles published in The Miami Herald. (Testimony of Britton, Block, Mason, DeLaurier, Wieber.) Most of the staff members and teachers at Devon Aire Elementary School -- have signed a petition acknowledging the May 2, 1981, Miami Herald news article concerning the incident and requesting that respondent be reinstated as an assistant principal. (R-2.) In June, 1981, an investigative report and Superintendent Leonard Britton's recommendation for disciplinary action were presented to the School Board. Mr. Britton recommended that respondent be reprimanded, financially penalized, demoted, returned to a non-instructional position, and notification be given to the State Education Practices Commission. The School Board rejected the recommendation and voted to institute dismissal proceedings. (Testimony of Britton.) There was a substantial but mixed public reaction to the allegations against Principal DeLaurier and Respondent, and the disciplinary action recommended by the superintendent. Between 50-60 percent of the phone calls to the School Board's Office of Public Information agreed with the School Board's decision to dismiss respondent and DeLaurier 8/. Some parents would be angry if respondent is returned to the school system; others would not. (Testimony off Hanks, Everhart, Gordon, Travis, Britton, Block.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board dismiss its charges against respondent, reinstate him to his former position or a comparable position within the school system, and pay him his back salary and related benefits. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 11th day of February, 1982.
