20-000994PL Richard Corcoran, As Commissioner Of Education vs. David Solz Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, September 21, 2020.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.

S TATE O F F LORIDA

D IVISION O F A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

R ICHARD C ORCORAN , A S C OMMISSIONER

O F E DUCATION ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 20 - 0994PL

D AVID S OLZ ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

This case was heard on July 28 and 29, 2020 by Zoom Conference , before

E. Gary Early, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

Bonnie A. Wilmot, Esquire

Florida Department of Education

325 W est Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 6533

For Respondent: Stephen Webster , Esquire

Law Office of Stephen G. Webster, LLC

Suite 5

1615 Village Square Boulevard

Tallahassee , Florida 32 309

S TATEMENT OF THE I SSUES

Whether Respondent should be subject to discipline as a result of the

violations of s ection 1012.795(1)(j) and r ule 6A - 10.081(2)(c)4. , as alleged in

the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On September 5, 2019 , the Commissioner of Education issued an

Administrative Complaint against Respondent which alleged that :

Du ring the 2017/2018 school year, Respondent

engaged in a sexual relationship with Brooke Jahn,

a married teacher who was a direct report to

Respondent. During the course of their

relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn

preferential treatment as compared to similarly

si tuated employees thereby creating a hostile work

environment. RespondentÔs preferential treatment

of Teacher Jahn included but was not limited to:

a) Jahn was provided training not offered or made

available to other teachers;

b) Respondent had Jahn acc ompany him on at least

one school related out of town trip without making

the opportunity available to other teachers; and

c) Rules regarding supervision of students were

relaxed for Jahn as compared to other teachers .

On September 26, 2019 , Respondent timely filed an E lection of R ights by

which he requested a formal hearing. On February 24, 2020, t he matter was

referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary

hearing.

The final hearing was first scheduled for April 14 and 15, 2 020, and

subsequently re - scheduled for July 28 and 29, 2020. The hearing was

thereafter convened and conducted as scheduled.

At the commencement of the final hearing, RespondentÔs Motion to Strike

PetitionerÔs Second Amended Witness List was taken up. The Motion was

directed to a single witness added by Petitioner after the time set in the

Order of Pre - hearing Instructions. Counsel for Petitioner indicated that he

did not intend to call the subject witness. The Motion was then withdrawn,

and further act ion on the Motion is moot.

At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Paul Levitra,

Leon County School District (LCS D ) Director of Internal Auditing; Sue Kraul,

LCSD Director of Elementary Schools; Deanna McAllister, LCSD Assistant

Superi ntendent ; Michele Vasquez, a teacher at Gilchrist Elementary School

(GES); Wendy Bryars Baggett, a teacher at GES; Melissa OÔBrie n, a teacher

at GES; John Hunkia r, LCSD Chief of Safety, Security , and Professional

Practices; and Rocky Hanna, LCSD Superinten dent . PetitionerÔs Exhibits 1 ,

3, 5, 6, 8 through 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 were received into evidence.

During the course of the hearing, Petitioner disclosed that two of the

CommissionerÔs witnesses, Michelle Adams and Nathan Miller, were unable

to appear. Ms. Adams could not appear for a reason that constitutes good

cause. Mr. Miller failed to respond to a subpoena, though Petitioner did not

see the need to have the subpoena enforced in circuit court. A post - hearing

Procedural Order was entered providing Petitioner with the opportunity to

depose the witnesses, if still deemed to be necessary, with their dep ositions to

be filed as late - filed exhibits. No depositions were subsequently filed.

In h is case - in - chief, Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Jasmine

Canady Smith, Principal at Oak Ridge E lementary School and, during the

201 6 - 201 7 school year, Assistant Principal at GES; Orande McKhan,

Assistant Principal at Pine view Elementary School and, during the 2017 -

2018 school year, Guidance Counselor/Resource Teacher at GES; Rosemary

Wyatt, Guidance C ounselor at GES; Melissa Sumner, Assista nt Principal at

Lincoln H igh School and, during the 2017 - 2018 school year, Assistant

Principal at GES; Bevin Stevenson , Guidance Counselor at GES; Brooke

Jahn (now Brooke Solz), Gadsden County Schools District Secondary Reading

Specialist and, during the 2 017 - 2018 school year, a third - grade teacher at

GES; and Whitney Hobbs, a Duval County Schools elementary school teacher

and, during the 2017 - 2018 school year, Ms. JahnÔs intern/student teacher at

GES. In addition, Respondent testified on h is own behalf . Re spondentÔs

Exhibits 1 through 9 and 11 were received in evidence .

A four - volume T ranscript of the proceedings was filed on September 1 ,

2020 . Both parties thereafter timely filed P roposed Recommended O rders

which have been duly considered by the undersigned in the preparation of

this Recommended Order.

The actions that form the basis for the Administrative Complaint were

generally alleged to have occurred during the 2017 - 2018 LCSD school year

starting in August 2017, with the last date of significance being RespondentÔs

and Ms. JahnÔs attend ance at the Instructional Leadership Team Summer

Institute in Tampa, Florida on June 11 and 12, 2018 . This proceeding is

governed by the law in effect at the time of the commission of the acts alleged

to warrant discipline. See McCloskey v. DepÔt of Fin. Servs. , 115 So. 3d 441

(Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Accordingly, all statutory and regulatory references

shall be to the 201 7 versions, unless otherwise specified.

F INDINGS O F F ACT

1. The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency

charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other

appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections

1012.795 and 1012.796 , Florida Statutes (20 20 ) . § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat .

2. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to

file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold

Florida teaching certificate s and who are alleged to have violated standards

of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat . (2020).

Stipulated Facts

3 . Respondent holds Florida EducatorÔs Certificate 766965, covering the

areas of Educational Leadership, Elementary Education , and School

Principal, which is valid through Ju ne 30, 2023.

4 . During the 2017 - 2018 school year, Respondent was employed as a

Principal at GES in the LCSD , where he had been employed since 2008.

