90-002164 Don S. Bates vs. Betty Castor, As Commissioner Of Education
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, July 31, 1991.

View Dockets  
Summary: Essay written for Florida educational leadership examination fairly graded using holistic method pursuant to rule.





12Petitioner, )


15vs. ) CASE NO. 90-2164





30Respondent. )



35Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly

46designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the

58above-styled case on April 22 and 23, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.


70For Petitioner: Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire


78118 North Monroe Street

82Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700

85For Respondent: Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire

91Assistant General Counsel

94Florida Board of Education

98The Capitol, Suite 1701

102Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400


109Whether the scores given to Petitioner's essay on the communication subtest

120of the May 1989 Florida Education Leadership Examination were inconsistent with

131and the result of an improper application of the holistic scoring methodology,

143and whether the scores given to his essay on the communication subtest of the

157November 1989 Florida Education Leadership Examination were inconsistent with

166and the result of an improper application of the holistic scoring methodology.


180Petitioner, a professional educator, sat for the Florida Education

189Leadership Examination (FELE) in May 1989. After Petitioner was advised that he

201had not passed the communications subtest of the May 1989 FELE, he attempted to

215determine the reasons he did not pass. While he was awaiting a response from

229Respondent as to the May 1989 scores, he retook the communications subtest in

242November 1989. After he was advised that he had not passed the communication

255subtest in either May or November 1989, he filed these challenges to the manner

269in which the essay portion on both the May 1989 FELE and the November 1989 FELE

285were scored. Petitioner contends that a proper application of the holistic

296scoring method, the method set forth by rule, would produce a higher score.

309Petitioner does not challenge the underlying rule that requires application of

320the holistic scoring method.

324At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented

336the additional testimony of Betty Owen, Charles R. Blackmon, and David Kirby.

348Ms. Owen is an experienced reader for the FELE and was one of the readers who

364scored Petitioner's essay for the November 1989 FELE. Dr. Blackmon is a retired

377educator and educational administrator who was accepted as an expert witness in

389the field of educational administration and in the evaluating written

399communication using the holistic scoring method. Dr. Kirby is a McKenzie

410professor of English at Florida State University and was accepted as an expert

423witness in the field of evaluating written communication using the holistic

434scoring method. The parties submitted the following joint exhibits which were

445accepted into evidence: A1-6, B1-6, C1-4, D, E, F, and G. Petitioner submitted

458one additional exhibit, which was accepted into evidence. Respondent submitted

468three additional exhibits, which were accepted into evidence.

476A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. At the request of the

489parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten

502days following the filing of the transcript. Consequently, the parties waived

513the requirement that a recommended order be rendered within thirty days after

525the transcript is filed. Rule 22I-6.031, Florida Administrative Code. Rulings

535on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this

550Recommended Order.


5551. Petitioner is a professional educator who moved to Florida in 1988 to

568teach in the Broward County public school system. He completed Florida's

579beginning teacher program and passed the Florida Teacher Certification

588Examination. At the time of the formal hearing, Petitioner was employed as a

601social studies teacher in one of the public schools of Broward County.

6132. Petitioner received his Bachelor of Science degree from East Tennessee

624State University (ETSU) in 1967, majoring in Political Science and Speech. In

6361971, he received a Masters of Art degree in Educational Administration and

648Supervision with a minor in Instructional Communication from ETSU. He earned

659his Doctorate of Education degree from the University of Alabama in 1974, with a

673major in Educational Administration and Supervision and a minor in Curriculum

684Development and Instructional Communication.

6883. Petitioner has been teaching continuously since 1967, either at the

699high school or college level. He has considerable experience in reading and

711evaluating written communication of high school and graduate students. He has

722served as an assistant principal in the State of Alabama and holds

734superintendent's credentials as well as principal's credentials and supervisory

743and teaching credentials for the states of Alabama and Louisiana. Petitioners

754desires to work as an assistant principal in the public schools of Florida.

7674. A person who desires to hold the position as a principal or as an

782assistant principal in a Florida public school district must earn an Educational

794Leadership Certificate from Respondent. Among the requirements for achieving

803this Certificate is the successful completion of the Florida Education

813Leadership Examination (FELE).

8165. FELE is administered twice each year to those seeking certification in

828educational leadership. The examination covers the eight areas of the Florida

839Educational Leadership Core Curriculum listed in Rule 6A-4.0082, Florida

848Administrative Code. The candidates for certification are notified by the FELE

859registration bulletin that the examination consists of three subtests with

869Subtest One covering "Management, Leadership, Personnel"; Subtest Two covering

"878Communications (includes essay)"; and Subtest Three covering "Curriculum,

886Finance, Law, Technology". The registration bulletin also notifies candidates


897With the exception of the Communications essay

904question, all questions will be multiple choice.

