Scott Padgett vs. State Board of Education

Transcription

1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law Scott Padgett vs. State Board of Education Follow this and additional works at: This Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document made available by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about this public document, please contact administrative.procedures@tn.gov

2 BEFORE THE TENNESSEE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) BOARD OF EDUCATION ) Petitioner ) ) v. ) Docket No J ) SCOTT PADGETT ) Respondent ) INITIAL ORDER This contested case hearing was heard on January 27, 2014, in Nashville, Tennessee before Administrative Judge Thomas G. Stovall, assigned by the Secretary of State, Administrative Procedures Division, and sitting on behalf of the Tennessee State Board of Education (Board). Ms. Dannelle Walker, General Counsel, represented the Board. The Respondent was present and represented by counsel, Ms. Kimberly Turner of Clarksville. The subject of the hearing was the revocation of the Respondent s teaching license for allegedly engaging in inappropriate conduct with a student. After consideration of the entire record it is determined the Respondent s license should not be revoked. This decision is based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT Montgomery Central High School 1. Montgomery Central High School is located in Clarksville, Montgomery County Tennessee. As is often the case in high school, football and basketball are the most popular sports at Montgomery Central. As a result, the football and basketball teams at Montgomery Central have priority as to usage of the locker rooms and showers in the gym. These facilities appear to only be available to other teams and coaches when not in use for football and 1

3 basketball. Consequently it is common practice at the school for students who are members of other sports, such as softball, track, wrestling and cheerleading, to change clothes in classrooms. The coaches for those teams often change clothes in the classrooms with the students. Male coaches change clothes with male students and female coaches change clothes with female students. 2. Terri Perry, Kathyrn Jackson and Madonna Ruth Nunn are teachers at Montgomery Central. Ms. Perry, who previously was the girls wrestling coach, testified that she and her wrestling team frequently changed clothes together in her classroom. Ms. Nunn is responsible for the yearbook staff and prom committee. Her female students who were members of these groups and were also on the volleyball or soccer teams would often change clothes in her classroom. On prom night, Ms. Nunn herself would change clothes in her classroom with female students present. Ms. Jackson testified that the dance team often changed clothes in a teacher s classroom down the hall from her classroom. Scott Padgett 3. The Respondent is currently licensed as a teacher by the Board. In May 2013, he was employed as an English teacher at Montgomery Central where he had taught for approximately 15 years. The Respondent was respected and well liked by his fellow teachers at Montgomery Central. 4. The Respondent had been the Montgomery Central cross country team coach until He still ran after school most days, often with current members of the cross country team. At the end of a typical school day the Respondent would change into running clothes in his classroom, go for a run, and then return to his classroom where he would change back into street clothes before going home. 2

4 5. The Respondent essentially operates a boarding house on the property where he resides. He allows people to live upstairs in his house, 1 in an out-building referred to as the pool house, and in a garage apartment. The people who live on his premises are typically young men, many of whom attend college, who are of modest means and need a place to live. Many of them are former students at Montgomery Central. These residents pay the Respondent a small amount of rent and help with chores on the property. At the present time there are three people residing with the Respondent on his property. 6. Trevor Moore is 20 years old and currently lives in the pool house on the Respondent s property. Mr. Moore, a former Montgomery Central student, has lived there for approximately one year. Joey Rouse operates a fireworks business where the Respondent sometimes works in the summer. Mr. Rouse s cousin previously lived in the upstairs apartment in the Respondent s house. Mr. Rouse s son and daughter-in-law lived for two years with the Respondent in a different house. Both Mr. Rouse and Mr. Moore testified they never observed or heard of any inappropriate behavior by the Respondent with his tenants. Paul Devers 7. During the school year, Paul Devers was a junior at Montgomery Central. Although he was a special education student, he was in all general curriculum classes except for math. Paul was a student in the Respondent s English class. Ms. Nunn is the special education teacher at Montgomery Central and had Paul in her class for one hour per day. She described her class as a guided study hall where Paul would work on his math. 8. Throughout the school year, numerous teachers and students heard Paul complain that his mother was not giving him enough food to eat at home and he had no money for lunch. Some of the teachers brought him food or gave him money to purchase lunch. Paul became 18 1 The upstairs apartment has its own entrance and is completely separate from the downstairs living area. 3