5 . During the 2017 - 2018 school year, Brooke Jahn ( now Brooke Solz ) was

employed as a classroom teacher at GES, and , therefore , under the

RespondentÔs supervision. M s . Jahn was married to a LCSD employee

assigned to another school.

6 . Ms. Jahn was an adult during all times material to this complaint.

7 . On June 11 and 12, 2018, Respondent and Ms. Jahn attended the

Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute hosted by the Florida

Department of Education at the Innisbrook Resort & Golf Club in Palm

Harbor, Florida.

8 . On or about July 11, 2018, Ms. Jahn requested a transf er from GES to

another school within the LCSD.

9 . On or about July 12, 2018, Mr. Solz reported to LCSD Superintendent

Rocky Hanna that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Jahn.

10 . On July 18, 2018, Superintendent Hanna placed Respondent on

administrative leave with pay pending the pending the outcome of an

investigation.

1 1 . On August 31, 2018, Leon County Schools Superintendent Rocky

Hanna issued Respondent a letter of reprimand.

1 2 . On August 31, 2018, Mr. Solz was reassigned to the LCSD

Department of Teaching and Learning, effective September 4, 2018.

1 3 . On September 17, 2018, Professional Practices Chief John Hunkiar

reported Mr. Solz to the Office of Professional Practices Services.

1 4 . On November 8, 2018, the Florida Department of Ed ucation, Office of

Professional Practices Services, initiated an investigation into alleged

misconduct by Respondent.

1 5 . On or about July 9, 201 9 , Mr. Solz was reassigned as the principal at

Astoria Park Elementary School in Leon County. 1

Evidentiary Fin dings

16 . The following findings of fact are supported by the record. Contrary

testimony and evidence has been considered and rejected.

David Solz

17 . Mr. Solz is, by all credible accounts, a ÑwonderfulÒ principal and

administrator , with a solid reputation as a n LCSD administrator . Prior to

this proceeding , h e had not been the subject of any previous complaints or

disciplinary actions during his 20 - plus years in education.

18 . T estimony and recorded statements that Mr. Solz gave preferential

treatment to others, including Ms. Jahn, that he targeted or ÑformallyÒ wrote

up teachers that were not on his preferential list, or that he Ñonly hires

young, attractive teachers,Ò w ere neither credible nor persuasive. The more

credible testimony demonstrated that Mr. Solz was even - handed in his

approach to the teachers at GES. If someone showed an interest in moving up

in the academic system, he was willing to support them. If they wanted to

1 The Joint Pre - h earing Stipulation identified the date as July 9, 2018. The date was

corrected to 2019 on the record at the hearing.

stay in the classroom, he was accepting. If they felt they needed time away,

even up to a year, he was accommodating. He did not show favoritism, and he

did not ÑpunishÒ those who disliked him.

19 . By the 2017 - 2018 school year, Mr. Solz had been divorced for several

years. By April of 2018, he was a pparently dating a woman who taught at

either Ft. Braden Elementary School or Riley Elementary School. That

person may have thought that she had some ÑpowerÒ because she was dating

a principal, but there was no evidence that she did. More to the point, tha t

person was not Ms. Jahn.

20 . Mr. Solz was an Ñopen doorÒ administrator. His office was in plain

view, and he made it a practice to never be alone in his office with another

teacher with the door closed. There was no evidence that he ever did so.

21 . The evidence unequivocally e stablished that Mr. Solz was a good

leader at GES, that he was purposefully respectful of his female colleagues,

and avoided situations that could be misconstrued.

Brooke Jahn

22 . Ms. Jahn was a teacher at GES starting in August 2013. By all

credible accounts, Ms. Jahn was ambitious and a go - getter. She knew that

she wanted to move from being a classroom teacher into administration. She

set high goals, and was willing to take on the wo rk necessary to advance in

her career in education, work that others were not willing to do.

23 . During the 2017 - 2018 school year, in addition to her duties as a GES

teacher, Ms. Jahn was taking classes to earn her MasterÔs Degree in

Education Leadership. Holding a MasterÔs Degree in Education Leadership

allows one to take a position as a dean, an assistant principal, a principal, or

a leader at the school district in some capacity.

24 . As part of the curriculum for her degree, Ms. Jahn was required to

serv e an internship. Ms. Sumner supervised Ms. Jahn, which required

Ms. Jahn to spend Ñ lots of timeÒ in the office, generally during her planning

period or after school. Ms. Wyatt documented her progress. Mr. Solz was not

overly involved with Ms. JahnÔs intern ship. Upon her completion of her

MasterÔs program, Ms. Jahn became one of only three teachers or counselors

at GES holding that degree, the others being Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt .

25 . In addition to receiving her MasterÔs Degree in Education Leadership,

Ms. Jahn took and passed the Florida Educational Leadership Exam (FELE)

during the 2017 - 2018 school year, which qualified her to be considered for a

position in education administration. During the period at issue, she had not

yet applied to the administrator pool .

26 . During the 2017 - 2018 school year, Ms. Jahn taught third grade at

GES. In previous years, Ms. Jahn taught kindergarten . Ms. Jahn wanted to

move to the third - grade classroom for several reasons. She wanted experience

in detecting early reading deficits. Her kindergarten students were Ñlearning

to read.Ò By third grade, students are Ñreading to learn.Ò Therefore, reading

deficits by third grade can affect student achievement. In addition, third

grade is a F lorida Statewide Assessment (FSA) standa rdized test grade.

Ms. Jahn recognized that experience in administering the FSA was almost a

requirement for assignment as an assistant principal. 2

27 . D uring the 2016 - 2017 school year, Ms. Jahn was selected by her

kindergarten teacher peers to be the team leader for the kindergarten

section. Mr. Solz had no role in that process.