911There will be one essay question designed to

919demonstrate proficiency in written communication.

924The essay question will be scored holistically

931by trained experts.

9346. As indicated by the registration bulletin, the Communications Subtest

944consists of multiple choice questions and of an essay. The scores received on

957the two parts of the Communications Subtest are combined and statistically

968adjusted to determine whether the candidate passed the subtest. (There are

979several different versions of FELE that have been developed over the years. The

992statistical adjustment is made to maintain consistency in the examination

1002process by making adjustments in the scoring process to account for differences

1014in the comparative difficulty between the different versions of FELE. No

1025challenge is raised to the fact that statistical adjustments are made or as to

1039how those adjustments were made for the examinations in question.)

10497. A candidate must pass all three subtests of the FELE in order to

1063receive certification, and he can retake any subtest that he failed to pass.

10768. A candidate chooses the topic for his essay from the two topics that

1090are offered by the essay portion of the Communications Subtest. While the

1102topics relate to assignments that a school administrator might receive, the

1113essay portion of the examination is designed to test the candidate's

1124communication skills; it is not designed to test the candidate's administrative

1135skills or substantive knowledge of the topic of the essay.

11459. Rule 6A-4.00821, Florida Administrative Code, pertains to FELE and

1155provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

1161(7) Scoring.

1163(b) The essay portion to the school communications

1171subtest shall be scored by two (2) trained judges

1180using a scale of one (1) which is an unsatisfactory

1190score to four (4) which is an outstanding score.

1199In the event the two (2) ratings are two (2) or more

1211points different, or in the event the summed ratings

1220equal three (3), the writing sample will be rated by

1230a referee and the referee's score will replace the

1239most discrepant of the original ratings.

1245(d) Beginning July 1, 1988, a passing score for each

1255subtest of the Florida Education Leadership Examination

1262shall be:

12641. School Communications. Examinee scores for the

1271school communications subtest shall be reported as an

1279average scaled score from the essay test and the scaled

1289score from the multiple choice questions. The passing

1297score shall be the scaled score equivalent to the

1306combination of the essay total raw score of four (4)

1316and a multiple choice total raw score of fifteen (15)

1326on the November, 1987 administration of the subtest.

1334(8) Essay performance standards.

1338(c) Rating scale. The four-level scale for judging

1346the written essays is defined as follows:

13531. A rating of one (1) indicates the essay lacks

1363unity and focus. It is distorted or ambiguous, and

1372it fails to treat the topic in sufficient depth and

1382breadth. There is little or no discernible

1389organization and only scant development of ideas,

1396if any at all. The essay betrays only sporadically

1405a sense of paragraph and sentence structure, and it

1414is syntactically slipshod. Usage is irregular and

1421often questionable or wrong. There are serious errors

1429in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.

14342. A rating of two (2) indicates the essay has some

1445degree of unity and focus, but each could be improved.

1455It is reasonably clear, though not invariably so, and

1464it treats the topic with a marginal degree of

1473sufficiency. The essay reflects some concern for

1480organization and for some development of ideas, but

1488neither is necessarily consistent nor fully realized.

1495The essay reveals some sense, if not full command of

1505paragraph and sentence structure. It is syntactically

1512bland and, at times, awkward. Usage is generally

1520accurate, if not consistently so. There are some

1528errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation

1534that detract from the essay's effect if not from its


15453. A rating of three (3) indicates the essay is

1555focused and unified, and it is clearly if not

1564distinctly written. It gives the topic an adequate

1572though not always thorough treatment. The essay is

1580well organized, and much of the time it develops

1589ideas appropriately and sufficiently. It shows a

1596good grasp of paragraph and sentence structure, and

1604its usage is generally accurate and sensible.

1611Syntactically, it is clear and reliable. There may

1619be a few errors in spelling, capitalization, and

1627punctuation, but they are not serious.

16334. A rating of four (4) indicates the essay is

1643unified, sharply focused, and distinctively effective.

1649It treats the topic clearly, completely, and in

1657suitable depth and breadth. It is clearly and fully

1666organized, and it develops ideas with consistent

1673appropriateness and thoroughness. The essay reveals

1679an unquestionably firm command of paragraph and

1686sentence structure. Syntactically, it is smooth and

1693often elegant. Usage is uniformly sensible, accurate,

1700and sure. There are very few, if any errors in

1710spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.

