91-003404 Hendry County School Board vs. Aaron Ellis Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, November 22, 1991.

Summary: Repeated poor performance is just cause for teacher termination.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HENDRY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-3404

)

AARON ELLIS, )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

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

designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the

above-styled case on September 25, 1991, in Fort Myers, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Harry Blair, Esquire

Post Office Box 1467

Fort Myers, FL 33902

For Respondent: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire

Post Office Box 1547

Tallahassee, FL 32302-1547

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether just cause exists for the Petitioner's proposed non-renewal of the

professional services contract under which the Respondent is employed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respondent Aaron Ellis was employed as a guidance counselor at the Westside

Elementary School in Clewiston, Florida, under a professional services contract

by the Hendry County School Board.

By letter of April 11, 1991, in which the Respondent was notified that his

contract would not be extended for the next school year, and by Petition of May

29, 1991, Superintendent of Hendry County Schools William C. Burke has charged

the Respondent with unsatisfactory performance in his assigned responsibilities

and with misconduct in office (specifically related to inappropriate use of

school telephones and an incident wherein the Respondent, asked to perform an

interview with the family of a potentially emotionally handicapped child, passed

the work on to another teacher and attempted to be compensated for the work).

Mr. Ellis requested a hearing. The matter was referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for further proceedings.

At hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Ruth L. Meredith,

Rosa M. Santana, Richard Shearer, and Thomas Conner, offered into evidence

exhibits numbered 1-18. All exhibits were admitted into evidence. The

Respondent, who did not attend the hearing but who was represented by counsel,

presented no testimony or exhibits.

A transcript of the hearing was filed on October 7, 1991. Both parties

filed proposed recommended orders. The proposed findings of fact are ruled upon

either directly or indirectly as reflected in this Recommended Order, and in the

Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. From school year 1987-88 to school year 1990-91, and at all times

material to this case, Respondent Aaron Ellis was employed as a guidance

counselor by the School Board of Hendry County pursuant to a professional

service contract. The professional services contract under which the Respondent

was employed specifically provides that the Respondent may not be dismissed

except for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

2. Richard K. Shearer has been the Principal at Westside Elementary School

since July 1989. At the time Shearer was assigned to Westside, the Respondent

was on staff as a guidance counselor, but did not have regular classroom duties

and was to respond to referrals from teachers of troubled students.

3. Between August 7 and December 12, 1989, the Respondent placed 44 long

distance telephone calls from his school office telephone. The calls, totaling

64.81 in tolls, were not school related. Westside Elementary School's Teacher

Handbook specifically provides that long distance calls made from and charged to

the school should be school related, and that permission must be obtained prior

to such calls being made.

4. On January 23, 1990, Principal Shearer discussed the inappropriate

telephone use with the Respondent and informed him that reimbursement was

required. Prior to this conversation, the Respondent had made no attempt to

reimburse the school for the cost of the calls.

5. By letter of January 26, 1990, Principal Shearer confirmed the

conversation and stated that reimbursement was required by February 9, 1990.

The letter, a copy of which was placed in the Respondent's personnel file,

further states that, "[ i]n the future, all long distance calls must be directly

related to Westside Elementary school students, and must be logged completely

and accurately with specific information as to who was called, what student it

was in reference to, and the reason for the call."

6. On April 4, 1990, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment

form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance

ratings. Mr. Shearer discussed the evaluation with the Respondent who refused

to sign the evaluation, but instead filed a separate response. Prior to

completing the form, Mr. Shearer had observed the Respondent on an informal

basis at least three times and had performed one documented formal observation.

He also observed the Respondent in casual meetings with numerous students. In

the evaluation, Mr. Shearer noted that the Respondent required improvement in

the areas of "utilization of time", "interpersonal relationships", and "routine

office procedures". The Respondent's overall performance rating was

unsatisfactory. The comments section provided that:

Mr. Ellis has some excellent qualities in the

way he communicates with students. He also

has some glaring weaknesses in making the most

effective use of school time, in relating to

fellow staff members including those in authority

over him, in following generally understood office

procedures. Improvement is necessary in these areas

during the 1990-91 school years.

7. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired

improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The

notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance

deficiencies and indicated that if improvements were unsatisfactory, the

Respondent's employment contract could be non-renewed.