28 . Ms. JahnÔs selection as kindergarten team leader earned her a spot on

the SITE Committee . The SITE Committee consists of grade - level team

leaders, as well as persons repre senting paraprofessionals, custodians,

cafeteria workers, ESE students, parents, and other school functions. As a

SITE - based school, the SITE Committee serves to decentralize decision

2 Respondent suggested that Ms. JahnÔs transfer from kindergarten to third grade was

evidence of favoritism. There was no evi dence that the transfer was anything other than a

normal and routine transfer, and showed no more favoritism than Ms. Vasquez teaching

kindergarten and second grade at GES, Ms. Baggett being assigned to teach second, third,

and fourth grades over the years at GES, or Ms . OÔBrien teaching third and first grades at

GES.

making away from the Principal, and allows for a collaborative process b y

representatives of all segments of GES employees.

29 . Ms. Jahn was thereafter nominated and selected by the other

members of the SITE Committee as the SITE Facilitator. That position

required a great deal of work and effort, which Ms. Jahn g ladly took on,

realizing the career benefits derived from the experience. Mr. Solz had no role

in that process.

30 . Ms. Jahn was also selected to serve on the Teacher Education Center

(Ñ TEC Ò) as a professional learning advocate . As a TEC representative,

Ms. Jahn prov id ed teachers with opportunities for t raining to maintain their

teaching certifications and assisted them in making their way through the

certification process . The TEC is also engaged in managing the professional

development budget for the school. Ms. Jahn had to be involved in

professional development as part of her MasterÔs Degree internship, and the

TEC helped to fill that r equirement .

31 . The TEC representative is open for any teacher who wants to apply .

Other than complaints from several witnesses that they were not solicited by

school - wide email, or by personal entreaty from Mr. Solz Ñ and offered for

nomination or from, you know, veteran teachers who have that experience ,Ò

there was no evidence that any teacher other than Ms. Jahn , including the

c omplaining witnesses, had the interest, drive, or commitment to apply for

the TEC . There was no evidence that the position was required to be

advertised by email or subject to personal invitation. Ms. Jahn sought out the

position, and applied. The process of appointment was somewhat vague,

except that Mr. Solz did not unilat erally appoint Ms. Jahn to the position. 3

3 Ms. Baggett, despite aver r ing that Mr. Solz appointed Ms. Jahn to the TEC, admitted at

the hearing that she had no information that Mr. Solz appointed Ms. Jahn to that position

Ñ[o] ther than it's just, I guess, common knowledge that the principal of the school would,

you know, would approve these positions. Ò Supposition, speculation, and Ñcommon

knowledgeÒ are not substitutes for competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence.

32 . The team leader, SITE facilitator , and TEC representative positions

were subject to a modest stipend , but the duties involved work that far

exceeded the pay -- Ñ probably cents on the hour Ò -- she received for serving.

However, Ms. Jahn understood that having experience in various areas

would benefit her in achieving her long term goals.

33 . Ms. Jahn was also selected to serve on the District Advisory Council

(ÑDACÒ), a group of teachers, parents, administrators, and school board

members that meet to discuss issues that affect students and classrooms. It is

an unpaid, volunteer position that meets after school hours. Dr. Smith asked

Mr. McKhan, Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Jahn to share the role. Since Mr. McKhan

and Ms. Wyatt had previously served, Ms. Jahn took on most of the duties.

M r. Solz had no role in that process.

34 . Ms. Jahn was part of a group of teachers invited by Dr. Smith to

observe other schools in the District in order to implement the ÑLeader in MeÒ

program at GES. Ms. Jahn w as exposed to leadership techniques that she

would not have been exposed to as a classroom teacher. Mr. Solz had no role

in that process.

35 . Ms. Jahn routinely attended monthly faculty meetings, which were

open to all faculty at GES. She was able to apply some of the faculty meetings

into credit for her MasterÔs Degree. S he w as require d to mark attenda nce and

document credit for every faculty m eeting . There was no evidence that

Mr. Solz was involved in that process.

36 . Ms. Jahn was an active participant in the faculty meetings , which may

have rubbed some less participatory teachers the wrong way , with witnesses

complaining that Mr. Solz gave undue weight to Ms. JahnÔs contributions, but

was dismissive of their comments, failing to take them Ñseriously.Ò The

evidence, such as it was, that Ms. Jahn was given some sort of preferential

treatment at the fac ulty meetings was not supported by a single specific

instance, but was ÑsupportedÒ by the fall - back phrase that Ñit was, again,

another one of the school - wide known fact.Ò Even if it was established that

Mr. Solz valued Ms. JahnÔ s input, such would not est ablish preferential

treatment. It is just as easy to draw the inference that Ms. JahnÔs statements

were more pertinent than others . The more credible testimony established

that Mr. Solz was not dismissive or disrespectful to any of the staff at faculty

mee tings . 4 The testimony that Mr. Solz afforded preferential treatment to

Ms. Jahn at faculty meetings lacked even basic credibility, and is not

accepted.

37 . Ms. Jahn also trained a teaching intern, Ms. H obbs. Ms. Hobbs was

effusive in her praise of Ms. Jah n, crediting her success and her teaching

style to Ms. JahnÔs tutelage. Because of Ms. JahnÔs success in mentoring

Ms. Hobbs, Ms. Hobbs was, by the end of the 2017 - 2018 school year, able to

handle the class on her own, which is the goal of a successful int ernship .

While the class was under Ms. HobbsÔ instruction, Ms. Jahn was able to leave

the classroom -- though not the campus .

38 . The evidence firmly established that Ms. Jahn set her goals high, and

took steps that were not easy to achieve those goals. There was no credible

evidence to suggest that she expected to be given anything by Mr. Solz or

anyone else. She was not, as intim ated by others, appointed to her duties by

Mr. Solz. By all credible accounts, she earned her accolades . Though others

reacted negatively , there was nothing to suggest that others were willing to

put in the effort, or that they had earned the respect neces sary to be selected

by their peers to one of the many available positions.

