20-004020PL Richard Corcoran, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Thomas Christopher Masters Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, January 4, 2021.

Summary: Petitioner proved the violation charged in the Administrative Complaint. Recommend 30 day suspension followed by probation.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On March 31, 20 20 , Petitioner, Richard Corcoran, as Commissioner of

Education (“Petitioner” or “Commissioner”), filed an Administrative

Complaint against Resp ondent, alleging violations of section 1012.795(1)(j)

and rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1. Respondent timely filed an Election of Rights

form, disputing the allegations and requesting a hearing.

On September 8, 2020, the Education Practices Commission (“EPC”)

refe rred this matter to the Division for assignment of an ALJ . The

undersigned scheduled this matter for final hearing on November 9, 2020 .

Prior to the final hearing, the parties filed a Joint Pre - hearing Statement,

in which they stipulated to the Amended Ad ministrative Complaint. The

Administrative Complaint was amended by striking paragraph 4 and counts

3 and 4, and striking the word “ sit - ups ” in paragraph 3 and inserting the

word “ push - ups. ” In addition, to the extent relevant, the parties' stipulated

fact s have been incorporated in the findings below.

On November 9, 2020, the undersigned conducted the final hearing.

Petitioner presented the testimony of: Justin William Palesotti (President of

St. Johns Middle School Athletic Association “SJMSAA”) ; Randy K osec (EPC

investigator); J.M.; S . W . (parent of J.M.) ; and student S.P. The undersigned

admitted Petitioner’s Exhibits 5 through 8 in evidence. Respondent testified

on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Amber Rewis Phillips ;

Bettina Timmerman ; Rh ieanna DeGrande ; Judge Robert K. Mathis (ret.) ;

John Samuels ; Ivey Brown ; and Gina Gonzalez. Respondent did not offer any

exhibits.

The two - volume Transcript was filed with the Division on December 3,

2020. The parties timely filed P roposed Recommended O rders (PROs), which

have been considered in preparation of this Recommended Order.

Except where otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida Statutes in

this Recommended Order are to the 2018 edition. See McCloskey v. Dep’t of

Fin. Servs. , 115 So. 3d 441, 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)(holding that statutes

and rules in effect at the time of the allegations apply, unless otherwise

specified).

During the testimony of Mr. Kosec, Respondent objected to testimony of

communications between Mr. Masters and Mr. Kosec during the investigation of this matter and requested that the testimony about the

communication be stricken because Mr. Masters was represented by

undersigned counsel in a pending case over the same subject matter.

The undersigned heard argument f rom both parties and reserved ruling

on Petitioner’s objection. Respondent argued that the content of those communications related to matters that were previously presented to the ALJ

in case number 19 - 6071PL. Petitioner argued Respondent should have

invok ed his right to counsel before speaking to Mr. Kosec. The undersigned

directed the parties to produce any support for their respective positions in

their PROs . Respondent’s argument is incorporated herein.

1 Based on the

undersigned’s review of the record, Respondent’s objection is overruled.

1 “Masters’ r ight to counsel was violated when the Petitioner enacted a policy or practice that

allowed Kosec to have an ex parte conversation with Masters. During the informal

conference, Masters made representations to Kosec. Masters did not know that Kosec was an

in vestigator and that his communication could be used against him in the DOE’s

investigation.”

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, the

following F indings of F act are made:

Background

1. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 743504, covering the

areas o f Elementary Education and Physical Education, which is valid

through June 30, 2024.

2. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida

Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting

allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator

certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible

for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to

chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complai nt.

3. Since 1994, Respondent has been responsible for the care and

development of elementary school - aged children. He became certified to teach

elementary education in Florida in 1995, and at that time began teaching physical education (P.E.) for the Arch diocese of Miami. In approximately

1999, Respondent was certified in P.E. He taught P.E. for 19 years and theology for one year. He was the Athletic Director for 18 of those 20 years.

4. In 2015, Respondent relocated from S outh Florida to St. Johns County

to assist with the care of his mother after his father’s passing. He taught P . E .

in the St. Johns County School District ( SJCSD ) from 2015 through 2019.

5. At the time of the allegations in the Amended Administrative

Complaint, Respondent was employed as a P .E. Teacher at W.D. Hartley

Elementary School in the SJCSD . Mr. Masters also served as the volunteer

coach for the Gamble Rogers Middle School girl’s softball team, also known as

the Gamble Rogers Stingrays.

6. The SJMSAA is an independent, private non - profit corporation.

SJMSAA uses district middle school names and facilities under a license

agreement with the district. SJMSAA is solely responsible for the operation

of the SJMSAA middle school sports programs and their individual teams.

