Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Georgia Professional Standards Commission Win
Georgia Professional Standards Commission Win
Georgia Professional Standards Commission Win
STATE OF GEORGIA
I. Introduction
Petitioner Dr. Sidney Camp Jr. (“Petitioner”) appeals the decision of the Professional
Standards Commission (“Commission”) to revoke his teaching certificate. The hearing in this
matter was conducted on July 19, 20, and 29, 2021. Julie Oinonen, Esq. represented Petitioner at
the hearing. The Commission was represented by Wylencia Hood Monroe, Senior Assistant
Attorney General.
Witnesses at the hearing were as follows: Dr. Derrick Williams, a former director of human
resources for the high schools of Gwinnett County School District (“GCSD”); Thomas O’Neal, a
former educator with GCSD; Arti Sharma, a former educator with GCSD; Susan Blanchard, a
former director of human resources for the support staff of GCSD; William Van Hoose, an ethics
investigator for the Commission; Dr. Paul Shaw, the director of the educators ethics division for
the Commission; Joyce C. Spraggs, a former executive director of internal review for GCSD and
a former director of human resources for the elementary schools of GCSD; Dr. Monica L. Batiste,
the associate superintendent for human resources of GCSD; Dr. Kimberly A. McDermon, the
current chief of human resources of Rockdale County School District and a former director of
human resources for the elementary schools of GCSD; Dr. Francis E. Davis, a former associate
superintendent for human resources of GCSD; Mary M. Jessie, a former director of human
Page 1 of 17
resources for the elementary schools of GCSD and Atlanta Public Schools; J. Alvin Wilbanks, the
After careful consideration of the evidence and the arguments of the parties, and for the
Background
1.
Petitioner holds a teaching certificate in the State of Georgia and held such certificate at all
2.
During the time relevant to the matters asserted herein, Petitioner was the executive
director of human resources staffing for GCSD, a school district with 23,000 teachers, 175,000
students, and 1,000 resignations per year. He held this position and various other positions from
March 2008 to March 2018, when he retired. Petitioner came out of retirement to work part-time
with GCSD in June 2019 and plans to retire by June 2022 at the latest. Petitioner is known in the
education community for his trustworthiness, integrity, passion, and competence in technological
and human resources matters. The executive director position does not require a teaching
1
Wilbanks was the superintendent of GCSD at the time of the hearing. However, he retired just a few days after the
conclusion of the hearing and prior to the issuing of this Final Decision.
2
The Court declines to address all of the parties’ arguments. This Final Decision only includes those arguments the
Court finds most relevant to the allegations in the Matters Asserted.
Page 2 of 17
3.
GCSD human resources is governed by about 659 practices and policies, but ethics
violation reports are typically conducted in three stages: 1) allegation, 2) investigation, and 3)
reporting. Schools are assigned to a human resources director, who is the point person for
principals to report Code of Ethics for Educators violations. Upon receipt of an alleged violation,
human resources directors add allegations to a database with a short one sentence description, such
as “parapro allegedly hit a student.” An email is sent to the executive director of human resources
once a new allegation has been entered in the database; however, the extent of information included
in this email was not presented at the hearing (i.e., a notification that a new allegation has been
made versus a full description of the allegation). Next, the human resources director begins the
requesting forensic analyses of computers, etc. Once a thorough investigation has been completed,
the human resources director presents the case summary report of the findings and any
accompanying evidence to the executive director. If the employee committed an ethics violation,
then it is the executive director’s responsibility to report the violation to the Commission.
McDermon; Dr. Monica L. Batiste; Testimony of Joyce C. Spraggs; Dr. Francis E. Davis;
4.
At the relevant time, Dr. Davis determined that Petitioner should bear the responsibility for
submitting reports to the Commission, because he was trustworthy, and this streamlined the
reporting process. Importantly, if the report did not include adequate evidence to the Commission,
the Commission would ask the school district to conduct further investigation into the allegations.