Allegations in the Administrative Complaint

A. During the 2017 - 2018 school year, Respondent engaged in a sexual

relationship with Brooke Jahn, a married teacher who was a direct re port to

Respondent.

4 Mr. So lz was more forceful; stating that the allegation he was dismissive or rude during

faculty meetings Ñis a lie, a purposeful lie.Ò

39 . As described, during the 2017 - 2018 school year, Ms. Jahn took on a

steady stream of jobs designed to advance her career. As a resul t , she met

often with members of the GES administration, including primarily

Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Sumner . The previous year she met frequently with

Dr. Smith. She also met with Mr. McKhan and Mr. Solz. There was nothing

in any of those meetings that contained even a whiff of impropriety.

40 . The 2017 - 2018 school year ended for teachers the first week of Jun e

2018. T eacher contract s end on the second day after the last day of school . If

a teacherÔs contract is renewed, the contract renewal become s effective on t he

first day of school in August for teachers. Ms. Jahn was not under contract

and did not work at GES over the summer. 5

41 . Ms. Jahn was not seeing Mr. Solz in anything other than a

professional capacity during the 2017 - 2018 school year. Despite the rumors ,

gossip, and innuendo bandie d about by several witnesses, there was

absolutely no competent, substantial, and credible evidence to support th at

Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn were engaged in any sort of romantic, much less

sexual, relationship at any time prior to the last day of classes durin g the

2017 - 2018 school year.

42 . By the time the 2017 - 2018 school year ended, Ms. Jahn had received

her MasterÔs Degree in Education Leadership and passed the FELE . She had

been a classroom teacher for eight years, and was starting to look for other

opport unities. However, for reasons related to the LCSD summer teacher

transfer polic y and postings, she had not yet done so.

43 . During this same period, difficulties in Ms. JahnÔs marriage began to

come to a head. The reasons are unimportant, except for the f act that they

had nothing to do with Mr. Solz.

5 Ms. Jahn had signed a contract for the coming school year, but it was pending board

approval. She was not working as a teach er at GES, but was slated to teach private

swimming lessons over the summer Ñ to make extra summer money .Ò

44 . In late May 2018, Mr. Solz became aware that the 2018 Instructional

Leadership Team Summer Institute was to be held over the weekend of

June 11 and 12, 2018, in Tampa, Florida. T he conference was limited to

25 principals from around the state. Mr. S olz applied, and was accepted. He

then realized that he could bring a qualified teacher leader from his school.

Since it was a l eadership c onference, leadership experience was a

prerequisite. The only people at GES who were not already administrators

and who were qualified were Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Jahn. 6

45 . Ms. Wyatt was already slated to attend the Superintend e ntÔs

Leadership Academy in Tallahassee . She did not want to pass it up because

she ha d applied for the assistant principal pool that year . P eople who were

interviewing applicants for the pool were leading that meeting , creating a

good networking opportunity for Ms. Wyatt .

46 . Mr. Solz invited the other leadership candidate, Ms. Jahn . He

extended the invitation for her family to attend as well, a common practice.

Ms. Jahn accepted the invitation . She had to rearrange swim ming lessons

and child care in order to attend, but did so because it was important to her

efforts to professionall y advance. Her husband could not attend for

professional reasons.

47 . Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn travelled separately to Tampa. By the time of

the conference, Ms. Jahn had come to the conclusion that her marriage was

heading for divorce. She took the opportuni ty to visit her sister in the Tampa

area. It was a stressful period .

48 . Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn arrived separately at the convention hotel on

Friday evening. Other tha n Mr. Solz assisting Ms. Jahn in getting checked in,

they had no contact with one another that evening.

49 . After the conference sessions on Saturday, Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn h ad

dinner as part of a group . It was, according to both, the first time they had

6 By this time, Mr. McKhan had been appointed and was serving as an assistant principal at

Pineview Elementary School.

ever been alone with one another. There was no evidence to the contrary.

During dinner, Ms. Jahn disclosed to Mr. Solz that she was having marital

difficulties, but no more.

50 . T he n ext morning , after a difficult conversation with her husband the

night before, Ms. Jahn came down from her room in obvious distress. She

indicated that she was having a Ñpanic attack.Ò Mr. Solz walked with her to

get coffee, talked with her, told her it would be OK , and g ave her an

Ñawkward side - ways hug.Ò He made sure she was engaged in the Sunday

conference sessio ns, which eased her anxiety.

51 . After the Sunday session was over, Ms. Jahn went back to

Tallahassee. Mr. Solz stayed for a while to meet with p rincipals he knew who

were coming in for a separate Florida s chool a dministrators conference . He

had dinner wit h several of his colleagues , a nd drove home.

52 . Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn did not see each other for several weeks after .

Mr. Solz visited family in Savannah for a week and, upon his return, had his

children for a week which entailed a trip to Disney World. Although

Ms. JahnÔs divorce was moving forward , she took a pre - planned cruise with

her then - husband and her children. Ho wever, during that period, Mr. Solz

and Ms. Jahn had begun to text one another and spoke on the phone. They

st arted to realize they had things in common, and might like to pursue a

relationship.

53 . Before they did anything to advance any sort of sexual relationship,

they mutually decided that Mr. Solz should self - report their interest to the

Superintendent. At that time, the ÑrelationshipÒ was all verbal and through

texts. Other than the Ñawkward side - ways hug,Ò there had been no physical

component to th e relationship. Mr. Solz testified credibly that when he met

with Superintendent Hanna on July 12, 2018 , Ñ I felt like we [he and

Ms. Jahn] had a friendship that was easily blossoming into a romantic

relationship. Ò 7

54 . Prior to their decision to self - report, Ms. Jahn had already decided she

needed to move from GES to diversify her experience to ultimately move out

of the classroom into administration . For a person holding an Education

Leadership degree, it is common know ledge that in order to advance , a

teacher must move around to different schools . Ms. Jahn had been

researching other opportunities with the LCSD, and had a pplied to be a

reading coach at Griffin Middle School , as well as several other less desirable

positi ons . On July 11, 2018 , and again on July 12, 2018, Ms. Jahn requested ,

in writing, a transfer from GES. In describing her interview with Ms. Jahn

on July 12, 2020 , Ms. Kraul testified that:

She indicated again that she wants an

administrative experience. She used the figure 150

percent leaving Gilchrist of her own free will. That

she wants a middle school experience and she was

very aware that she would not be eligible for an

assistant principal position straight out of the

classroom. That this was her tic ket to get more

experience.