The organizatio n’s mission is to promote community citizenship, good

sportsmanship, and physical and mental development through healthy,

organized competition ’ and team work for 12 to 15 - year - old middle school

students.

7. SJMSAA is responsible for operation of the spor ts programs for 13

middle school sports teams and seven different sports. Thus, all middle school

students from various schools within the district may participate in sports.

The sports the SJMSAA oversees are: football, baseball, softball, golf, tennis,

c heer, and soccer.

8. Middle school students J.M., H.B., and S.P. were on the SJMSAA girls’

softball team Respondent coached.

Allegations in the Complaint

9. The allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint took place

during softball practice and did not involve any of Respondent’s students at

Hartley. The allegations stem from a complaint made by the mother of J.M.

(softball team member).

10. At the time of the incident, J.M. was a middle school student at

Gamble Rogers and a member of the softba ll team within SJMSAA. She was

13 years ol d at the time of the incident. J.M. is n ow a 15 - year - old high school

student.

11. On April 3, 2018, J.M. told Mr. Masters that her stomach hurt because

she did not have “ [any] food in her stomach.” Mr. Masters th en asked other

players if they had any food that he could give J.M. Since none of the players

had food, Mr. Masters gave J.M. a soda from his car to help her feel better.

Shortly after she drank the soda, J.M. returned to practice.

12. Before practice, Mr . Masters told the girls that they must do push - ups

if they drop the ball. While throwing the ball with her partner, J.M. dropped

the ball. J.M. then positioned herself to do the push - ups. Since the push - ups

were modified, her hands and knees were on the g round.

13. J.M. testified that while doing the push - ups, Mr. Masters kicked her in

the stomach and placed his foot on her back. She was confused and

embarrassed because she did not expect him to kick her. J.M. didn’t say

anything after the incident, but rather, she looked at Mr. Masters with a

shocked facial expression. Shortly thereafter, she returned to practice. She remained in practice for the duration, which was approximately 1.5 to

two hours.

14. J.M. stated that the kick caused her stomach to hur t more , increasing

the pain to 9 out of 10, with 10 being the highest level of pain. However, there

was no evidence offered to establish the level of stomach pain before the

incident.

15. J.M.’s teammates , S.P. and H.B. , witnessed the incident. Before

pra ctice, J.M. told S.P. that she was not feeling well. Later , during warm - ups,

she was standing nearby when J.M. dropped the ball. While J.M. was doing the requisite push - ups, S.P. witnessed Mr. Masters kick J.M. in the stomach.

S.P. was shocked and believed Mr. Masters ’ actions were wrong. S.P. did not

see Mr. Masters place his foot on J.M.’s back.

16. H.B. did not testify at the hearing. However, she provided a written

statement to described what she witnessed on the date of the incident.

Similar to S.P. , H.B. stated that Mr. Masters kicked J.M. in the stomach

while she was doing push - ups. Although the statement is hearsay, it further

explains and is corroborated by admissible evidence in this matter.

17. S.W. arrived late to practice to pick - up her daugh ter, J.M. S.W.

recalled that her daughter seemed as if she was not as engaged as the other team members. J.M. told her mother that M r . Masters kicked her and placed

his foot on her back while she was doing push - ups. S.W. observed that her

daughter was “ver y upset” about the incident. S .W. believed Mr. Masters ’

placement of his feet on J.M. was disrespectful. S.W. contacted the SJMSAA

commissioner to report what happened to her daughter .

18. Justin Palesotti, the President of the SJMSAA, received a complai nt

from S.W. that Mr. Masters had inappropriately touched her daughter.

Mr. Palesotti approached Mr. Masters before a softball game and asked him

about the complaint. Mr. Masters told Mr. Palesotti that he swept his foot

underneath J.M. while she was doing push - ups to confirm the student had

space between her stomach and above the ground. After the discussion,

Mr. Palesotti asked for Mr. Masters ’ resignation, and he complied.

19. Mr. Masters disputes J.M.’s complaint. He testified that J.M. arrived

at pr actice and she did not look well. She told Mr. Masters that she was not

feeling well because she had not eaten all day. He did not have snacks and

none of the other girls had snacks, so he gave her a soda that he had in his

car. After giving her the soda, he gave her the option to return to practice

when she could.

20. During warm - ups he told the girls that they would need to do three

push - ups if they dropped the ball. J.M. and other players had to do push - ups.

