The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 7, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Raymond J. Agostino, holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 385460, covering the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Agostino was employed as an assistant principal at North Fort Myers High School in the Lee County School District. On the morning of May 16, 2003, at about 5:34 a.m., a 911 emergency call was received by the Cape Coral Police Department. A female voice could be heard screaming on the line. The 911 operator asked the caller to state the nature of the emergency. The caller did not identify herself but could be heard screaming, "Get the fuck off of me! Get the fuck off of me!" Michael Carroll, the 911 operator who received the call, testified that when he answers an emergency call, his equipment provides a readout of the caller's phone number and address. Mr. Carroll relays the call to the police department's dispatcher, who in turn dispatches officers to the indicated address. In this instance, the caller identification equipment indicated that the call came from a telephone with the number "458-5077." At the time, this was the phone number of Mr. Agostino and his wife, Pamela Agostino. They resided at 1943 Northeast Fifth Terrace in Cape Coral. Officers Don Donakowski and Jason Matyas of the Cape Coral Police Department were dispatched to the Agostino house at about 5:35 a.m. on May 16, 2003, and arrived in separate cars at about 5:39 a.m. From outside the house, they observed a shirtless male, later identified as Mr. Agostino, in the living room area. They did not see Mrs. Agostino. They knocked on the front door, and Mr. Agostino answered. The officers identified themselves, told Mr. Agostino why they had been sent to the house, and asked him what happened. Mr. Agostino told the officers that he and his wife had been arguing over financial matters but denied that there had been any kind of physical confrontation. Officer Matyas noted that Mr. Agostino was reluctant to provide details of the incident. The officers noted no visible injuries on Mr. Agostino. While talking to Mr. Agostino in the doorway, they observed Mrs. Agostino emerge from the master bedroom. Officer Donakowski went inside the house to speak with Mrs. Agostino, who appeared very emotional, scared, and crying. Officer Donakowski observed that she appeared to have been in a physical altercation. There were scratches and a lump over her right eye and dried blood in her hair. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she and her husband had an argument. She told Officer Donakowski that her husband was bipolar and sometimes would go on binges, including spending money he didn't have. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that her husband asked her for a $500 check to pay the mortgage. She told him she didn't have the money, and he became angry and began screaming at her. Fearing for her safety, she ran into the bedroom and locked the door. When Mr. Agostino broke down the door to get to her, Mrs. Agostino grabbed the bedroom telephone and dialed 911. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that when her husband saw her dialing 911, he threw her down, knocked the phone out of her hand, gouged at her eyes, and pulled out a handful of her hair. It was during this attack that she screamed at her husband to get off of her. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she was then able to escape her husband's grasp and run into another room. She also told Officer Donakowski that her husband had attempted to strangle her in a confrontation on the previous day. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she would not give a written statement because she feared retaliation from her husband. After he interviewed Mrs. Agostino, Officer Donakowski went outside and spoke with Mr. Agostino, while Officer Matyas conducted his interview with Mrs. Agostino. Mr. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that the only thing that happened was an argument, though he did admit to breaking down the bedroom door. Mr. Agostino stated that he had never physically abused his wife in seven years of marriage. Officer Matyas noted that Mrs. Agostino was visibly upset and shaken. He observed fresh bloody scratches and swelling around her right eye, as well as blood in her hair near the scratches. Officer Matyas also noted several broken panels in the master bedroom door. When Officer Matyas asked Mrs. Agostino what had happened, she told him that she and her husband had been in the living room. Mr. Agostino asked her for a $500 check to pay the mortgage, because he had spent $600 on a sprinkler system. She told him that she could not give him the money because she needed it for a car payment. Mr. Agostino became angry and verbally abusive. Mrs. Agostino became fearful and locked herself in the bedroom. Mr. Agostino began banging on the bedroom door. As Mrs. Agostino picked up the phone to call 911, Mr. Agostino broke through the door and entered the bedroom. He forced Mrs. Agostino's head down to the floor while gouging at her eyes with his fingers and thumbs. She agreed to give him the money and he let her up. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Matyas that there had been a physical confrontation on the previous day in which her husband attempted to strangle her. She believed her husband was bipolar, though he had not been medically diagnosed. She told Officer Matyas that she did not want to press charges because her husband could be fired from his job. Based on the physical evidence and witness statements, the officers arrested Mr. Agostino and charged him with Battery--Domestic Violence. Officer Donakowski took photographs of Mrs. Agostino's injuries, the broken door, and a clump of hair that Mrs. Agostino stated had been pulled from her head by Mr. Agostino. The photographs were admitted into evidence at this proceeding. The charges against Mr. Agostino were subsequently dismissed. The Lee County School District investigated allegations of misconduct against Mr. Agostino arising from his arrest. At his predetermination conference, Mr. Agostino denied that any physical confrontation took place between his wife and him. The school district concluded that there was no probable cause to impose discipline on Mr. Agostino. At the hearing in this matter, Mrs. Agostino testified that on the morning of May 16, 2003, it was, in fact, she, who attacked her husband. She testified that at the time, she was taking medication for petit mal seizures that made her very agitated, violent, and confused. She stated that the medication also caused her hair to fall out in clumps, accounting for the hair observed by the police officer. The medication named by Mrs. Agostino was Keflex. In fact, Keflex is a marketing name for cephalexin, a cephalosporin antibiotic unrelated to treatment of seizures. However, the symptoms described by Mrs. Agostino are consistent with common reactions to seizure