Ms. Jahn also believed it w ould be easier for her to stand out professionally

at Griffin Middle School. Ms. Kraul testified that Ms. Jahn was waiting out

the LCSD teacher transfer period and Ñthat's, I believe, where she was wh en

I met with her in July.Ò

55 . There is not a shred of competent substantial evidence to suggest that

Ms. JahnÔs desire to transfer from GES was based on anything other than her

desire to pursue her long - held goal of moving from a classroom position into a

position in administration. There is no evidence that Ms. Jahn was pressured

7 Though not relevant to the specific allegations of this proceeding, i t merits

acknowledgement that Mr . Solz and Ms. Jahn have since married , and were married as of

the date of the final hearing.

into seeking the transfer, or that her requ est had anything to do with

Mr. Solz.

56 . On July 12, 2018, Mr. Solz reported to Superintendent Hanna that he

and Ms. Jahn were invo lved in a relationship that was becoming romantic.

They had not been Ñcaught.Ò There was no evidence that they knew of the

purported Ñanonymous emails . Ò 8 Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn were early in their

Ñromance , Ò having not yet passed out of the talking and texting stage. The

decision to report was a volitional act designed to avoid gossip and innuendo ,

and establish a path forward without Ñdirect reportÒ conflict . Mr. Solz was no t

even certain that he was required to report, since the LCSD fraternization

policy prohibited contact between staff and students , and the s exual

harassment policy dealt with Ñ unwelcomed Ò conduct. Nonetheless, Mr. Solz

decided to report their blossoming interest because it Ñ just felt like i t was the

right thing to do .Ò

57 . The evidence conclusively established, despite the suppositions and

gossip of others, that there was no sexual relationship between Mr. Solz and

Ms. Jahn prior to the July 12, 2018 , self - report.

58 . On July 18, 2018, Superintendent Hanna placed Mr. Solz on

administrative leave with pay. There was no competent, substantial, or

persuasive evidence to support a finding that, at the time of Mr. SolzÔs

suspension, he and Ms. Jahn had commenced a sexual r elationship.

8 The first Ñanonymous emailÒ was not received in evidence. The alleged recipient , Ms. Paul,

had no recollection of it, other than she forwarded it to Ms. McAllister. Ms. McAllister had

no recollection of receiving, reviewing, or forwarding the first email. Its contents are a

mystery. That alleged email has no evidentiary value. The s econd Ñanonymous emailÒ came

to Ms. Paul on July 15, 2018, and she forwarded it to Ms. McAllister and Superintendent

Hanna on July 16, 2018. The anonymous Ñformer [formal?] complaint by teachersÒ could not

have come from anyone with much knowledge of Ms. J ahn, since the ÑteachersÒ could not

even manage to get her name right, calling her ÑMrs. Garret.Ò Garrett is the first name of

Ms. JahnÔs ex - husband. As with the illusory first email, the second Ñanonymous emailÒ has

no evidentiary value.

59 . On August 31, 2018, Superintendent Hanna issued Respondent a

letter of reprimand which included reassignment of Mr. Solz as a Principal on

alternative assignment in the Department of Teaching and Learning.Ò 9

60 . T he allegation that Ñ[d] ur ing the 2017/2018 school year, Respondent

engaged in a sexual relationship with Brooke Jahn, a married teacher who

was a direct report to Respondent , Ò was not proven.

61 . Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts

alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3. of the Administrative

Complaint.

B. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher

Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees

thereby creating a hostile work environment. RespondentÔs preferential

treatment of Teacher Jahn included . . . training not offered or made

available to other teachers .

62 . This allegation is predicated on there having been a Ñrelationship.Ò

Since there was no relationship, the allegati on was not proven. However, in

addition, t here was no evidence that Respondent afforded Ms. Jahn

preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees. There

were only two other Ñ similarly situatedÒ employees who had the education

and the ambi tion to be considered for leadership roles at GES , Mr. McKhan

and Ms. Wyatt. By the time the more serious allegations in this case were

alleged to have occurred, Mr. McKhan had been assigned as Assistant

Principal at Pine view Elementary School .

9 Respondent ap pear s to argue that a negative inference should be drawn from Mr. SolzÔs

failure to file a grievance regarding the reprimand. A review of the letter shows it to have

involved an allegation of conduct in April 2018, which Ms. Kraul testified Ñwas nobodyÔs

b usiness what he did in his personal time, after hours,Ò and an allegation of use of electronic

media for non - educational purposes,Ò which was not an issue in this proceeding at all. Why

Mr. Solz elected not to grieve the reprimand was not explained, but no inference of

wrongdoing can be drawn. If anything, the decision not to grieve the letter could just as

easily be explained by its giving notice of his transfer as Principal that he had already

determined to be an acceptable alternative to allow his Ñbloss oming interestÒ in Ms. Jahn to

move forward.

63 . The testimony established that many of the opportunit i es provided to

Ms. Jahn came from Ms. Wyatt, her mentor ; Dr. Smith and Ms. Sumner ,

GES assistant principals; and from her peers , including her fellow grade - level

teachers and those on the SITE committee. Ex cept for the Instructional

Leadership Team Summer Institute, which came after the close of the 2017 -

2018 school year, and after Ms. Wyatt Ôs election to attend a different

conference , Mr. Solz made no assignments or invitations to Ms. Jahn.