8. Mr. Shearer was concern that the Respondent did not follow through on

referrals by teachers of troubled students. He also believed the Respondent to

be difficult to talk to and was somewhat distant from other staff. As to

desired improvements in interpersonal relationships, the notice of desired

improvement provided:

Mr. Ellis does not work as effectively with

other staff members as might be possible or

desirable. He seems to have trouble or resent

answering to those in authority over him....

Mr. Ellis needs to stay in closer contact with

teachers and administrators as together they

decide on strategies to help students needing

counseling or referrals for possible E.S.E.

staffing....Staff or small group meetings will

be set up upon request to discuss staff relations

and counseling procedures. Expectations of the

Counselor will be fully discussed at the beginning

of the new school year....Better staff relations

will hopefully develop by the end of the 1990-91

school year.

9. Mr. Shearer believed that the Respondent failed to spend adequate time

assisting referred students. As to desired improvements in utilization of time,

the notice of desired improvement provided:

Mr. Ellis does not use his time as efficiently

or as effectively as he might during the school

day....Mr. Ellis needs to show more initiative

in scheduling his time appropriately during the

school day....Schedules may be provided or developed

and/or a classroom assigned to help him achieve more

contact with students in need of counseling. A log

of counseling sessions may be put to

use....Improvements are expected during the

1990-91 school year.

10. Mr. Shearer was sometimes unable to locate the Respondent on-campus,

sometimes due to the Respondent's alleged illness (notice of which was not

timely provided), other times because the Respondent would leave the Westside

Elementary campus or would walk to another school located on the same property

with Westside. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the

notice of desired improvement provided:

Mr. Ellis does not follow normally accepted

office procedures. He does not always call

in when he is to be out for the day, does not

discuss extended absences with his supervisor,

misses too much time from work, and has had a

problem with unauthorized long distance phone

calls....Mr. Ellis will conform to normal office

procedures that are expected of all staff members....

A full explanation of what is expected of Mr. Ellis

will be given by the Principal during the week of

pre-planning....These problems should be corrected

immediately, but for certain by the end of the 1990-91

school year.

11. By memorandum of April 19, 1990, the Respondent replied to Principal

Shearer's April 4th assessment. The Respondent stated that he believed he

worked effectively with other staff members and did not have trouble in working

or answering to those in authority. He noted that there were no complaints from

teachers related to him and that he had never refused to perform assigned tasks.

He wrote that he believed his time to have been utilized efficiently, that he

had not been made aware of any related problems prior to the evaluation, and

that he was amenable to suggestions related to more effective use of time. The

Respondent insisted that he followed routine office procedures, although he

acknowledged one instance of absence without notifying superiors. He noted that

the matter of the inappropriate telephone calls had been handled through the

letter of January 26, 1990 (a copy of which had been placed in the Respondent's

personnel file) and through the reimbursement for such calls. He concluded, "I

believe that your formal assessment of my performance should have, for reasons

cited above, rated me as "satisfactory" in all areas. I will, however, do all

you find necessary in order to demonstrate my better-than-satisfactory

performance as a counselor at Westside Elementary School."

12. By letter dated April 20, 1990, Hendry County School Superintendent

William C. Burke informed the Respondent that due to the Principal Shearer's

assessment and evaluation, he was being charged with unsatisfactory performance

for the 1989-90 school year. The letter stated, "As provided in F.S. 231.36,

you may request to meet with me or my designee for an informal review of the

determination of unsatisfactory performance and/or request an opportunity to be

considered for a transfer to another appropriate position, with a different

supervising administrator, for the 1990-91 school year." The letter also stated

that during the 1990-91 school year, the Respondent would "be provided

assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted

deficiencies" and that he would "be evaluated periodically to keep you apprised

of progress."

13. Although Principal Shearer was available to offer assistance or

additional information related to the performance deficiencies, the Respondent

demonstrated no interest in taking advantage of the available assistance,

apparently because he did not agree with the evaluation. There is no evidence

that the Respondent requested transfer to another position with a different

supervising administrator.

14. Thereafter, Mr. Shearer determined it necessary to provide a

structured setting for the Respondent to perform his responsibilities. By

letter dated June 21, 1990, Principal Shearer provided and outline of the

guidance program he expected the Respondent to implement during the 1990-91

school year. The Respondent was assigned a permanent classroom for the school

year which was designated as the "time-out or in-school suspension room" which

was a part of the school's discipline program. "Disruptive" and "disinterested"

students were to be referred to the Respondent's classroom. Such students would

"benefit from more direct contact with the Guidance Counselor than we have been

able to give in the past years."