171410. In addition to the foregoing, Rule 6A-4.00821, Florida Administrative

1724Code, contains minimal qualifications for those persons who will score the

1735essays. The chief reader and the scorers involved in the scoring of

1747Petitioner's essays for both the May 1989 and the November 1989 examinations are

1760well qualified, appropriately trained, and experienced in the application of the

1771holistic scoring method. 1/

177511. The holistic scoring method is widely used to evaluate essays such as

1788the ones on the FELEs involved in this case. 2/ Unlike the analytical method

1802of evaluating essays, the holistic method is designed only for scoring purposes

1814and is not designed to give the writer feedback as to how he can improve his

1830writing or why the essay received a particular score. For that reason,

1842Petitioner received no feedback following the examinations, and he was not

1853informed what he needed to do to improve his essay.

186312. The following instructions were among the general instructions given

1873to the candidates for the May 1989 FELE and the November 1989 FELE:

1886Your essay will be judged on your ability to

1895write in a logical, easily understood style

1902and on the quality of information provided,

1909NOT on the opinion expressed.

191413. The following essay rating criteria were provided the candidates for

1925the May 1989 FELE and the November 1989 FELE:

1934Unity, organization, and focus (described as

"1940consistency, coherence, order and interdependence

1945of parts, creating a single, integrated effect")

1953Sufficiency and development (described as

"1958appropriateness of expression to meet writer's

1964and subject's needs; breadth and depth; use of

1972detail, examples, illustrations")

1976Usage and syntax (described as "appropriate

1982ordering of words to convey intended meaning;

1989appropriate use of language, inflection, tense,

1995agreement, vocabulary")

1998Clarity and paragraph and sentence structure

2004(described as "lucidity of expression; paragraph

2010structure; variety, logic, and relatedness of

2016sentences within paragraphs")

2020Spelling, capitalization, punctuation (described as

"2025currently accepted standards")

202914. To produce reliable and consistent scoring of the essays, a well

2041developed process is closely followed. The first stage of the holistic scoring

2053process is the selection of a chief reader, an assistant chief reader, and

2066readers. 3/

206815. The chief reader meets with the assistant chief reader and with other

2081readers, normally selected because of their experience, to select range finders

2092and sample papers. This group, referred to as selectors, first discusses the

2104scoring definitions and builds a consensus as to the criteria by which the

2117papers will be judged. The members of the group review range finders from a

2131previous administration of the examination so that the criteria used will be

2143consistent with past scoring. They then read, rank, and discuss 40-50 sample

2155papers, selected at random from the current examination. Thereafter, in a

2166process that builds towards a consensus as to what scores the different sample

2179papers should receive, they discuss what ratings these papers received and how

2191the rating criteria applies. They then select at least six range finders as

2204being typical of the one, two, three, and four categories plus two scores that

2218are borderline. These range finders are backed up by 15-20 sample papers which

2231also exemplify scale level and borderline cases. It is the responsibility of

2243the chief reader to determine that the selectors have reached an appropriate

2255understanding as to the criteria to be applied to scoring these essays.

226716. After the range finders and the samples have been selected, the chief

2280reader and the assistant chief readers meet with those readers who will have the

2294responsibility of scoring the essays. The process used to build consensus among

2306the selectors as to the appropriate scoring criteria is followed to build

2318consensus among the readers. It is the responsibility of the chief reader to

2331determine that all readers have a clear understanding as to the criteria to be

2345used in scoring the essays. The actual scoring does not begin until after the

2359chief reader has made that determination. Throughout the scoring process, the

2370chief reader (or the table leader, if an examination is taken by enough people

2384to justify a table reader) monitors the reading to ensure that the readers are

2398applying the appropriate criteria in scoring the essays.

240617. Each essay is independently scored by two readers, each of whom is

2419unaware of the score given by the other reader. No participant in the scoring

2433process knows the identity of the essay writer.

244118. Essays which receive the same or contiguous scores from two readers

2453are completed and those scores are recorded. For example, if the two readers

2466each scored an essay as a two, the total score the candidate would receive on

2481his essay would be a four. If one reader scored the essay as a two while the

2498other scored it as a three, the total score the candidate would receive on his

2513essay would be a five. That score would be added to the score he received on

2529the multiple choice portion of the communications subtest and statistically

2539adjusted to determine his final score on the communications subtest. The

2550passing score for the communications subtest is determined as provided by Rule

25626A-4.00821(7)(d)1, Florida Administrative Code.