Ms. Jahn earned the opportunities to advance her career. She was not ÑgivenÒ

those opportunities by Mr. Solz or anyone else at GES.

64 . Much of the testimony critical of the ÑrelationshipÒ between Mr. Solz

and Ms. Jahn came from employees who either could not or would not put in

the work to qualify for leadership positions . They did not seek to earn degrees

in Education Leadership, did not actively seek out extracurricular leadership

positions, and were not elected by th eir peers to leadership positions ,

including SITE Facilitator .

65 . The evidence established that the witnesses who provided many of the

statements that precipitated this proceeding were irritated by Mr. Solz for

any number of reasons: that they were Ñangr yÒ at Mr. Solz for being assigned

to teach in a portable classroom ; that Mr. Solz was monitoring their Facebook

posts ; that Mr. Solz used the iObservation system ÑagainstÒ them ; that they

were Ñformally written upÒ for infractions when other (non - comparable)

teachers were not ; or that they simply were not evaluated as highly as they

believed they deserved. 10 Much of the evidence provided in support of

PetitionerÔs case consisted of statements and testimony that were directed

10 It is not overlooked that the three primary witnesses offered by Petitioner to substantiate

wrongdoing by Mr. Solz were clearly antagonistic towards him, which pre - dated anything

alleged in this case. Ms. Vas que z testified that she and Mr. Solz Ñ had a history of -- very,

very hostile history ,Ò and she Ñ did not feel comfortable talking to Mr. Solz .Ò Ms. Baggett

exhibited obvious animosity, feeling the Mr. Solz Ñwas very dismissive,Ò and that

Ñ[p] rofessionally I don't respect his practice. Ò Ms. OÔBrien testified that during the period

from 2008 through May of 2018, Ñ Mr. Solz and I did not see eye - to - eye most of the time. Ò The

witnessesÔs antipathy towards Mr. Solz is not a primary basis for assign ing their test imony

little weight. However, it does nothing to bolster their credibility.

towards Mr. SolzÔs previ ous relationships, that were imprecise and

unsubstantiated gossip, or that were pure uncorroborated hearsay. The

allegations that Mr. Solz ÑappointedÒ Ms. Jahn to ÑTEC Rep., SITE

Facilitator, DAC, and Kdg. Team LeaderÒ were either based on ignorance of

the process or, more likely, a conscious misrepresentation of the criteria by

which those positions are filled.

66 . As to the only allegation that had any basis in fact -- Ms. JahnÔs

attendance at the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute -- the

com plaining teachers simply lacked the requisite leadership qualifications.

That was not the fault of either Mr. Solz or Ms. Jahn.

67 . There was not a s peck of competent, substantial evidence to establish

that Mr. Solz afforded Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to

similarly situated employees , including training not offered or made available

to other teachers. Given the facts of this case, it is fou nd that no rational

person could reasonably conclude that training opportunities provided by

GES administrators , including Mr. Solz, created a hostile work environment.

68 . Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts

alleged as a mate rial allegation in paragraph 3.a) of the Administrative

Complaint.

C. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher

Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees

thereby creating a hostile work environment. RespondentÔs preferential

treatment of Teacher Jahn included ... [having] Jahn accompany him on at

least one school related out of town trip without making the opportunity

available to other teachers.

69 . This allegation has been addressed in detail herein. In addition to the

fact that there was no Ñrelationship Ò when Mr. Solz invited Ms. Jahn to

attend the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute , t he evidence in

this case established, conclusively , that Mr. Solz did not afford Ms. Jahn

preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees.

Attendance at the conference was offered to Ms. Jahn as the only qualified

attendee since Ms. Wyatt had a conflicting leadership - based conference th at

drew her attention , and was based on absolutely no improper motive. Given

the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably

conclude that Mr. SolzÔs offer to Ms. Jahn to attend the conference (with her

family) created a hostil e work environment. 11

70 . Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts

alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.b) of the Administrative

Complaint.

D. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher

Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees

thereby creating a hostile work environment. RespondentÔs preferential

treatment of Teacher Jahn included ... [r]ules regarding supervision of

students [being] relaxed for Jahn as compared to other teachers.

71 . In addition to the fact that there was no Ñrelationship,Ò the evidence in

this case established, conclusively, that rules for supervision of students were

not relaxed for Ms. Jahn as compared to other teachers.

72 . The e vidence demo nstrates that Ms. Jahn went to various

administrative offices - - primarily those of Ms. Wyatt (her mentor) and

Ms. Sumner (her education leadership internship supervisor) , as well as that

of Dr. Smith the preceding year -- before school, at lunch , or during her

planning period.

73 . It is common for intern/student teachers to earn the right to ÑsoloÒ

teach a class. As Ms. JahnÔs intern, Ms. Hobbs, gained in competency, she

11 On a practical note, the conference was held in June of 2018, after the conclusion of the

2017 - 2018 school year for teachers . By the time teachers returned to campus in the fall ,

Mr. Solz had been transferred from GES. If Mr. Solz was able to creat e a hostile work

environment at GES from his post at the Department of Teaching and Learning , it would

have been quite a trick.

was allowed to take on more of the teaching responsibilities for Ms. JahnÔs

cla ss on her own, as was the goal . Finally, Ms. Jahn was able to leave the

classroom for periods of time , which gave Ms. Hobbs valuable experience and

confidence. However, the evidence establishes that Ms. Jahn did not abuse

her time during those periods , but was working at necessary and requested

school - related activities. The suggestion that there was some impropriety

involved when Ms. Jahn left Ms. Hobbs in charge is simply not supported.

74 . Ms. Baggett complained that she was Ñformally written upÒ (by the

Assistant Principal, not Mr. Solz) because she Ñleft [her] students

unsupervised.Ò Why she was disciplined is a matter between Ms. Baggett and

the Assistant Principal. However, that disciplin ary matter (which might also

explain her complained - of , less - than - stellar evaluation) does not establish

that Ms. Jahn violated any rules regarding supervision of students, does not

establish any other teacher as a valid comparator, and does not lend support

to the allegations in this case.