Page 3 of 17
This indicates that an allegation alone of an ethics violation is insufficient for a required report;
there must be some substantiation. See Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 505-6-.01(3)(i). Furthermore,
numerous witnesses testified that if a human resources director failed to thoroughly investigate an
allegation and did not present the findings to the executive director, then the executive director
would have no personal knowledge regarding whether an actual ethics violation occurred.
5.
Petitioner testified that he has sought to improve the GCSD reporting process throughout
the years, even prior to the events leading to this proceeding. For example, Petitioner now receives
weekly reports of pending cases for Dr. Batiste and him to review. Furthermore, Petitioner
receives an alert if a case has not been updated in the past ten days. Prior to these changes, it was
difficult to audit the high number of allegations, and cases could fall through the cracks if human
Preston Paris
6.
Petitioner did not report educator Preston Paris with regard to the allegations found in PSC
18-10-469, that resulted in the revocation of educator Paris’s certificate on April 30, 2019. Dr.
Williams was the human resources director assigned to this case. (Exhibit R-3; Testimony of
7.
Paris was arrested for allegedly molesting a minor student while employed as an educator
Page 4 of 17
with Fulton County School District. Prior to his employment with Fulton County, Paris was an
educator with GCSD. He resigned from GCSD due to his alleged solicitation of a minor student.
8.
When the Paris arrest went public, Dr. Williams told Petitioner that no interview was
conducted with Paris and that Paris refused to talk prior to resigning; however, Spraggs and Dr.
Williams interviewed Paris. Spraggs was involved in the investigation due to possible Title IX
claims, but ultimately it was Dr. Williams’ responsibility to investigate the allegations against
Paris. Spraggs wrote notes during the interview, but she testified that she gave her notes to Dr.
9.
Petitioner did not contest his failure to report Paris to the Commission, but he denied having
any personal knowledge of the allegations at the time of the investigation. Petitioner testified that
Dr. Williams failed to investigate Paris’s ethics violation and/or did not present his evidence to
Petitioner. The only evidence the Commission presented to support Petitioner’s personal
knowledge of this ethics violation was the automatic notification sent to Petitioner when the
allegation was entered into the database, one of many such notifications each year, and the
10.
Due to the Paris scandal, the Commission began investigating Dr. Williams, Petitioner, and
GCSD’s reporting practices. Subpoenas were issued by the Commission to identify any cases that
Page 5 of 17
were not timely reported; the Sharma, Covington, Jameson, Martin, and O’Neal cases were
identified as a result. Also, the extent of Dr. Williams’s negligence became known to GCSD at
this time. He apologized for his “singular error” of failing to report the Paris matter to Petitioner.
Wilbanks recommended Dr. Williams for termination; however, Dr. Williams submitted a letter
of resignation for “personal reasons” before he could be terminated. When his office was cleared
out, numerous files were found with unfinished investigative reports. (Testimony of Petitioner;
11.
Dr. Williams testified at the hearing that he had “COVID brain” and thus could not
remember many of the details of his employment and resignation from GCSD. He strongly insisted
that he resigned for “personal reasons.” Overall, Dr. Williams’s testimony was unbelievable,
Arti Sharma
12.
Petitioner did not report educator Arti Sharma with regard to the allegations found in PSC
19-3-1158, that resulted in a suspension of one year and 123 days of Sharma’s certificate on
January 9, 2020. Dr. Williams was the human resources director assigned to this case. (Exhibit
13.
Sharma testified that she attempted to help a student who was being forced into an arranged
marriage. Sharma drove the student to the airport where she believed the student’s grandmother
was there to help; this turned out not to be the case. As a result, she felt “coerced” into resigning,
Page 6 of 17
and Sharma was instructed by Dr. Williams to resign in lieu of a Commission investigation. At
no point did Sharma speak to Petitioner regarding her resignation. (Exhibit P-61; Testimony of
Arti Sharma.)
14.
Petitioner did not contest his failure to report Sharma to the Commission, but he denied
having any personal knowledge of the allegations at the time of the investigation. Petitioner
testified that Dr. Williams failed to investigate Sharma’s ethics violation and/or did not present his
evidence to Petitioner. The only evidence the Commission presented to support Petitioner’s
personal knowledge of this ethics violation was the automatic notification sent to Petitioner when
the allegation was entered into the database, one of many such notifications each year, and the
David Covington
15.