When J.M. had to do push - ups she had already dr u nk the soda. As J.M. was

doing push - ups, he was being silly to help change her mood, and “pretended

to fake kick her under her stomach.” J.M. unexpectedly “came down onto his

foot.” She then gave him a look to communicate , “are you kidding me ? ” He

was not trying to harm J.M., but , rather, he was “kidding” with her to lighten

her mood. His attempt to make J.M. feel better was not well received.

21. While he acknowledged that his foot made contact with J.M.’s

stomach, he denied placing his foot on J.M.’ s back.

Character Witnesses

22. The allegations were a surprise to Respondent’s character witnesses

who disagreed that he would kick a student.

23. Ms. Ivey Brown, the assistant softball coach at the time, testified that

Mr. Masters enjoyed coaching. Sh e had never witnessed Respondent kick a

student.

24. Likewise, John Samuels who coached basketball with Mr. Masters for

a few weeks at Hartley only observed positive interactions with students.

Mr. Samuels described Mr. Masters as a compassionate coach wh o helped

improve the player’s self - esteem.

25. Ms. Gonzalez, another assistant coach and former player coached by

Respondent, testified that Respondent was always positive and encouraged

players. Even at a time when players were disciplined, including he rself, he

spoke to them with compassion.

2 6 . St. Johns County Circuit Court Judge Mathis (ret.) met Mr. Masters in

2016. Judge Mathis volunteered to help coach the basketball team , of which

his grandson was a member, and observed Respondent regularly int eract

with the students. Judge Mathis testified that Respondent had positive

interactions with students, even the student s who may have been difficult.

He also had a reputation for helping people.

Disciplinary History

2 7 . Although he had favorable experie nces about other students, this is

not the first time Mr. Masters has been subject to allegations of inappropriate

contact with students. Mr. Masters was disciplined for a prior incident in

Richard Corcoran, as Comm issione r of Educ ation , Case No. 19 - 6071PL , (Fla.

DOAH Apr. 28 , 2020; Fla. DOE Oct . 7, 2020), for his actions, filed on

September 16, 2020. 2 Respondent was issued a reprimand, placed on

probation for 12 months, and required to pay administrative costs of $150.00.

Ultimate F indings of F act

2 8 . Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that

Respondent’s foot made contact with J.M.’s stomach.

2 9 . While the undersigned acknowledges J.M.’s recollection of Mr. Masters

placing his foot on her back, the other witnesses present did not recall this

and Respondent disputes it. While the possibility exists that Mr. Masters

placed his foot on J.M.’s back, J.M.’s uncorroborated statement is not

sufficient, without more, to establish by clear and convincing evidence that

Respondent placed his foot on her back.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

30 . The Division has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of

this case pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1).

31 . Respondent is substantially affected by Petitioner’s intended decision

to discipli ne his Florida educator’s certificate and has standing to maintain

this proceeding.

2 The incidents in Richard Corcoran, as Comm issione r of Educ ation , Case No. 19 - 6071PL,

(Fla. DOAH Apr. 28 , 2020; Fla. DOE Oct . 7, 2020), occurred in November 2018 and involved

findings as follows:

60. It is found that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing

evidence that Respondent inappropriately lifted a female

student off the ground and turned her upside down in an

attempt to get her to stop crying. Petitione r also proved by

clear and convincing evidence that during the 2018 - 2019

school year, Respondent repeatedly embarrassed B.P., a six -

year - old male student, by referring to B.P. as "Big Head."

None of the other allegations contained in the Administrative

Com plaint were proven by clear and convincing evidence.

(footnote omitted) .

3 2 . The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency

charged with the certification and regulation of Florida educators pursuant to

chapter 1012.

3 3 . This is a proceeding in which Petitioner seeks to impose discipline

against Respondent’s educator certification. As a result, Petitioner bears the

burden of proving the specific allegations of wrongdoing that support the

charges alleged in the Amended Administrat ive Complaint before

disciplinary action may be taken against the professional license of a teacher.

Tenbroeck v. Castor , 640 So. 2d 164, 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Because

disciplinary proceedings are considered penal in nature, Petitioner must

prove the al legations in the Amended Administrative Complaint by clear and

convincing evidence. Dep’t of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So.

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

3 4 . Clear and convincing evidence “requires mo re proof than a

‘preponderance of the evidence’ but less than ‘beyond and to the exclusion of a

reasonable doubt.’” In re Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). As stated

by the Florida Supreme Court:

Clear and convincing evidence requires that the

ev idence must be found to be credible; the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and

lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The

evidence must be of such a weight that it produces 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 DC A 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 Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. Inc. , 590 So. 2d 986 ,

989 (Fla. 1991).