256619. Petitioner took the FELE in May 1989. He failed the communications

2578subtest, but he passed the remaining portions of the examination. On the May

25911989 examination, Petitioner received on his essay a score of two from each of

2605the two readers who scored his essay. The four points he received on the essay

2620portion of the subtest, when added to the score he received on the multiple

2634choice portion of the subtest and statistically adjusted were insufficient to

2645attain a passing grade on the communication subtest. Petitioner needed a score

2657of three from each of the two readers to pass the communications subtest.

267020. Petitioner retook the communications subtest in November 1989 and

2680again failed to achieve a passing score. On the November 1989 examination,

2692Petitioner again received on his essay a score of two from each of the two

2707readers. Petitioner needed a score of three from one of the two readers to pass

2722the communications subtest.

272521. There was nothing about the testing conditions on either occasion that

2737treated the Petitioner differently from any other candidate or that interfered

2748with his opportunity to do his best writing. The holistic scoring process for

2761each examination was carried out according to expectations without any problems

2772or unusual circumstances. The procedural safeguards, designed to ensure

2781uniformly fair scoring, were followed for both examinations. In neither case

2792did the scoring of Petitioner's essay trigger the referring part of the process.

280522. In the May 1989 examination, eight range finders were used, but only

2818two dealt with the topic Petitioner selected. Those range finders were assigned

2830a score of 2 and a 4, respectively.

283823. Dr. Robert Blackmon and Dr. David Kirby, both of whom have impressive

2851academic credentials and both of whom were accepted as experts in the field of

2865holistic scoring of essays, were of the opinion that the Petitioner's essay on

2878the May 1989 examination merited a score of three. Prior to forming that

2891opinion, each had reviewed the two range finders pertinent to the topic selected

2904by Petitioner and the scoring criteria used by the readers. Each then evaluated

2917Petitioner's essay based on their review of the range finders and the criteria.

293024. In the November 1989 examination, six range finders were used, with

2942two dealing with the topic selected by Petitioner. Following the procedure they

2954used in evaluating the May 1989 essay, Dr. Blackmon and Dr. Kirby reviewed

2967Petitioner's essay for the November 1989 exam. Again, both of these witnesses

2979were of the opinion that the Petitioner's essay merited a score of three.

299225. The scoring of an essay using only two range finders is not as

3006accurate as the scoring would be if there were additional range finders to be

3020used for comparison. Neither Dr. Blackmon or Dr. Kirby reviewed range finders

3032from other administrations of the FELE, neither reviewed the samples that had

3044been selected, and neither had participated in any process designed to build

3056consensus as to the appropriate scoring technique. Both reviewed Petitioner's

3066two essays in greater detail than that employed by the holistic scoring

3078contemplated for the FELE examination.

308326. The use of only two range finders on the topic selected by Petitioner

3097for the May 1989 exam and for the November 1989 exam did not invalidate the

3112scoring process. The readers involved in the scoring of Petitioner's essays for

3124the May and November 1989 examinations had sufficient range finders and

3135sufficient samples to enable them to fairly score Petitioner's essays. While

3146Petitioner's experts were of the opinion that a higher score should be awarded,

3159these opinions were formed using a pre-scoring process different than that used

3171by Respondent in evaluating the FELE and are not afforded greater weight than

3184the scores given by Respondent's readers.

319027. It is found, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that

3203Petitioner's essays were fairly scored by Respondent's readers, that the scoring

3214process used by Respondent complied in all material ways with the holistic

3226scoring method, and that the scores awarded Petitioner by Respondent's readers

3237should not be changed.


324428. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this

3254matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

325929. Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

3271evidence that he is entitled to the relief he seeks. Rule 28-6.08(3), Florida

3284Administrative Code. See also, Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C.,

3294Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Petitioner has failed to meet that



3310Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

3323RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's

3333challenge to the scoring of his essay on the May 1989 Florida Educational

3346Leadership Examination and which denies his challenge to the scoring of his

3358essay on the November 1989 Florida Educational Leadership Examination.

3367DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of

3379July, 1991.



3385Hearing Officer

3387Division of Administrative Hearings

3391The DeSoto Building

33941230 Apalachee Parkway

3397Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

3400(904) 488-9675

3402Filed with the Clerk of the

3408Division of Administrative Hearings

3412this 31st day of July, 1991.


34191/ Dr. Charles R. Blackmon, one of Petitioner's expert witnesses, expressed the

3431opinion that the readers were not qualified because of their lack of experience

3444in school administration. Dr. Blackmon's opinion in this regard is rejected as

3456being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Likewise rejected is

3468Petitioner's challenge to the qualifications of the readers because no

3478statistics were used to evaluate their performances. The qualifications of the

3489readers were established by the testimony presented at the hearing and by the

3502exhibits which were accepted into evidence.