5 years old in December As the school year progressed teachers heard him talk of trouble at home and that his mother was threatening to kick him out of the house since he had turned 18. The Respondent was aware of the allegations Paul was making around the school. May 1, Kathryn Jackson s classroom is next door to the Respondent s classroom. On the morning of May 1, 2013, she and the Respondent were standing in the hallway monitoring the students when she overheard Paul tell another student that the bag of chips he had in his hand was all he had to eat that day. She told the Respondent what she heard. The Respondent told Ms. Jackson that he might be able to help as he had some work that needed to be done at his residence that perhaps Paul could help with and earn some money. 10. Later that morning the Respondent spoke with Ms. Nunn about what Paul had said. Ms. Nunn had also heard him complain about being mistreated at home and had given Paul money to purchase lunch in the past. The Respondent asked Ms. Nunn what she thought about the idea of having Paul come to his residence to do some work and earn money. Ms. Nunn believed it was a good idea but both she and the Respondent agreed that Paul should get permission from his mother. The Respondent also mentioned to Ms. Nunn the possibility of asking Paul if he would be interested in living on his property if Paul was indeed in danger of being kicked out of his home now that was 18 years old. Ms. Nunn was aware that the Respondent had former students living on his property. Ms. Nunn told the Respondent she would mention his ideas to Paul when she saw him and ask if he was interested. 11. Ms. Nunn saw Paul later in the day and told him about the Respondent s offer to come work at his house as well as the possibility of living on the property at some point in the future. Paul was indeed interested and told Ms. Nunn he would speak to his mother and get her 4

6 permission. At some point during the day the Respondent also spoke with Paul about coming to his house to work. Paul said he wanted to come and he had spoken with his mother about it. 12. At the end of school that day, the Respondent was going running with two other students. Paul showed up at the Respondent s classroom and stated he wished to go running as well. As Paul had no running clothes with him, the Respondent gave him a T shirt and shorts to wear while the Respondent changed into a pair of sweat pants. 13. After finishing the run, the Respondent and Paul returned to the Respondent s classroom. They were going to change clothes before going to the Respondent s house where Paul was to perform the work. The Respondent went into the corner of his classroom behind his desk to change into his street clothes. Paul was a few feet away from the Respondent as he changed. The Respondent kept his back to Paul at all times as he changed, partially because he has a physical deformity on his chest that he is embarrassed about. At some point the Respondent handed Paul a towel by reaching behind himself with the towel without turning around. He told Paul to place the T shirt and shorts on the towel on the floor. The Respondent also suggested to Paul that he might want to remove his damp underwear and place it on the towel with the other clothes. The Respondent would then wash the clothes at his house after they arrived. 14. The Respondent stated that he never saw Paul changing his clothes or saw him in the nude, nor did Paul ever see the Respondent from the front as he changed from his running clothes into his street clothes. 15. After the Respondent and Paul changed clothes, they left the classroom and began to exit the school. Ms. Jackson was in her classroom next door grading papers. Her door was open and she had seen Paul and the Respondent enter his classroom in their running clothes and 5

7 come back out in a few moments after changing. From Ms. Jackson s perspective nothing seemed out of the ordinary, they had not been in the Respondent s classroom a long period of time and they were not acting unusual when they left. 16. Before they left the building they encountered Steve Roberts, an assistant principal. The Respondent told Mr. Roberts he was taking Paul to his home to perform some work and that he was going to offer him a place to live if Paul was interested. Mr. Roberts had heard teachers talking during the school day about the fact that Paul was being kicked out of his home by his mother. 17. The Respondent then drove Paul to his home. The Respondent had received water damage to his carpets due to heavy rains the previous week. He wanted Paul to clean the carpets with some equipment he had. Paul began cleaning the carpets and the Respondent placed the clothes in the washing machine. The Respondent had previously pointed out the pool house to Paul and told him that was where he might live if he came there because the Respondent was anticipating the pool house was to become vacant in the near future. 18. After Paul had been at the Respondent s house for a period of time, the Respondent received a telephone call from an assistant principal at the school. The principal told the Respondent that Paul s mother was at the school and did not know where Paul was. She had not given Paul permission to go to the Respondent s house. The Respondent gathered Paul s clothes from the washing machine and immediately returned Paul to the school where his mother was waiting. 19. Paul s mother, Pamela Devers, is a bus driver for the school system. She stated she was informed by another bus driver that Paul had left school with the Respondent. She then called the assistant principal. She stated that Paul did not have her permission to go to the 6