3 5 . Section 1012.796 describes the disciplinary process for educators, and

provides in pertinent part:

(6) Upon the finding of probable cause, the

commissioner shall file a formal complaint and prosecute the complaint pursuant to the pro visions

of chapter 120. An administrative law judge shall

be assigned by the Division of Administrative

Hearings of the Department of Management Services to hear the complaint if there are disputed issues of material fact. The administrative law judge shal l make recommendations in accordance

with the provisions of subsection (7) to the appropriate Education Practices Commission panel which shall conduct a formal review of such recommendations and other pertinent information and issue a final order. The comm ission shall

consult with its legal counsel prior to issuance of a final order.

(7) A panel of the commission shall enter a final

order either dismissing the complaint or imposing

one or more of the following penalties:

(a) Denial of an application for a teaching

certificate or for an administrative or supervisory

endorsement on a teaching certificate. The denial

may provide that the applicant may not reapply for certification, and that the department may refuse to consider that applicant’s application, for a

specified period of time or permanently.

(b) Revocation or suspension of a certificate.

(c) Imposition of an administrative fine not to

exceed $2,000 for each count or separate offense.

(d) Placement of the teacher, administrator, or superviso r on probation for a period of time and

subject to such conditions as the commission may

specify, including requiring the certified teacher,

administrator, or supervisor to complete additional appropriate college courses or work with another certified educ ator, with the administrative costs of

monitoring the probation assessed to the educator

placed on probation.

(e) Restriction of the authorized scope of practice of

the teacher, administrator, or supervisor.

(f) Reprimand of the teacher, administrator, or

supervisor in writing, with a copy to be placed in

the certification file of such person.

(g) Imposition of an administrative sanction, upon a person whose teaching certificate has expired, for

an act or acts committed while that person

possessed a te aching certificate or an expired

certificate subject to late renewal, which sanction bars that person from applying for a new certificate for a period of 10 years or less, or permanently.

(h) Refer the teacher, administrator, or supervisor to the recover y network program provided in

s. 1012.798 under such terms and conditions as the

commission may specify.

3 6 . Charges in a disciplinary proceeding must be strictly construed, with

any ambiguity construed in favor of the licensee. Elmariah v. Dep’t of Prof ’l

Reg. , 574 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Taylor v. Dep’t of Prof’l Reg. ,

534 So. 2d 782, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Disciplinary statutes and rules must

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

Legislature may not be exp anded to broaden their application . Beckett v.

Dep’t of Fin. Servs. , 982 So. 2d 94, 99 - 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Dyer v. Dep’t

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

3 7 . The allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complain t

are those upon which this proceeding is predicated. Trevisani v. Dep’t of

Health , 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Cottrill v. Dep’t of Ins. ,

685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Due process prohibits Petitioner

from taking disciplinary a ction against a licensee based on matters not

specifically alleged in the charging instruments, unless those matters have

been tried by consent. See Shore Vill. Prop. Owner’s Ass’n , Inc. v. Dep’t of

Envtl. Prot. , 824 So. 2d 208, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); De lk v. Dep’t of Prof’l

Reg. , 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

3 8 . The Amended Administrative Complaint seeks to discipline

Respondent on charges that he violated section 1012.795(1)(j), in pertinent

part, as follows:

(1) The Education Practices Com mission 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 d irect contact with students for that period of time, after

which the holder may return to teaching 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 students for up to 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); may revoke

permanently the educator certificate of any person

thereby denyin g 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; may suspend the educator certificate, upon an order of the court or notice by

the Department of Re venue relating to the

payment of child support; or may impose any other penalty provided by law, if the person:

* * *

(j) Has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.

39 . Count 1 cannot constitute an independent violation, but rather is

dependent upon a corresponding violation of the rules constituting the

Principles of Professional Conduct.

4 0 . Counts 2 and 3 of the Administrative Complaint seeks to discipline

Responden t on charges that he violated rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1 . , 3 which states:

(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 indivi dual

educator’s certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

a) Obligation to the student requires that the

individual:

1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the

student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health

and/or safety.

4 1 . Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Respondent violated rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1., in that Respondent failed to

make a reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to

t he student’s mental health, physical health, and safety.

4 2 . Respondent argued in his PRO that he did not kick J.M. , and stated:

The evidence is undisputed and uncontradicted

that Masters swung his leg under JM, and JM

lowered herself onto the top of Mast ers’ foot.

