The appeal is sustained in part. Respondent has been employed by petitioner as a school psychologist since 1974. In its undated decision, the panel found respondent guilty of specifications two and three, and recommended a penalty of one month suspension without pay.
Petitioner now asserts that it proved all the specifications by a preponderance of evidence.
It therefore seeks to have me overrule the panel's not guilty findings and order respondent's dismissal. Petitioner further contends that the panel improperly dismissed specification 1 merely because the date of the incident alleged was incorrect. Respondent maintains that the incorrect date prevented him from preparing a proper defense. He, therefore, argues that the panel properly dismissed the charge. Upon careful review of the record before me, I find that the panel improperly dismissed specification 1.