35082/ Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's use of the holistic method of

3520evaluating his essays. His challenge is limited to the scores that resulted by

3533the application of the scoring method.

35393/ The readings for the May 1989 and November 1989 FELEs were not large enough

3554to justify the use of table leaders. If table leaders are necessary, those

3567individuals would be chosen and would typically participate in the selection of

3579range finders and samples.


3588IN CASE NO. 90-2164

3592The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted

3604on behalf of the Petitioner.

36091. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12,

362513, 16, and 20 are adopted to the extent the proposed findings are deemed

3639necessary to the conclusions reached.

36442. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19,

3659and 22 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order.

36703. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected because the

3683proposed finding is not necessary to the conclusions reached and to protect the

3696confidentiality of the examination question.

37014. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 18 and 21 are rejected as

3715being subordinate to the findings made.

37215. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 23 are

3735rejected as being the recitation of testimony that is without probative value.

3747The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 25 are

3760rejected as being subordinate to the findings made.

3768The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted

3780on behalf of the Respondent.

37851. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11,

380212, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and 34 are adopted

3821in material part by the Recommended Order.

38282. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7, 10, and 15 are adopted

3842in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being subordinate

3856to the findings made.

38603. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 28, 29, 31, and 33 are

3874rejected as being subordinate to the findings made.


3884Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire


3890118 North Monroe Street

3894Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700

3897Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire

3901Assistant General Counsel

3904Florida Board of Education

3908The Capitol - Suite 1701

3913Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

3916George A. Bowen

3919Acting Executive Director

3922301 Florida Education Center

3926325 W. Gaines Street

3930Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

3933Jerry Moore, Administrator

3936Professional Practices Service

3939352 Florida Education Center

3943325 W. Gaines Street

3947Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400


3956All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended

3968Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit

3982written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

3994written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

4006order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

4019to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be

4031filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
Date: 09/12/1991
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
Date: 08/29/1991
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
Date: 08/29/1991
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 07/31/1991
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 4/22-23/91.
Date: 06/10/1991
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed. (From Charles Ruberg)
Date: 05/13/1991
Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes 1-3) filed.
Date: 04/19/1991
Proceedings: Respondent`s First Motion in Limine; Respondent`s Second Motion in Limine filed. (From Charles S. Ruberg)
Date: 02/01/1991
Proceedings: Letter to Charles S. Ruberg from Don S. Bates (re: Conference call & Materials personally requested from DOE) filed.
Date: 02/01/1991
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. (From Thomas W. Young, III)
Date: 01/25/1991
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (for Leslie Holland, Esquire, GRANTED) sent out.
Date: 01/25/1991
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Amended Notice sent out. (hearing rescheduled for April 22-23, 1991: 9:00 am: Tallahassee)
Date: 01/23/1991
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance and to Hold Case in Abeyance filed. (From Thomas W. Young, III)
Date: 01/22/1991
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed. (from Leslie Holland)
Date: 11/26/1990
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Amended Notice sent out. (hearing rescheduled for Jan. 28, 1991: 9:00 am: Tallahassee)
Date: 11/21/1990
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance filed. (From Leslie Holland)
Date: 09/19/1990
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Amended Notice sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 12/3/90; 9:00am; Tallahassee)
Date: 09/17/1990
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance filed.
Date: 07/18/1990
Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Appearance filed. (From Leslie Holland)
Date: 07/05/1990
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Amended Notice sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 10/1/90; 9:00am; Tallahassee).
Date: 06/22/1990
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed.
Date: 06/14/1990
Proceedings: Letter to C. Arrington from D. Bates (issue; DOE`s reply to request for hearing) filed.
Date: 04/30/1990
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 7/9/90; 9:00am; Tallahassee).
Date: 04/26/1990
Proceedings: Respondent`s Response to Initial Order filed. (from Charles Ruberg)
Date: 04/25/1990
Proceedings: Letter to CBA from Don S. Bates (re: Initial Order) filed.
Date: 04/20/1990
Proceedings: Respondent`s Response to Initial Order filed.
Date: 04/10/1990
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
Date: 04/06/1990
Proceedings: Referral Letter; Score Report; Request for Hearing filed.
Date: 03/29/1990
Proceedings: Request for Hearing filed.

Case Information

Date Filed:
Date Assignment:
Last Docket Entry:
Tallahassee, Florida

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (1):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):