75 . Ms. Vasquez testifie d that Ms. Jahn left her class during the school

day, and Ñmade it known that she was getting her dog groomedÒ on one

occasion, and on another occasion Ñshe told me she was getting her hair

done.Ò Ms. Hobbs openly scoffed at the idea, a rejection that is s upported by

the record. Despite the hearsay nature of Ms. Vasquez Ôs testimony, it might

have retained some thin thread of credibility if it did not directly conflict with

her written statement provided during the investigation, in which she stated:

I had b een made aware of, several years ago, a

relationship with Jessica Scully . She was seen in

[Mr. SolzÔs] office quite frequently - and would talk openly

about the special treatment she was getting from David.

How David would allow her to leave school to run her

errands. She left school to get her dog groomed and told

several teachers that David knew where she was and

approved it. (emphasis added).

Either Mr. Solz is attracted to women with poorly - groomed dogs , or the

testimony regarding Ms. Jahn Ôs personal off - campus errands, including dog -

grooming , was a fabrication. The evidence supports the latter.

76 . There is no competent, substantial, and credible evidence to support a

finding that Ms. Jahn ever left her students with inadequate supervision,

that she e ver left campus to perform personal errands, or that she violated

any disciplinary standard regarding student supervision. There was not a

shred of evidence that Mr. Solz relaxed or disregarded any rules regarding

the supervision of students for Ms. Jahn a s compared to other teachers.

Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could

reasonably conclude that Mr. Solz relaxed any rules regarding supervision of

students for Ms. Jahn so as to create a hostile work environment.

77 . Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts

alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.c) of the Administrative

Complaint.

Summary

78 . The tone of the A dministrative C omplaint gives the impression that

Respondent and Ms. J ahn were carrying on a torrid sexual relationship from

the confines of RespondentÔs office , and that Mr. Solz was lavishing Ms. Jahn

with perquisites as the 2017 - 2018 school year was ongoing . Nothing could be

further from the truth. The facts show that Ms. Jahn had high professional

goals, and worked hard -- on her own -- to achieve them.

79 . The suggestion that Respondent favored Ms. Jahn to advance his

prurient interest in her, or that Ms. Jahn was using Respondent as a

stepping stone to some higher goal are equally unsupported, and equally

fallacious. The allegation that Mr. Solz engaged in harassment or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with any GES

employeeÔs performance of their professional or work responsibilities, or with

the ord erly processes of education, or that he undertook any action vis - a - vi s

Ms. Jahn that created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or

oppressive environment is simply not supported by the facts of this case. 12

C ONCLUSIONS O F L AW

A. Jurisdiction

80 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this proceeding and of t he parties thereto pursuant to

s ections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2016) .

B. Standards

81 . Section 1012.795(1), which establishes t he violations that subject a

holder of an educator certificate to disciplinary sanctions , provides , in

pertinent part, that :

(1) The Education Practices Commission may

suspend the educator certificate of any person as

defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) for up to 5 years,

thereby denying that person the right to teach or

otherwise be employed by a district school board or

public school in any capacity requiring direct

contact with students for that period of time, after

which the holder may return to teac hing as

provided in subsection (4); may revoke the educator

certificate of any person, thereby denying that

person the right to teach or otherwise be employed

by a district school board or public school in any

capacity requiring direct contact with student s for

up to 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the

provisions of subsection (4); may revoke

permanently the educator certificate of any person

thereby denying that person the right to teach or

otherwise be employed by a district school board or

public school in any capacity requiring direct

12 The undersigned recognizes that the factual outcome of this case was not a close call.

However, that should not be seen as a reflection on counsel for either party. The undersigned

recognizes both Mr. Weaver and Mr. Webster as upholding the highest standards of

professionalism. This case rested solely on the credibility of witnesses and the weight of

testimony. As is the nature of the legal profession, one represented a successful client, and

one an unsuccessful client. Nonetheless, the undersigned would be remiss in failing to

acknowledge that b oth counsel re presented their clients ably and skillfully.

contact with students; may suspend the educator

certificate, upon an order of the court or notice by

the Department of Revenue relating to the

payment of child support; or may impose any other

penalty provided by la w, if the person:

* * *

(j) Has violated the Principles of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by

State Board of Education rules.

82 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081( 2 )( c ) 4. provides that:

(2) Florida educators shall comply with the

following disciplinary principles. Violation of any of

these principles shall subject the individual to

revocation or suspension of the individual

educatorÔs certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

* * *

(c) Obligation to the profession of education

requires that the individual:

* * *

4. Shall not engage in harassment or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably

interferes with an individualÔs performance of

professional or work responsibilities or with the

orderly processes of education or which creates a

hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or

oppressive environment; and, further, shall make

reasonable effort to assure that each individual is

protected from such harassment or discrimination.

C. Burden and St andard of Proof

83 . Petitioner bears the burden of proving the specific allegations of

wrongdoing that support the charges alleged in the Administrative

Complaint by clear and convincing evidence before disciplinary action may be

taken against the professional license of a teacher . Tenbroeck v. Castor ,

640 So. 2d 164, 167 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1994); § 120.57(1)(j), Fla . Stat . ; see also

DepÔt of Banking & Fin. , Div. of Sec. & Inv. Prot. v. Osborne Stern and Co. ,

670 S o. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987);

Pou v. DepÔt of Ins. and Treas . , 707 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

84 . Clear and convincing evidence Ñrequires more proof than a

Ópreponderance of the evidenceÔ but less than Óbeyond and to the exclusion of a

reasonable doubt.ÔÒ In re Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). The clear

and convincing evidence level of proof

[E] ntails both a qualitative and quantitative

standard. The evidence must be credible; the

memories of the witnesses must be clear and

without confusion; and the sum total of the

evidence must be of sufficient weight to convince

the trier of fact without hesitancy.