medications. It is within reason that Mrs. Agostino, who is not a medical professional, simply confused Keflex with another medication she was taking for seizures. Mrs. Agostino testified that on the morning of May 16, 2003, she was attempting to confront Mr. Agostino about their finances, but he would not talk to her. Mrs. Agostino testified that his silence infuriated her, and she became violent. Mr. Agostino retreated into the bedroom. She broke through the door and attacked him, hitting him with the telephone, then throwing the telephone at him. Mrs. Agostino testified that she did not know how the 911 call was made. She theorized that the speed-dial may have been activated when she threw the phone at Mr. Agostino. She also had no idea how the scratches appeared around her eye, unless she hit her head on the bedroom door as she broke it down. Mrs. Agostino testified that she told the police officers that her husband attacked her because she was mad at him. At the hearing, Mr. Agostino testified that he and his wife were arguing about money. Mrs. Agostino became very agitated and started to become violent. Mr. Agostino retreated to the bedroom, closing and locking the door behind him. Mrs. Agostino "came through the door" and attacked Mr. Agostino, who put out his hands to fend her off. Mrs. Agostino started hitting him with the telephone. Mr. Agostino tried to get away, and she threw the phone at him. Mr. Agostino went into the living room. Mrs. Agostino followed and continued screaming at him. Mr. Agostino kept the couch between himself and his wife. At that point, the police knocked at the front door. Steven DeShazo, the principal of North Fort Myers High School, testified that he has worked with Mr. Agostino for eight years. Mr. DeShazo has had conversations with Mr. Agostino about scratches and abrasions on the latter's arms, presumably caused by Mrs. Agostino. Mr. DeShazo testified that he has had conversations with both Agostinos about their need for counseling, but that Mr. Agostino did not want to discuss his family problems. Mr. DeShazo discussed the May 16, 2003, incident with Mr. Agostino a few days after the events. Mr. Agostino told him that Mrs. Agostino had attacked him, and he had tried to fend her off. Mr. DeShazo had no personal knowledge of the events of May 16, 2003. The testimony of the Agostinos at the hearing completely contradicted the statements that Mrs. Agostino gave to the police on the morning of May 16, 2003, as well as Mr. Agostino’s admission to Officer Donakowski that he broke down the bedroom door. Only one version of these events can be true. It is found that the version of events related by Mrs. Agostino to the police officers was the truth. The police officers were at the Agostino house within four minutes of the 911 call. They observed that Mr. Agostino was pacing the living room floor and was out of breath. Both officers observed that Mrs. Agostino was very emotional, crying, scared, and upset. These observations lead to the finding that Mrs. Agostino was still suffering under the stress of the attack, and in her emotional state did not have time to contrive a false story. This finding is supported by the fact that Mrs. Agostino's statements to the police officers were consistent with all the other evidence: the 911 call, the broken door, the clump of hair, her own physical injuries, and the fact that she was in the bedroom when the police arrived. At the hearing, Mrs. Agostino attempted to make her new story comport with the physical evidence but was far from convincing. The clump of hair was plausibly explained as a reaction to medication, but she had no explanation at all for the scratches above her eye. Mr. Agostino's testimony hinted that he might have scratched her eye while trying to fend her off. Mrs. Agostino theorized that throwing the telephone might somehow have caused it to speed-dial 911. Even if the undersigned accepted the phone-throwing theory, there is no explanation for why the female voice on the 911 call was screaming, "Get the fuck off of me," if Mrs. Agostino was the aggressor and Mr. Agostino's only physical reaction was to fend her off. There is also no explanation for why Mrs. Agostino was in the bedroom when the police arrived. Mr. Agostino testified that she was in the living room when the police knocked on the front door, directly contradicting the testimony of both police officers. At the hearing, Mr. Agostino testified that he told the police and school officials that there was no physical confrontation in order to protect his wife, who is also an employee of the Lee County School District. He feared that she would lose her job if it became known that she attacked him. Given the evidence presented at the hearing, it is far more likely that Mrs. Agostino changed her story in order to protect her husband’s job. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Agostino committed an act of moral turpitude when he broke down the bedroom door, forced his wife's head down to the floor and gouged her eyes, releasing her only when she agreed to give him the money he wanted. This was an act of serious misconduct in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence by men against women. The evidence presented is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Agostino attempted to strangle his wife on May 15, 2003. In this instance, there was no physical or other evidence to corroborate Mrs. Agostino’s hearsay statement to the police officers that her husband had attempted to strangle her. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Agostino committed an act of moral turpitude, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the May 16, 2003, incident was Mr. DeShazo's testimony that there was news coverage of the arrest. Mr. DeShazo stated that several students approached him expressing concern about Mr. Agostino and their hope that he would be allowed to remain at the school. Mr. DeShazo testified that no parents came to him expressing concern about the incident. There was no evidence to prove that Mr. Agostino's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Agostino's service in the community. There was insufficient evidence presented to establish that Mr. Agostino's performance as a teacher and an employee of the Lee County School District was diminished as a result of the May 16, 2003, incident and its aftermath. Mr. DeShazo testified that Mr. Agostino is the assistant principal for student affairs, which he described as the most high pressure, stressful job at the school. Mr. Agostino has never lost his temper at work, even in situations in which he has been hit and spat upon by unruly students. Mr. DeShazo testified that Mr. Agostino has been at work every day and has handled this uncomfortable situation with complete professionalism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued placing Respondent on a two-year period of probation, subject to such conditions as the Commission may specify, including the requirement that Mr. Agostino