8 Respondent s house and that he had never asked permission. She denied threatening to kick Paul out of her house. Ms. Devers stated that due to his embarrassment over the situation Paul moved to California for his senior year and is currently living with a family member. 20. The incident was investigated by the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department. No criminal charges were filed against the Respondent. On June 13, 2013, the Respondent agreed to resign his position as a teacher with the Clarksville Montgomery County School System. APPLICABLE LAW 1. Tennessee State Board of Education Rule (9) provides: (b) Denial, Suspension or Revocation of License. The State Board of Education may revoke, suspend or refuse to issue or renew a license for the following reasons: 6. Other good cause. ****** CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has failed to carry its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct thus making his license subject to revocation for other good cause pursuant to Rule (9)(b)(6). 2. Although the Respondent changing clothes with Paul in the classroom and then taking Paul to his home took place in a relatively short period of time on the afternoon of May 1, 2013, and are certainly inter-related in the flow of events, the two actions must be analyzed separately to determine their appropriateness. Viewed in a vacuum, changing clothes with a student in your classroom, having the student remove his underwear, and then taking him to your home without his mother s permission seems highly questionable at best, if not clearly 7

9 inappropriate. However, when all the facts are analyzed and placed in context one is led to a different conclusion. The Classroom 2. The Respondent changing clothes in his classroom with Paul must be viewed in the context of the widely accepted practice at Montgomery Central of teachers and students changing clothes together in a teacher s classroom. The evidence clearly established that such activity was engaged in by all students and teachers, except for the football and basketball teams and coaches, because there was nowhere else to change clothes. There was nothing unusual about the Respondent changing his clothes in his classroom after running, something he did on a daily basis. There was nothing unusual or inappropriate about the Respondent changing clothes with Paul in his classroom after their run as this was the common practice at the school. The Respondent adamantly denied exposing the front of his body to Paul while changing or seeing Paul from the front while Paul was changing. There was no credible evidence offered to the contrary. There was much conjecture about the exact words the Respondent spoke to Paul that resulted in Paul removing his underwear and placing it on the pile of wet clothes on the towel on the floor. Did the Respondent instruct Paul to remove his underwear or merely suggest to him that it might be a good idea since they were wet and the Respondent could wash them at his home after they went there? The preponderance of the evidence suggests the latter. The allegation that the Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct was based solely upon his changing clothes in the classroom with Paul and having Paul remove his underwear. There is no allegation the Respondent touched Paul or attempted to engage in any sexual activity while the two of them were in the classroom. In conclusion, it is determined that the Respondent did not engage in inappropriate conduct by his actions in his classroom with Paul. 8

10 Taking Paul to the Respondent s Home 3. Once again, the Respondent s activity must be viewed in context. From what the Respondent believed to be true, as well as what was believed to be true by most of the other teachers and administrators at Montgomery Central, Paul was needy a young man who was not being properly cared for at home. The teachers believed he was not being appropriately fed by his mother and was being threatened with eviction from his home. All the teachers, including the Respondent, felt sorry for Paul and tried to help him. It was from this perspective the Respondent s actions must be viewed. He offered to take Paul to his house to perform some needed work. He made no secret of his intentions. He discussed it with Ms. Jackson, Ms. Nunn and even Mr. Roberts the assistant principal. It does not seem logical that if the Respondent was intending to engage in inappropriate conduct with Paul that he would tell his colleagues and the assistant principal that he was taking Paul home with him after school. There was absolutely no evidence offered to suggest that anything inappropriate or sexual occurred between the Respondent and Paul while they were at the Respondent s house. 4. The Respondent took Paul to his home after school without his mother s permission. The Respondent acknowledged that despite the fact that as an 18 year old Paul was an adult, the appropriate thing to do with any student is to obtain the permission of the parent or guardian prior to taking the student off school grounds. However, the reason the Respondent failed to have the permission of Paul s mother was not because of the Respondent s duplicity or carelessness but because of Paul s untruthfulness. Paul told both the Respondent and Ms. Nunn that he had obtained his mother s permission to accompany the Respondent to his home after school. This was false. He was also untruthful about not having enough to eat at home or being threatened with eviction by his mother. 9

11 5. The Respondent is somewhat naïve and well intentioned to a fault. He allowed himself to fall victim to a bad set of circumstances caused by an untruthful and manipulative student as well as his own inability to perceive how some of his actions could understandably be misconstrued by others. However, there is no evidence that the Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct with Paul Devers and thus good cause does not exist to revoke his license pursuant to Rule (9)(b)(6). 6. It is hereby ORDERED that the Respondent s license SHALL NOT BE REVOKED. This Initial Order entered and effective this day of, Thomas G. Stovall Administrative Judge Filed in the Administrative Procedures Division, Office of the Secretary of State, this day of, J. Richard Collier, Director Administrative Procedures Division 10