Petitioner did not report educator David Covington with regard to the allegations found in
PSC 19-3-1161, that resulted in a reprimand of Covington’s certificate on June 11, 2020. (Exhibit
R-5.)
16.
Covington was an assistant principal who had an alleged affair with employee. The alleged
relationship was short-term and involved a trip to New Orleans. He was not the employee’s direct
supervisor, but he had some supervisory duties over the educator. Covington later resigned due to
Page 7 of 17
17.
Petitioner did not contest his failure to report Covington to the Commission, but he denied
that a consensual affair between an assistant principal and an employee when the assistant principal
only had indirect supervisory duties over the employee is necessarily an ethics violation. Van
Hoose and Dr. Shaw both testified that just because an individual is in the chain of command does
not mean that an affair with an employee is automatically a standard violation but rather is a “shade
of gray” morality question that should be reported to the Commission. (Testimony of Petitioner;
Stephen Jameson
18.
Petitioner did not report educator Stephen Jameson with regard to the allegations found in
PSC 19-3-1164, that resulted in a 75-day suspension of Jameson’s certificate on June 11, 2020.
Dr. Williams was the human resources director assigned to this case, but Petitioner completed the
investigation because Dr. Williams was not in the office that day. (Exhibit R-6; Testimony of
Petitioner.)
19.
Hoose.)
20.
testified that he submitted a letter to the Commission on November 1, 2017 and separately mailed
the accompanying documents. The Commission never received the letter or documents from
Page 8 of 17
Petitioner. According to Dr. Shaw, it is the typical course of business for the Commission to send
a receipt of acknowledgement once a report is received. Furthermore, it was practice of Dr. Davis,
who also reported cases to the Commission for GCSD, to follow up when she did not receive the
Commission, he might have been on notice that the Jameson report was not received when the
Commission did not send him an acknowledgement of receipt. Petitioner also testified at the
hearing that the Commission sometimes misplaces or does not receive the reports, so he might
have been on notice to follow up if he did not hear from the Commission in a reasonable amount
of time. (Testimony of Petitioner Testimony of William Van Hoose; Testimony of Dr. Paul Shaw.)
Kevin Martin
21.
Petitioner did not report educator Kevin Martin with regard to the allegations, found in the
PSC 19-3-1233, that resulted in a two-year suspension of Martin’s certificate on September 10,
2020. Dr. Williams was the human resources director assigned to this case. (Exhibit R-7;
22.
Martin allegedly filmed himself masturbating in a classroom. The video was sent to
Martin’s principal and either the superintendent or an assistant superintendent. Notably, the video
was not sent to Petitioner. (Testimony of Petitioner; Testimony of William Van Hoose.)
23.
Petitioner did not contest his failure to report Martin to the Commission, but he denied
having any personal knowledge of the allegations at the time of the investigation. Petitioner
testified that Dr. Williams failed to investigate Martin’s violation and/or did not present his
Page 9 of 17
evidence to Petitioner. The only evidence the Commission presented to support Petitioner’s
personal knowledge of this ethics violation was the automatic notification sent to Petitioner when
the allegation was entered into the database, one of many such notifications each year, and the
testimony of Dr. Williams, who completely lacked credibility. (Testimony of Petitioner Testimony
Thomas O’Neal
24.
Petitioner did not report educator Thomas O’Neal with regard to the allegations found in
PSC 19-3-1237, that resulted in a one-year suspension of O’Neal’s certificate on August 26, 2019.
Petitioner did not contest his failure to report O’Neal to the Commission. (Exhibit R-8; Testimony
25.
advertisement included photographs of male genitalia. When confronted, O’Neal admitted that he
previously placed advertisements and photographs on Craigslist, but this advertisement and the
photographs of the male genitalia were not his. An anatomical search was not conducted.
26.