undergo a full psychological evaluation and receive any necessary counseling to ensure that he is fully capable of performing his assigned duties with no further incidents such as those of May 16, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Burandt, Esquire Roosa, Sutton, Burandt, Adamski & Roland, LLP 1714 Cape Coral Parkway, East Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9620 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state agency. Petitioner is a male who is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, unmarried. He is a teacher by profession. Since moving to Florida in the summer of 1992, however, he has been unable to obtain a full-time teaching position. Petitioner received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the State University of New York at New Paltz in December of 1984 and a Master of Arts degree (in "teaching/special education") from Manhattanville College in May of 1989. Prior to moving to Florida in the summer of 1992, Petitioner was employed as: a music instructor at the Kingston Conservatory of Music in Kingston, New York (from May of 1984 to September of 1985); a business instructor at the Westchester Business Institute in White Plains, New York (from September of 1985 to June of 1986); a substitute teacher in Pelham, Eastchester, Tuckahoe and Bronxville, New York (from September of 1986 to June of 1988); a music and vocational education teacher of 11 to 15 year old special education students at a public school in New York City (from September of 1989 to March of 1990); a classroom teacher of fourth grade special education students at a public school in the Bronx, New York (from March of 1990 to June of 1990); a classroom teacher of first through third grade special education students at a public school in Yonkers, New York (from September of 1990 to June of 1991); and an integration specialist involved in the provision of educational services to special education students attending public school in and around Jacksonville, Vermont (from February of 1992 to June of 1992). On October 15, 1992, the Department's Bureau of Teacher Certification issued Petitioner a Statement of Eligibility, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: when: THIS IS YOUR STATEMENT OF ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES (GR, K-12), PER REQUEST OF 10-9-92, VALID UNTIL OCTOBER 15, 1994. The State of Florida issues two types of certi- ficates for full time teaching; a nonrenewable Temporary Certificate valid for two years and a Professional Certificate valid for five years. The attached Form CF-106a, FLORIDA TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, outlines the criteria for the issuance of these certificates. The Temporary Certificate is issued to allow time to complete requirements for the Professional Certificate. Your application for teacher certification has been received and evaluated. Based upon current requirements, you will be eligible for a two- year nonrenewable Temporary Certificate valid for two consecutive school fiscal years covering SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES (GRADES K-12) You obtain employment with a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Florida Professional Orientation Program and your employer requests issuance of the certificate. Your employer submits a finger print card which has been processed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. . . Please note that if you are not employed and the issuance of your certificate is not requested by October 14, 1994, your Statement of Eligibility will expire. . . . At all times material to the instant case, there was, on a statewide basis in Florida, as determined by the Department, a "critical" shortage of teachers qualified to teach students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). (There were, however, certain school districts, including the Broward, Palm Beach, Collier and Monroe County school districts, that, because of the relatively high salaries they offered or their attractive geographic location, or for other related reasons, did not have a "critical" shortage of qualified SLD teachers.) The Department's Bureau of Teacher Certification suggested to Petitioner that he take advantage of the services offered by OTRR in his efforts to obtain a teaching position in Florida. OTRR assists teachers seeking employment in Florida by, among other things, providing them with an "information packet" containing: general information concerning Florida's public school system, its students and teachers; a map showing the school districts in the state; the names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons to contact regarding employment opportunities in each school district; other useful telephone numbers; salary information, by district; information concerning Florida's teacher certification process; and information about the Great Florida Teach-In, an annual event (held in late June/early July 1/ ) organized by OTRR at which recruiters from school districts around the state have the opportunity to meet and interview with teachers interested in obtaining teaching positions in their districts. 2/ In addition to this "information packet," OTRR also sends to interested teachers two forms which the teachers are instructed to fill out, sign and return to OTRR: an application to register to participate in the next Great Florida Teach-In; and a Teacher Applicant Referral form. On the Great Florida Teach-In registration application form, applicants are asked to provide the following information: the date of the application; their name, address and telephone number; the date they will be able to commence work; the position(s) sought; whether they hold a valid Florida teaching certificate- if so, in what subject area(s), and, if not, whether they have applied for certification and the subject area(s) in which they expect to receive certification; whether they have taken and passed the Florida Teacher Certification Examination and, if so, which part(s); whether they hold a teaching certificate from another state and, if so, in what subject area(s); whether they have ever had a teaching certificate or license revoked, suspended, or placed on probation and, if so, on what ground(s); whether they have ever been the subject of any disciplinary action and, if so, the nature and date of such action and why it was taken; whether they have ever been dismissed, asked to resign or not had a contract renewed and, if so, the reason(s) therefor; the total number of days they have been absent from school or work in the last three years and the reason(s) for these absences; and all colleges/universities from which they have received degrees, when they attended these institutions, when they graduated, the kind of degrees they received, the subjects they studied (major and minor), and whether their grade point average was higher than 2.5. On the Teacher Applicant Referral form, applicants are asked to provide the following information: the date of the