C lear and convincing evidence requires that the

evidence must be f ound to be credible; the facts

to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly

remembered; the testimony must be precise and

explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in

confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence

must be of such weight that it pro duces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of

the allegations sought to be established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994) ( quoting, with approval,

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ) ; see also In re

Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005). "Although this standard of proof may

be met where the evidence is in conflict, it seems to preclude evidence that is

ambiguous." Westinghouse Electric Corp., Inc. v. Shuler Bros., Inc. , 590 So. 2d

986, 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

85 . Sec tion 1012.795 is penal in nature and must be strictly construed ,

with any ambiguity construed against Petitioner. Penal statutes must be

construed in terms of their literal meaning, and words used by the

Legislature may not be expanded to broaden the application of such statutes.

Latham v. Fl a . CommÔ n on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also

Beckett v. DepÔt of Fin. S ervs . , 982 So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008 ) ; Dyer v.

DepÔt of Ins. & Treas . , 585 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

D. Administrative Complaint - Section 1012.795(1 )(j)

86 . T he Administrative Complaint charge d Respondent with violating

section 1012.795(1)(j) by having violated the Principles of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education

Rules. Thus, Count 1 does not co nstitute an independent violation, but

rather is dependent upon a corresponding violation of the rules constituting

the Principles of Professional Conduct.

E. Administrative Complaint - Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A -

10.081(2)( c )4.

87 . The Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with violating rul e

6A - 10.081( 2 )( c ) 4. , which provides that Florida educators:

[s]hall not engage in harassment or discriminatory

conduct which unreasonably interfered with an

individualÔs performance of pr ofessional or work

responsibilities or with the orderly process of

education or which created a hostile, intimidating,

abusive, or oppressive environment, and further,

failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each

individual was protected from such harassment or

discrimination.

88 . T he evidence in this case demonstrates that Respondent did not

engage in a sexual relationship with Ms. Jahn during the 2017 - 2018 school

year while Ms. Jahn was a direct report to Mr. Solz . The evidence

demonstrates that Mr. Solz took reasonable measures to notify the LCSD

Superintendent of his interest in Ms. Jahn before engaging in a relationship

that was much more than text messages and telephone calls . The evidence

demonstrates that Mr. Solz w as willing to transfer from GES to avoid any

appearance of improper conduct.

89 . It is PetitionerÔs burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing

evidence, that Respondent engaged in the specific conduct alleged in the

Administrative Complaint. Gossip, anonymous emails, supposition, and

speculation from witnesses whose credibility i s lacking d id not meet that

burden of proof. An interest in pursuing a relationship is not a relationship,

and g uessing and inferring as to when Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn may have

begun what has become a lasting relationship cannot substitute for

competent, su bstantial, and persuasive evidence.

90 . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

during the 2017 - 2018 school year, Respondent engaged in a sexual

relationship with Ms. Jahn, a married teacher who was a direct report to

Respondent, in violation of r ule 6A - 10.081( 2 )( c ) 4. , or that Respondent

violated the Principles of Professional Conduct as set forth in s ection

1012.795(1)(j) .

91 . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent afforded Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to

similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment

during the 2017 - 2018 school year, in violation of rule 6A - 10.081(2)( c )4., or

that Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct as set forth

in section 1012.795(1)(j).

92 . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent provided training to Ms. Jahn not offere d or made available to

other qualified, eligible, or similarly situated teachers during the 2017 - 2018

school year, in violation of rule 6A - 10.081(2)( c )4., or that Respondent violated

the Principles of Professional Conduct as set forth in section 1012.795(1 )(j).

93 . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent had Ms. Jahn accompany him on at least one school related out

of town trip without making the opportunity available to other qualified or

similarly situated teachers wh o were educationally eligible to attend a

Leadership Conference , or that any qualified teacher was passed over in

favor of Ms. Jahn . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing

evidence, that the training seminar in question was offered to Ms. Jahn by

Respondent in furtherance of any romantic or sexual interest in Ms. Jahn, in

violation of rule 6A - 10.081(2)( c )4., or that Respondent violated the Principles

of Professional Conduct as set forth in section 1012.795(1)(j).

94 . Petitioner failed to p rove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent relaxed rules regarding supervision of students for Ms. Jahn, as

compared to other teachers, in violation of rule 6A - 10.081(2)( c )4., or that

Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct as set forth in

section 1012.795(1)(j).

95 . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which

unreasonably interfered with an individualÔs performance of professional or

work responsibilities, or with the orderly process of education d uring the

2017 - 2018 school year , in violation of rule 6A - 10.081(2)( c )4., or that

Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct as set forth in

section 1012.795(1)(j).

96 . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent engaged in conduct, with Ms. Jahn or otherwise, that created a

hostile, intimidating, abusive, or oppressive environment at GES during the

2017 - 2018 school year, in violation of rule 6A - 10.081(2)( c )4., or that

Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct as set forth in

section 1012.795(1)(j).

97 . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual at

GES was protected from harassment or discrimination during the 2017 - 2018

school year, in violation of rule 6A - 10.081(2)( c )4., or that Respondent violated

the Principles of Professional Conduct as set forth in secti on 1012.795(1)(j).

R ECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the F indings of F act and C onclusions of L aw

reached herein , it is

R ECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its

entirety.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 21st day of September , 20 20 , in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

S

E. G ARY E ARLY

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 21st day of September , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

(eServed)

Stephen G. Webster, Esquire

Law Office of Stephen G. Webster, LLC

Suite 5

1615 Village Square Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

(eServed)

Lisa M. Forbess, Program Specialist IV

Education Practices Commission

325 West Gaines Street, Room 316

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Bonnie Ann Wilmot, Esquire

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Randy Ko sec, Jr., Chief

Office of Professional Practices Services

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 224 - E

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

N OTICE O F R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended

Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.