Petitioner testified that he called Dr. Shaw for guidance about whether to report O’Neal to
the Commission. Dr. Shaw remembered a call from Petitioner about reporting cases involving
social media but could not remember if specifics about O’Neal were mentioned. Dr. Shaw told
Petitioner then and at the hearing that the Commission is “not interested in being the social media
police – only [] egregious” cases should be reported. As such, Petitioner believed Dr. Shaw’s
Page 10 of 17
guidance released him from a duty to report in this instance. (Testimony of Petitioner; Testimony
27.
The Commission alleged that Petitioner advised, encouraged, or directed a public school
employee that, if the educator resigned from employment, a report would not be made to the
Commission. Petitioner vehemently denied this allegation. Furthermore, the following former
directors of human resources who worked for Petitioner confirmed that he never directed them to
inform educators to resign in lieu of a report to the Commission: Blanchard, Dr. McDermon,
Batiste, Spraggs, and even Dr. Williams. The Commission believed it was a regular practice of
Petitioner to advise human resource directors to threaten the educators but provided scant evidence
to prove Petitioner gave this order. Sharma testified that Dr. Williams made this threat to her and
had no knowledge regarding whether Petitioner directed him to say so. The only evidence
provided by the Commission regarding this threat in the case of Sharma was hearsay testimony by
Dr. Williams during the Commission’s investigation that he could not remember at the hearing.
Furthermore, O’Neal testified that he was told to resign in lieu of an investigation but was unable
to confirm or deny that Petitioner was the individual who made this statement to him. (Exhibit P-
38; Testimony of Petitioner; Testimony of William Van Hoose; Testimony of Susan Blanchard;
28.
The Commission alleges that between the dates of January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018,
Page 11 of 17
Petitioner failed to report breaches of the Code of Ethics for Educators within 90 days of becoming
aware of the alleged breach. (Exhibit P-38; Testimony of William Van Hoose; Testimony of Dr.
Paul Shaw.)
29.
Based on the facts and circumstances set forth above, the Commission found probable
cause that Petitioner violated the laws, rules, and regulations of the Commission. In particular, the
Commission found that Petitioner violated Rule 505-6-.01(3)(i) [Required Reports], Rule 505-6-
.01(3)(j) [Professional Conduct], and Rule 505-6-.01(5)(a)(7) [Other Good and Sufficient Cause]
and determined that Petitioner’s educator certificate should be revoked. Petitioner denied violating
the Commission’s rules and regulations and contested the revocation. (Exhibit P-38; Testimony
1.
Because this case concerns the proposed sanction of Petitioner’s educator certificate, the
Commission bears the burden of proof. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.07(1). The standard of
2.
The Commission is responsible for adopting standards of performance and a code of ethics
for educators. O.C.G.A. § 20-2-984.1(a). Pursuant to this responsibility, the Commission has
promulgated the Code of Ethics for Educators, which “defines the professional behavior of
educators in Georgia and serves as a guide to ethical conduct.” Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 505-6-
.01(1). The Code of Ethics for Educators also “defines unethical conduct justifying disciplinary
sanction.” Id. The Commission is authorized to sanction an educator certificate where the
Page 12 of 17
educator has engaged in unethical conduct as outlined in the Code of Ethics for Educators.
3.
In this case, the Commission charges that Petitioner has violated the Rules of the
Professional Standards Commission and the Code of Ethics for Educators, specifically Ga. Comp.
R. & Regs. 505-6-.01(3)(i), Standard 9: Required Reports, and Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 505-6-
.01(3)(j), Standard 10: Professional Conduct. 3 The Commission also recommends that
Petitioner’s educator certificate be sanctioned pursuant to Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 505-6-
.01(5)(a)(7) (providing for sanction for “any other good and sufficient cause that renders an
4.
The Court concludes that Petitioner did not violate Standard Nine of the Code of Ethics for
[a]n educator shall file reports of a breach of one or more of the standards in the
Code of Ethics for Educators, child abuse (O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5), or any other
required report. Unethical conduct includes but is not limited to:
3
The Court uses the 2015 version of the Commission’s Code of Ethics for Educators. Both the 2015 and 2018 versions
of the Code of Ethics for Educators are applicable to this matter. The standards on required reports and professional
conduct are verbatim with the only difference being the standard numbering.