application; their name, address, telephone number and social security number; the date they will be able to commence work; the position(s) sought; whether they hold a valid Florida teaching certificate- if so, in what subject area(s), and, if not, whether they have applied for certification and the subject area(s) in which they expect to receive certification; whether they hold a teaching certificate from another state and, if so, in what subject area(s); whether they are a U.S. citizen and, if not, whether they have a resident alien work permit; and the institutions from which they have received degrees, the kind of degrees they have received, and their major course of study at these institutions. On neither the Great Florida Teach-In registration application form nor the Teacher Applicant Referral form are applicants asked to provide information regarding their sex or marital status. (It may be possible, however, to ascertain an applicant's sex from the name of the applicant appearing on the form.) Following the suggestion of the Department's Bureau of Teacher Certification, Petitioner contacted OTRR. He thereafter received from OTRR an "information packet," as well as a registration application form for the 1993 Great Florida Teach-In (scheduled to be held June 27 through July 1, 1993) and a Teacher Applicant Referral form. Petitioner filled out and signed the Teacher Applicant Referral form on or about November 10, 1992, and returned the completed and signed form to OTRR. On the form, Petitioner indicated, among other things, that he was interested in "Special Education Teacher Type Positions- SLD" and that he was "Florida certified [in] Specific Learning Disabilities." In view of Petitioner's first and middle names (Steve Joseph), both of which he included on the form, it should have been obvious to anyone reviewing the form that it was submitted by a male. Petitioner, however, provided no information on the form suggesting that he was a single male. Petitioner kept a copy of the original completed and signed Teacher Applicant Referral form he submitted to OTRR. On or about October 2, 1993, he signed the copy and sent it to OTRR. At all times material to the instant case, it was the routine practice of OTRR to take the following action in connection with completed and signed Teacher Applicant Referral forms it received: Information on the forms was inputted and stored in OTRR's computer system. The forms (and copies thereof made by OTRR) were then filed in alphabetical order and by subject area. They remained on file for approximately a year, after which they were purged. When a school district contacted OTRR seeking help in its efforts to fill a particular teaching position, 3/ OTRR would pull the forms of all those applicants who, based upon the subject area of the position sought to be filled and any other criteria specified by the school district, appeared (from the information contained on their forms) to meet the needs of the school district. Copies of these forms, along with a computer printout containing the names, addresses, telephone numbers, certification status and citizenship of these applicants, were sent to the school district. On occasion, information concerning these applicants was provided to the school district over the telephone. At no time did OTRR fail to refer an applicant to a school district because the applicant was a male or was single. 4/ OTRR did not deviate from its routine practice in its handling and treatment of either the original Teacher Applicant Referral form that Petitioner submitted on or about November 10, 1992, or the re-signed copy of the original he submitted on or about October 2, 1993. (Petitioner, however, has not been contacted by any school district purporting to have received his name from OTRR.) 5/ Petitioner also filled out and signed the registration application form for the 1993 Great Florida Teach-In and sent it to OTRR, 6/ but he did not do so in a timely manner. (The application was dated June 27, 1993, the date the 1993 Great Florida Teach-In began.) Petitioner did not attend the 1993 Great Florida Teach-In, nor did he attend the event in any subsequent year. Petitioner has applied for teaching positions at public schools in Broward County (where he has resided since he moved to Florida in the summer of 1992), Dade County, Palm Beach County, Collier County, Monroe County and one other Florida county (located in the northern part of the state). He also has applied for teaching positions at at least one Florida private school, Lighthouse Point Academy, which is located in Broward County. Notwithstanding these efforts on his part, Petitioner has not received any offers of full-time, permanent employment and he remains unemployed. 7/ Petitioner has not taken any part of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination. The Statement of Eligibility that the Department's Bureau of Teacher Certification issued Petitioner on October 15, 1992, expired on October 15, 1994. The Department did not in any way discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his sex or marital status.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's amended unlawful employment practice complaint on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Department committed the unlawful employment practice alleged therein. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of August, 1996. Officer Hearings 1550 STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Hearings Division of Administrative this 14th day of August, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for a Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 17, 2004, at the Kendall campus of Miami-Dade Community College (College), Petitioner sat for the general knowledge portion of the certification examination (Test), which included an essay question. In advance of the Test, Petitioner was informed in writing of, among other things, the following: In its continuing effort to assure fairness and equity in examination administration conditions, the Florida Department of Education is putting into written form those activities that have been, and continue to be, regarded as cheating by, or on behalf of, an examinee. The specific items represent cheating activities encountered throughout the history of the Department's assessment programs, but do not preclude the Department from appropriate action in cases of cheating that do not fall under a specific item. These guidelines are applicable to the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations program . . . . Section 1 defines those behaviors that constitute cheating. Section 2 lists materials, equipment and other aids that examinees are prohibited from using during the examination. . . . Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: * * * c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. * * * Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: . . . papers of any kind, including scratch paper; . . . * * * Annette Lorenzo, a College employee, was the "room supervisor" in the room in which Petitioner took the Test. Ms. Lorenzo was assisted by another College employee, Gladys Manrique, "who was "working as a proctor" in the room. When Petitioner arrived in the room the morning of the Test, she was checked in by Ms. Lorenzo, who assigned her a seat near the front of the room. Upon being told of her seat assignment, Petitioner "pointed to the last seat of the last row" and asked if she could sit there instead. Ms. Lorenzo "said, 'Okay, no problem,' and [Petitioner] went and sat down in that seat." After "checking everybody in," Ms. Lorenzo read "instructions for the exam" to the examinees (including "go[ing] through all the guidelines on what constitute[d] cheating, as well as what [was] and [was] not allowed in the room"), and, with Ms. Manrique's help, handed out the testing materials. Testing then began (at approximately 8:45 a.m.). Ms. Lorenzo and Ms. Manrique "walk[ed] around the room, up and down the aisles," to "mak[e] sure that nobody [was] cheating or using anything [prohibited]" while the test was being administered. As she was doing so, during the essay portion of the Test, Ms. Lorenzo noticed Petitioner periodically "looking into her [cupped] left hand [which was positioned on the desk in front of her, just above her answer booklet, and appeared to contain tissues] while she was writing" in the booklet with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo observed Petitioner's engaging in this suspicious conduct for "[a]t least ten minutes." During this time, Ms. Lorenzo was "staring at [Petitioner], watching her very closely." When she eventually made eye contact with Ms. Lorenzo, Petitioner moved her hands towards her face and "made a noise like she was blowing her noise." She then closed her left hand into a fist and continued writing with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo advised Ms. Manrique that she suspected that "something [was] going on" with Petitioner, and she asked Ms. Manrique to "take a look." Ms. Manrique observed Petitioner for approximately five minutes, after which she reported back to Ms. Lorenzo that she "believe[d] there [was] something going on as well." Ms. Lorenzo then "walked to the back of the room and stood to the right of Petitioner." From her vantage point, Ms. Lorenzo noticed "sticking out the bottom of [Petitioner's left] hand," which was "still in a fist," not only tissues, but "paper with some writing on it." Upon making this observation, Ms. Lorenzo asked Petitioner to show her "everything [Petitioner] had in her hand."3 Petitioner's immediate response was to "[u]s[e] her right hand [to] grab[] the tissues out of her left hand," which she then quickly closed into a fist again. She gave the tissues she had transferred from her left to right hand to Ms. Lorenzo, explaining that she had "just tissues" and nothing else. Ms. Lorenzo, however, knew otherwise and demanded that Petitioner open her left hand. Petitioner complied, revealing the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had seen "sticking out" of the hand when it was clenched. The paper was the size of a "small note [pad] sheet." It was crumpled from being held tightly by Petitioner. On the paper was a complete essay that that Petitioner had written before entering the examination room. The essay was entitled, "A Place to Visit: San Antonio Park."4 Ms. Lorenzo took the paper, as well as Petitioner's testing materials, including Petitioner's answer booklet, from Petitioner. In her answer booklet, Petitioner had written an essay about San Antonio Park, substantial portions of which were identical, word for word, to what was on the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had confiscated from Petitioner's left hand. Petitioner had knowingly brought this paper into the examination room with the intent to use it as an aid in answering the essay question on the general knowledge portion of the Test,5 and she carried out this intent once the Test began.6 As Petitioner started to "g[e]t a little bit loud," Ms. Lorenzo escorted her from the room and took her to see Juan Meza, the College's testing director.7 On the way to Mr. Meza's office, Petitioner insisted that she had not cheated and "begg[ed] [Ms. Lorenzo] to let her go finish the exam." Ms. Lorenzo responded that Petitioner's "test [was] over for today." After Ms. Lorenzo had told Mr. Meza that she had "found [Petitioner] cheating," Mr. Meza spoke to Petitioner and told her that she could not "continue taking the test" because she had been caught cheating. Petitioner denied to Mr. Meza that she had been cheating. Mr. Meza, in turn, informed Petitioner that he would send an "irregularity report" to the Department and that the Department would "make [a] decision" as to whether she had been cheating and then "contact her to let her know what [was] going on." As promised, on or about April 19, 2004, Mr. Meza sent an "irregularity report" to the Department (along with the materials that Ms. Lorenzo had taken from Petitioner in the examination room). On April 26, 2004, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioner: This letter is in response to information I have received from staff at Miami Dade College, Kendall campus confirming that you failed to follow testing procedures during the administration of the General Knowledge Test on April 17, 2004. Along with the admission ticket you received for the examination, you received a letter that outlines the State's policy on cheating. Section 1 (c) and (f) and Section 2 state the following: "Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: Timex Data Link™ wrist watch; electronic pager; cellular telephone; pocket organizer; electronic writing pen or pen-input device; any electronic device with an alphabetic keyboard; dictionary or other books; ruler; papers of any kind, including scratch paper; slide rule; protractor; compass; laptop computer; calculator watch, or calculator except those calculators provided at the test center for the following tests: Mathematics 6-12, the math portion of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (MGIC), Middle Grades Mathematics 5-9, Chemistry 6-12, Physics 6-12, and the math subtests of the General Knowledge Test." As a result of your failure to abide by this policy, the score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test under your name and Social Security number . . . for the April 17, 2004, test administration has been invalidated. By copy of this letter, I am also informing Professional Practices Services and the Bureau of Educator Certification of this decision. This decision means that you have yet to fulfill the State's requirements for a passing score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test. You are entitled to dispute this decision through legal administrative procedures. If you wish to do so, you must send a written request for an administrative hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The written request must be postmarked within twenty (20) calendar days of the date you receive this letter and submitted to the following address: . . . . If you fail to submit the written request within the specified time period, you will have waived the opportunity to contest the decision through administrative proceedings, and the score invalidation decision will be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Petitioner responded by sending a letter to the Department, which read (verbatim) as follows: I have received your letter about the problem I had the day of test. I'm so sorry about the day. In 20 years of being a teacher, I never had that kind of problem. That day I had a bad cold and when I finished my test, the only thing that I had to do was to check it, but I was coughing badly and I took a napkin that was inside my bag on the floor, but together with the napkin came out a paper. I took both in my hand. I put my hand up, because I knew that if the teacher saw me in this moment I got in trouble, but it was too late. The teacher came to me, asked for the paper and the napkin and without I could explain anything. She took to the supervisor and explained everything to him. He told he had to follow the rules, then he had to report the incident. So I think I should have an opportunity to do my tests again. The Commissioner subsequently notified Petitioner that her application for certification was being denied because she had "attempted to cheat" on the essay portion of Test "by referring to a complete essay she had in her possession when she entered the room." This denial of Petitioner's application for certification is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order sustaining the denial of Petitioner's application for certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, 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 30th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 162096, Post Graduate Rank II, which is valid through June 30, 1991, covering the areas of elementary education, junior college, reading and guidance. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher in the public schools of Duval County, Florida, at Garden City Elementary School. On June 6, 1978, Respondent was involved in an incident at the K-Mart department store located at 9459 Lem Turner Road, Jacksonville, Florida, which resulted in the filing of the Petition herein. On that date, Respondent was observed by the store's Security Manager while she was shopping in the ladies' wear department. The Security Manager was stationed behind one of sixteen observation windows situated in the ceiling of the store. From this vantage point, the Security Manager observed Respondent while she removed an orange bathing suit from a display rack and proceeded with the bathing suit to the infants wear department. Respondent then took the bathing suit off its hanger and placed the suit on top of her purse. Shortly thereafter, the Security Manager saw Respondent fold the swim suit and conceal it in her purse. Respondent then proceeded to the front of the store where she attempted to exit through the front entrance. At no time did Respondent approach the check-out counter prior to attempting to exit the store premises. The store Security Manager prevented Respondent from exiting the store by calling another store employee located at the front door of the store on the house telephone. The Security Manager advised this employee that Respondent was heading toward the front door, and requested that Respondent be detained. When the employee stopped Respondent, the Security Manager, with the assistance of other store employees, escorted Respondent to the Security Manager's office for further questioning. Once in the Security Manager's office, Respondent was read the following information contained on a card in the Security Manager's possession: You have the right to remain silent and not to answer any questions. Any statement you make must be freely and voluntarily given. You have the right to the presence of a lawyer of your choice before you make any statement and during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you are entitled to the presence of a court- appointed lawyer before you make any statement and during any questioning. If any time during the interview you do not wish to answer any questions, you are privileged to remain silent. I can make no threat or promises to induce you to make a statement. This must be of your own free will. Any statement can be and will be used against you in a court of law. After reading this information to Respondent, the Security Manager requested that Respondent give him the bathing suit, but Respondent refused to remove it from her purse. Thereupon, the Security Manager opened Respondent's purse and removed an orange bathing suit which still had tags attached to it. During the course of questioning by the Security Manager, Respondent refused to divulge her name, employment or other identification. Additionally, on several occasions Respondent requested that she be allowed to pay for the merchandise, and indicated that she was a professional woman and could not afford to get into any trouble. The incident was reported to law enforcement officials, and an officer, responding to the call, placed Respondent under arrest and left the store premises with Respondent in custody. Respondent has an excellent reputation for truth and honesty in the school in which she is employed and in the surrounding community. According to evidence in the record in this proceeding, Respondent had never done anything prior to this incident to bring herself or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect, and had never failed to set a proper example for students. There is no evidence in the record from which it can be concluded that Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board has been reduced as a result of this incident. In fact, there is no evidence that any students at the school or any parents of students were aware that the incident had ever occurred. Respondent is a Lead Teacher in the Title I reading program and has demonstrated her effectiveness and creativity in that position, and enjoys an excellent rapport with her pupils. There is no evidence in this record that Respondent ever pleaded guilty or was convicted of any misdemeanor, felony or other criminal charge. In fact, the only evidence in this regard is an order entered by Judge Louise Walker of the Duval County Court, pursuant to Section 901.33, Florida Statutes, expunging all records concerning the arrest, investigation and prosecution arising from the incident hereinabove described. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact in this proceeding. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue Whether Petitioner demonstrated entitlement to issuance of a Florida Educator’s Certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, as Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education, is charged with the duty to issue Florida Educator's Certificates to persons seeking authorization to become school teachers in the State of Florida. Petitioner is a current resident of Puerto Rico. Petitioner was convicted of federal conspiracy to commit money laundering on October 26, 1999, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 46 months, with credit for time served. Petitioner was released from prison in April 2001. He began teaching physical education in Puerto Rico, starting in August 2001. He has taught continuously in Puerto Rico for the past 17 years without incident. Stipulated Facts Petitioner was charged with multiple criminal offenses in the case of United States of America v. Luis Amarante, a/k/a Chiqui, a/k/a El Grandote, et al., Criminal Case No. 98-189(HL). Petitioner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case of United States of America v. Luis Amarante, a/k/a Chiqui, a/k/a El Grandote, et al., Criminal Case No. 98-189(HL). Petitioner was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case of United States v. Luis Amarante, a/k/a Chiqui, a/k/a El Grandote, et al., Criminal Case 98-189(HL). Petitioner was sentenced to serve 46 months in prison based upon his plea agreement entered in the case of United States of America v. Luis Amarante, a/k/a Chiqui, a/k/a El Grandote, et al., Criminal Case 98-189(HL). Petitioner submitted an application for a Florida Educator’s Certificate on July 13, 2016. On the application, Petitioner answered “no” to the questions: “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense?” “Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offense?” “Have you ever pled guilty to a criminal offense?” The answer of “no” to each of these questions was false. Petitioner submitted written responses to Respondent’s Request for Admissions on November 6, 2018, in which he affirmed in writing his statements set forth above. Facts Adduced at Hearing Immediately below Petitioner’s electronic signature on his application was the following: WARNING: GIVING FALSE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO OBTAIN OR RENEW A FLORIDA EDUCATOR’S CERTIFICATE IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER FLORIDA LAW. ANYONE GIVING FALSE INFORMATION ON THIS AFFIDAVIT IS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, AS WELL AS DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION. Petitioner was not able to convincingly explain why he would have checked “no” for three separate questions regarding his criminal conviction on the electronic application. His testimony ranged from an unsuccessful attempt to change his answer to the question before he submitted it via his telephone, to a misunderstanding as to the period of time for which information was being requested. There was no evidence that Petitioner contacted the Department of Education to correct, amend, or withdraw his application. Petitioner gave no indication of an inability to perform the duties of a physical education teacher. The crime for which he was convicted was non-violent in nature, and occurred more than 20 years ago. He testified that he “talk[s] with young people and I explain what I did, you know, trying to -- they don’t do the same, you know, that they continue in the right path.” Petitioner appeared to be sincere in his desire to teach with the benefit of his experience. Despite the foregoing, it is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate his entitlement to an Educator’s Certificate. Petitioner testified as to his 17 years of teaching in Puerto Rico -- which testimony is entitled to some degree of weight, as the passage of time can be persuasive evidence of rehabilitation and good character. The application includes the jurisdiction, certificate numbers, and dates of expiration for his Puerto Rico Teacher’s Certificate. The evidence that Petitioner has been certified to teach and has been employed as a physical education teacher in Puerto Rico was not disputed by Respondent. The testimony offered by Petitioner at the formal hearing failed to provide any explanation or contrition for his criminal conduct. He offered no specific proof of his good moral character in the form of admissible references from employers or coworkers to substantiate his testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order denying Petitioner, Luis Amarante’s application for a Florida Educator’s Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Based on my obersvation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the briefs which were filed post- hearing, the following relevant facts are found. Ernest B. Brown is the holder of Post-Graduate Rank II Florida Teaching Certificate No. 167290, covering administration and supervision, elementary education and junior college which by its term is valid until June 30, 1985. Ernest Brown, Respondent, has been employed in the public schools of Pinellas County as fifth grade teacher at Gulf Beaches Elementary School since August, 1975, and was on continuing contract during the 1976-77 school year. He resigned effective May 31, 1977 after inquiries were raised concerning his personal conduct with a female fifth grade student (Michelle Stewart). Thereafter the Department of Education received a report from the Pinellas County School officials on or about June 1, 1977 indicating that Respondent had been charged with lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a female child under the age of 14 and handling and fondling a female child under the age of 14 years. Pursuant thereto and following an inquiry by the staff of the Professional Practices Council, on July 18, 1977, said Council issued a report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council whereupon the Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exist to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teaching certificate. By letter dated July 27, 1977, the Commissioner found probable cause and directed the filing of the instant petition herein. Michelle Stewart, eleven years old and presently a fifth grade student at Gulf Beaches Elementary School, was a student of Respondent while she completed here third grade instruction. Ms. Stewart was approximately three weeks late reporting for classes during her third grade school year. After being in school for approximately two weeks, she sought assistance from Respondent regarding problems she was having with her math. At that time, there were approximately three or four other students also seeking assistance from the Respondent. Respondent asked Michelle to sit in a chair behind his desk where she waited until the other students had received their assistance. According to Ms. Stewart, Respondent asked to touch her pants in the crotch section. Ms. Steward was shocked but did not protest when the Respondent touched her in the seat of her pants for approximately one minute. On another occasion, Respondent was invited to attend a birthday party given at Michelle's house by her. Respondent was reluctant to attend inasmuch as he did not have a gift to give her. He reluctantly agreed to attend