Palosetti did not believe that Masters’ forcefully

kicked JM. He believed that Masters swept his foot

under JM to see if there was space between JM and

the ground during a push - up. Parents,

grandparents, colleagues and a former student

testified that it was not in Masters’ character to

kick a student such that it would be harmful to the

student.

3 Rule 6A - 10.081 was transferred from Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1.006 on

January 11, 2013. The penalty guidelines rule continues to cite to rule 6B - 1.006 in setting

penalty ranges. Rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1. is substantively similar to the last iteration of rule

6B - 1.006(3)(a). Since the facts alleged and the text of the rule allegedly violated were clear

for Count 2, and since there is no evidence that Respondent was misled or h armed by the

citation in the penalty guidelines to a rule that is no longer in effect as numbered, the

penalty guideline in rule 6B - 11.007(2)(i)16. shall be applied to the violation of rule 6A -

10.081(2)(a)1.

4 3 . However, using your foot to engage in any kicking motion , false or

otherwise, resulting in your making contact with a student’s stomach violates

rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1. Although Respondent firmly explains that he was

kidding around and did not intend to harm the student, his actions fell short

of the standard of making a reasonable effort to protect students.

Recommended Penalty

4 4 . Florida Administra tive Code Rule 6B - 11.007(2)(j)1. establishes the

range of penalties for various violations of section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A -

10.081(2)(a)1., as follows:

(2) The following disciplinary guidelines shall apply

to violations of the below listed statutory a nd rule

violations and to the described actions which may be basis for determining violations of particular statutory or rule provisions. Each of the following disciplinary guidelines shall be interpreted to

include “probation,” “Recovery Network Program,”

“restrict scope of practice,” “fine,” and

“administrative fees and/or costs” with applicable terms thereof as additional penalty provisions in each case in which neither a suspension or

revocation is imposed, the penalty shall include a

letter of repriman d. The terms “suspension” and

“revocation” shall mean any length of suspension or revocation, including permanent revocation, permitted by statute, and shall include comparable

denial of an application for an educator’s

certificate.

* * *

(j) Violating the Principles of Professional Conduct in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(j), F.S., by:

1. Failing to make reasonable effort to protect the

student from conditions harmful to learning and/or

to the student’s mental and/or physical health

and/or safety [ subparagraph 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1.,

F.A.C.] Probation – Revocation. [ 4 ]

4 5 . Rule 6B - 11.007(3) establishes aggravating and mitigating factors to be

applied to penalties calculated under the guidelines, which provides, in

pertinent part, as follows:

(3) Based up on consideration of aggravating and

mitigating factors present in an individual case, the

Commission may deviate from the penalties

recommended in subsection (2). The Commission

may consider the following as aggravating or

mitigating factors:

* * *

e) The number of times the educator has been

previously disciplined by the Commission;

(f) The length of time the educator has practiced

and the contribution as an educator[.]

4 6 . Under the facts found herein, the penalty to be imposed on

Respondent is mitigat ed by two factors set forth in rule 6B - 11.007(3),

including the length of time as an educator and number of times previously

disciplined.

4 7 . Respondent has been a teacher for 23 years. The evidence established

that throughout his teaching career, Responde nt has been a compassionate

and dedicated educator, and has meaningfully contributed to the lives of his

students. He also has a reputation for being protective of children in his

interaction with them.

4 8 . The evidence established that Respondent has been previously

disciplined by the EPC and the discipline was for events similar to those at

4 ate of incident, April 3, 2018, were the rules The disciplinary guidelines in effect on the d

which became effective April 9, 2009. The rules were amended shortly after the incident but

did not become effective until May 29, 2018.

issue in this matter. However, the actions occurred prior to the discipline

imposed.

49 . Petitioner argues Respondent’s educator’s certificate should be

revoked for t wo years from the date of the final order, and that Respondent

be placed on probation for a period of two years after his revocation, to send a

message of the serious nature of his actions. However, there should be

recognition and consideration of the de f acto suspension already served as

Mr. Masters has not worked as a teacher for, approximately , one year.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order

finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A -

10.081(2)(a)1., that Respondent receive a Reprimand, and that he be placed

on suspension for 30 days, followed by probation for a period of 12 months

following reinstatement, with co nditions of probation to be determined by the

Education Practices Commission.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 4th day of January , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

Y OLONDA Y. G REEN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSot o 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 4th day of January , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Lisa For bess, Interim Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 316

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Heidi B . Parker, Esquire

Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A.

2nd Floor

231 East Colonial Drive

Orlando, Florida 32801

(eServed)

Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Talla hassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Randy Kosec, 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 OF 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.