#267-R2-887 .tx.us



#267-R2-887 --

DOCKET NO. 267-R2-887

GEORGE TAPLIN + BEFORE THE STATE

+

+

+

+ COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

V. +

+

FORT WORTH INDEPENDENT +

SCHOOL DISTRICT + THE STATE OF TEXAS

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

Statement of the Case

Petitioner George Taplin appeals the decision of the

Fort Worth Independent School District board of trustees,

Respondent, to terminate his employment.

By the agreement of the parties, the appeal was

submitted on the local record for a substantial evidence

review. Joan Howard Allen is the Hearing Officer appointed

by the State Commissioner of Education. Petitioner is

represented by Michael P. Heiskell, Attorney at Law, Fort

Worth, Texas. Respondent is represented by David Chappell

and Jo Ann Wright, Attorneys at Law, Fort Worth, Texas.

On December 9, 1988, the Hearing Officer issued a

Proposal for Decision recommending to the State Commissioner

of Education that Petitioner's appeal be denied. No

exceptions were filed.

Findings of Fact

After due consideration of the evidence and matters

officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of

Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:

1. Petitioner was employed as a vice-principal at

Eastern Hills High School. (T. I:324).

2. Members of the custodial staff reported to

Petitioner that in the summer of 1986, a coach and a student

were seen having sex on school grounds. A second encounter

between a teacher and an ex-student which occurred in

December, 1987 was also reported to Petitioner. (T. I:301,

II:114). Petitioner did not report these allegations to his

principal as required by his job duties. (T. I:325, I:345,

Taplin Ex. G).

3. At the 1985 Valentine's Day dance, Petitioner

kissed a sophomore student, Student on the lips. (T.

I:32, I:36, I:42). During the fall of 1986, when Student

was an aide for Petitioner, Petitioner commented to the

student that she could make a good man go bad and that high

school students were too young for her. (T. I:34, I:35,

I:36). On March 26, 1987, Petitioner hugged and kissed

Student (T. I:36, I:38).

4. In the fall of 1986, Petitioner asked Student to

be his office aide. (T. I:62). On several occasions,

Petitioner hugged and kissed sixteen year old Student and

told her that she turned him on and that he was going to

make love to her. (T. I:61, I:64-65, I:66). Petitioner

often drove Student home after school and on one occasion

took her instead to his house where he laid her on the bed

and fondled her. (T. I:68-69). Student did not come

forward with this information; someone named her as a

potential victim and her testimony was sought. (T.

I:90-91).

5. Petitioner kissed Student, then a ninth grader,

several times on the lips while counseling her. (T.

I:153-154). During one session, Petitioner asked Student

if he would ever get a chance to have sex with her. (T.

I:155). In the spring of 1986, Student confided to the

band director that Petitioner was pursuing her; later, she

told the director that she had had sex with Petitioner. (T.

I:102-103, I:108-109, I:127).

6. When Student was a junior and was assigned to

be Petitioner's office assistant, she contacted Petitioner

on numerous occasions asking to come to Petitioner's house.

(T. I:156). Petitioner declined to invite Student to

his home several times; however, Petitioner eventually

permitted Student to visit his house, where he hugged

the student. (T. I:158). The next week, Student coaxed

Petitioner into having sexual intercourse with her.

Petitioner and Student engaged in similar activities on

other occasions. (T. I:158-159).

7. Student was also an office aide for Petitioner.

(T. I:236). Petitioner commented to Shanna, then a

freshman, that she could make a good man go bad. (T.

I:231-232). During Student sophomore and junior years,

Petitioner touched Student on her buttocks, breasts and other

parts of her body and hugged and kissed her. (T. I:233-236,

I:239). In September of 1986, Petitioner told Student in

telephone and personal conversations that they "could do

it," which Student understood to refer to engaging in sexual

intercourse. (T. I:237-238). Student also confided to the

band director and her choral teacher that Petitioner was

making advances toward her and that Student wanted to

tape-record their telephone conversations to trap

Petitioner. (T. I:111-112, I:132, I:189-189). In 1986,

Student asked Student to help her trap Petitioner for the

purpose of ending the harassment and the requests for sexual

intercourse; however, the other student declined. (T.

I:249, I:264).

8. Petitioner was notified on April 21, 1987 that the

superintendent had recommended to the Fort Worth ISD board

of trustees that Petitioner's employment be terminated for

just cause during the term of the contract for the following

reasons, as specified in board policy:

a. failure to fulfill established duties;

b. immorality;

c. neglect of duties;

d. failure to comply with official directives,

board policies and administrative procedures;

e. any other reason the board deems to be just

cause;

f. sexual harassment.

(Admin. Ex. 1).

Discussion

The record supports a finding that Respondent's

decision to terminate Petitioner for immorality is supported

by substantial evidence. Further, the record shows that the

decision to terminate was supported by a preponderance of

the evidence. Although the credibility of the students was

called into question and the record poorly developed in

regard to various versions of the facts and time sequences,

this Hearing Officer can only conclude that the course of

action described by the students did, in fact, occur. The

evidence is insufficient to establish that the four students

had conspired since the spring of 1986 to ruin Petitioner's

career by making unfounded sexual allegations against him.

Among the facts leading to the conclusions stated below

are that the students were selected to be Petitioner's

office aides, that Student was still concerned with

protecting Petitioner by stating that she pursued

Petitioner's attentions and that Student discussed her

concerns about Petitioner's advances a year before the

allegations came to light, that Student did not come forward

voluntarily with her allegations of Petitioner's sexual

misconduct and that Student attempt to "trap" Petitioner

was not to retaliate against Petitioner for imposing

disciplinary measures against her but rather to halt the

continuing stream of harassment.

The preponderance of the evidence also supports a

finding that Petitioner failed to comply with official

directives in that he did not report the custodians'

accounts of sexual activities on school grounds.

Conclusions of Law

After due consideration of the record, matters

officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in

my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the

following Conclusions of Law:

1. Petitioner did not to comply with official

directives when he failed to report that custodians had

observed sexual activities taking place on the campus.

2. Petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with one

student under his jurisdiction and engaged in fondling a

total of four female students while employed as a

vice-principal by Respondent.

3. The conduct described in Conclusion of Law No. 2

constitutes a series of immoral acts.

4. Respondent's decision to terminate Petitioner's

employment was not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful and is

supported by substantial evidence.

5. Respondent's action to terminate Petitioner's

employment was proper based upon proof by a preponderance of

the evidence that Petitioner engaged in sexual activities

with students.

6. Respondent's action to terminate Petitioner's

employment was proper based upon proof by a preponderance of

the evidence that Petitioner failed to comply with official

directives.

7. Petitioner's appeal should be DENIED.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the record, matters

officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of

Education, it is hereby

ORDERED that Petitioner's appeal be, and is hereby,

DENIED.

SIGNED AND ENTERED this ______ day of ________________,

19_____.

______________________________

W. N. KIRBY

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download