based on the enticement of Ms. Stewart, her mother, and several other students who attended the party. When persuaded to attend the party, Respondent agreed only to come if Ms. Stewarts mother permitted him to take Ms. Stewart shopping for some clothing within the next few days. As best as can be determined from the record, it appears that the birthday party was during the early part of May, 1977. Within a few days, Respondent arranged to take Ms. Stewart shopping by obtaining permission from her mother. However, as the facts were later brought out, it appears that Respondent obtained permission from Ms. Stewart's mother by telling her that he wanted Ms. Stewart to assist him in arranging some books on his book shelves, and Ms. Stewarts mother agreed with the condition that Ms. Stewart be brought back home before six oclock. Ms. Stewart testified that she was picked up by Respondent and taken to his home where they were alone. Immediately after entering Respondents house, he asked here if she was hungry and whether or not she would like to fix herself a sandwich and watched TV for a few minutes. Thereafter Respondent took some pictures of here with his Polaroid camera. Respondent later offered her some clothing and brought them out telling her that she could try the dresses on in his presence. Ms. Stewart undressed in Respondent's presence and when she finished trying on her dresses that he had purchased, Respondent went to the bathroom and undressed, entering his living room area with only his shirt on. During this time Ms. Stewart was undressed and Respondent asked her to lie down on the floor where he had placed a towel and had relocated an electric fan positioned so that it would blow down on them. She testified that he laid on top of her for approximately ten minutes stroking and kissing her. After this incident was over (approximately ten minutes) Respondent pleaded with Ms. Stewart to refrain from telling anyone about the incident to which she agreed. However she testified that she did tell some of her friends about the incident. Ms. Stewart testified that during the next school year she opted to be in another teacher's classroom and Respondent rebelled by talking to her and here mother in an attempt to get her to change her mind. She refused to do so because she wanted to be in the class with a neighbor and her boyfriend. During the school year Ms. Stewart recalled that she and approximately two other students were taken to several extracurricular activities by Respondent after school hours, including the circus, lipizian stallions, and Holiday on Ice. Detective William Creekbaum presently employed as a real estate salesman, was formerly employed as a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department was assigned to investigate complaints regarding incidents that the Respondent had allegedly been engaged with several minor students including Michelle Stewart. Detective Creekbaum was assigned to investigate the case on or about May 19, 1977 at which time, and during the course of his investigation, he interviewed approximately ten minor female students. On May 31, 1977, he decided that he should contact the Respondent and make certain inquiries of him, which he did at the school. He visited the school and asked the Respondent to come with him down to the police station for some questions. The Respondent drove his car down to police headquarters and a statement was given to Detective Creekbaum. Prior therto, Respondnent was apprised of his rights per Miranda. Detective Creekbaum explained to Respondent the necessity of his being truthful during his investigation, although he stressed the fact that he made no promises that the matter would be handled internally". He testified, and the statements bear out the fact that the Respondent was, in fact, advised that the investigation was criminal in nature. Initially, during the interview, Respondent denied the material allegations of the charges that he had fondled Michelle Stewart, however, upon repeated questioning by Detective Creekbaum, Respondent admitted that he had fondled Michelle Steward as charged. Although Respondent's position on this admission is that he only told Detective Creekbaum that he had fondled Michelle Stewart because he "thought that was what he wanted to hear and further he was led to believe that nothing would come of it". After the admissions by Respondent, Detective Creekbaum advised Respondent that he was under arrest where he was taken to the booking section of the police department. Immediately thereafter, Douglas McBriarty, an employee of the personnel department for the Pinellas County school system and charged with resolving teacher problems, visited Respondent at the jail where Respondent also admitted to the charge of fondling Michelle Stewart. Dr. McBriarty advised Respondent that it would be the Board's recommendation to immediately suspend him pending a decision on the merits and further action by the board to seek revocation of his (Respondent's) teaching certificate by the Professional Practices Council. Respondent asked if he had any options whereupon Dr. McBriarty told him that he could resign. At that point, the Respondent resigned effective May 31, 1977. The Respondent took the stand and testified that he was misled by Detective Creekbaum into thinking that nothing would come of the incident and that while he denied initially fondling Ms. Stewart, he only changed his story to an admission because he was of the opinion that that was what Detective Creekbaum wanted. He also testified that he was of the opinion that nothing would come of the incident as related by Detective Creekbaum. 1/ Without question, the Respondent enjoys a good reputation in the community and by his fellow peers at the school. He is regarded as a very good instructor who goes over and above his call of duty with respect to his classroom duties. Witnesses Nancy H. Akins and Catherine Smith, both instuctors in the Pinellas County school system, testified of their familiarity with the Respondents professional life and both gave him high marks. As stated, the Respondent denied the material allegations of the charging allegations in this case. Presently he is project director for the Tampa sickle cell disease project. In addition to denying the allegations of the complaint herein he testified that he was "set up" by Detective Creekbaum. He voiced his opinion that he felt that if he were cooperative and stated what Detective Creekbaum wanted him to say that he would go free. The undersigned has examined the record to see whether or not any misrepresentations or other statements were made to prompt Respondent to admit to the fondling of Michelle Stewart and the record is barren in this regard. Based thereon, I shall recommend that the allegations contained in the petition filed herein be sustained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of Respondent, Ernest B. Brown, be suspended for a period of two years. ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