Page 13 of 17
procedures require reporting sooner. These reports include but are not
limited to: murder, voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault,
aggravated battery, kidnapping, any sexual offense, any sexual
exploitation of a minor, any offense involving a controlled substance
and any abuse of a child if an educator has reasonable cause to believe
that a child has been abused.
5.
Petitioner’s reporting of Jameson. A preponderance of the evidence shows that Petitioner in fact
reported an ethics violation to the Commission within the prescribed time limit. Although
Petitioner was on notice that the Commission sometimes misses reports and he could have
followed up with the Commission, the Court finds that insufficient to constitute a violation of
Standard Nine.
6.
As for Paris, Sharma, and Martin, Petitioner credibly denied having personal knowledge
that these educators committed ethics violations. The Commission’s only evidence was the fact
that Petitioner received the automatic notifications alerting him that a new allegation was added to
the GCSD database. No evidence was introduced that Petitioner actually viewed these emails, had
conversations with human resources directors about these matters, or reviewed these cases in the
Commission. Under Standard Nine, educators engage in unethical conduct if they fail to submit
“a required report of a violation.” The Commission’s counsel at the hearing argued that alleged
violations of ethics violations should be reported. This is contrary to the plain text of the
Commission’s rules as well as its practices. Testimony at the hearing established that if a report
has not been fully investigated, it is common for the Commission to send the matter back to the
Page 14 of 17
school district for further investigation. Thus, Petitioner did not violate Standard Nine for failing
to report Paris, Sharma, or Martin to the Commission, because Petitioner could not have reported
ethics violations that were not first fully investigated by his human resources directors.
7.
As for Covington and O’Neal, counsel for the Commission argued that cases involving
“shades of gray” morality questions should be reported. While this may be best practice, the
standard requires an actual violation to have occurred. Insufficient evidence was presented at the
hearing that these cases involved standard violations. Furthermore, Petitioner credibly testified
that he called Dr. Shaw for advice about whether to report O’Neal and was ultimately told it was
not necessary. Dr. Shaw could not remember the specifics of this call but did not adequately
contradict Petitioner’s testimony. As such, Petitioner did not violate Standard Nine for failing to
8.
The Court concludes that Petitioner did not violate Standard Ten of the Code of Ethics for
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 505-6-.01(3)(j). As discussed above, the Court finds that Standard Nine
was not violated for Paris, Sharma, Covington, Jameson, Martin, or O’Neal. For the same reasons,
the Court finds insufficient evidence that Petitioner’s conduct was unprofessional. Further, the
majority of the evidence presented at the hearing indicates that Petitioner has been widely
considered to be the consummate professional, including at the times relevant to the underlying
Page 15 of 17
allegations. Therefore, the Commission failed to meet its burden of proof that Petitioner violated
Standard Ten.
9.
Finally, the Commission cited the provision at Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 505-6-.01(5)(a)(7)
and asserted that Petitioner’s conduct rendered him unfit for employment as an educator. The
Merriam Webster online dictionary defines the term “unfit” as “not suited for a purpose:
the context of the Commission’s rule, the definition “not qualified, incapable, or incompetent”
would be the most applicable. In other words, unfit implies something more than an inadvertent
error or omission. There is no evidence that Petitioner is unfit for employment as an educator.
Accordingly, the Commission has failed to prove that Petitioner’s conduct rendered him unfit for
10.
A preponderance of evidence shows that Petitioner’s conduct did not constitute a violation
of the Code of Ethics for Educators. Moreover, credible evidence was presented that, over the
years, Petitioner has attempted to reform the policies and procedures at GCSD to prevent more
reports from falling through the cracks. Thus, the Court concludes that Respondent’s proposed
revocation is inappropriate.
IV. Decision
In accordance with the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the
Page 16 of 17
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of August, 2021.
Shakara M. Barnes
Administrative Law Judge
Page 17 of 17