15. The Respondent was assigned three tasks related to the permanent

classroom setting. He was to develop and maintain a record-keeping system for

each child that included basic information, the reason for the referral to time-

out, and "any notes on types of counseling or any progress made...." He was to

"supervise and hopefully motivate students to keep up with their classwork while

in time-out." Finally, he was to "use whatever opportunities that arise,

individually or collectively, to counsel with students about the feelings or

attitudes that led to their disruptive behavior or lack or (sic) classroom

performance and ways to deal more appropriately with these feelings."

16. The June 21 letter provided that the Respondent would "have a good

deal of autonomy within your classroom, but it should be understood...that this

is not a 'reward' or play time, or something to be looked forward to. The

students will have no 'special area' privileges while in your room....The idea

is total isolation from other students until dismissal time." The letter

indicated that this job description was unusual for a school counselor, but that

the program would permit the Respondent to have "much more direct contact with

students who are having trouble succeeding in school." Concluding, the

principal wrote that the plans were "subject to fine-tuning" as the year

progressed, and that he welcomed the Respondent's input in the program.

17. A memorandum from the principal went to all Westside Elementary

teachers on or about August 22, 1990 which provided information on the

Respondent's "time-out" classroom. The information in the memorandum was

essentially similar to that in the June 21 letter to the Respondent.

18. Between August 6 and August 17, 1990, the Respondent placed 7 long

distance telephone calls from his school office telephone. The calls, totaling

$17.25 in tolls, were not school related. By letter to the Respondent dated

October 11, 1990, Principal Shearer wrote that, "...once again, in spite of my

clear instructions to the contrary, you have charged personal telephone calls on

our school telephone." The letter stated that "NO MORE personal calls are to be

charged, by you, to our school phone! This is not a service available to you,

or any other staff member." The Principal required immediate reimbursement and

placed a copy of the letter in the Respondent's personnel file. The letter

noted that continued noncompliance would result in more serious discipline being

imposed.

19. During the 1990-91 school year, Mr. Shearer often relieved the

Respondent from the Time-Out room during lunch and planning periods, and had

frequent contact with the Respondent. The Respondent was often observed sitting

at the desk, his feet up on the desktop, reading a newspaper or book.

Occasionally, the Respondent would be eating in the classroom. Additionally,

there were complaints from the adjoining school that the Respondent took Time-

Out students on walking tours around the other school campus, allowing them to

purchase and eat snacks. Mr. Shearer believed the situation to be

inappropriate, given that the Time-Out room was directed towards correcting

inappropriate behavior, and spoke to the Respondent on several occasions about

the situation, but the Respondent apparently did not believe the matter to be a

problem.

20. Mr. Shearer also encouraged the Respondent to discuss counseling

concerns with highly-regarded staff from other schools and to attend relevant

conferences, but the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent took

advantage of such opportunities.

21. On January 8, 1991, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment

form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance

ratings. The evaluation was reviewed by Shearer and the Respondent on January

18, 1991. The Respondent signed the evaluation. The Respondent's evaluation in

the area of "interpersonal relationships" had improved to satisfactory. Mr.

Shearer noted that the Respondent still required improvement in the areas of

"utilization of time", and "routine office procedures". The Respondent's

overall performance rating was not noted. The comments section provided that:

Some improvement noted in interpersonal

relationships. Paperwork is very weak.

Personal phone calls were made again this

year on school phone and on school time

against my direct instructions. Does not

make use of available time with problem

students in Time-out or with other students

when counseling could be beneficial.

Continues to miss entirely too much time from school.

22. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired

improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The

notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance

deficiencies and indicated that if improvements were required by March 15, 1991

or that the principal would recommend non-renewal of Respondent's employment

contract.

23. As to desired improvements in utilization of time, the notice of

desired improvement provided:

Continues to miss too much time from school.

Does not make best use of extended time with

problem kids in Time-Out. Does not actively

seek out students or opportunities to counsel.

Does not adequately follow-up on students referred

for counseling....Make school attendance a higher

priority. Take the initiative in scheduling students

for counseling, those in Time-Out, as well as others

who are in need....Keep an active log of students

counseled in Time-Out and at other times. Keep a

daily "diary" of activities done and students worked

with....All necessary forms and papers will be made

available. An F.P.M.S. package on "Using Time

Efficiently" will be provided.

24. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the notice of

desired improvement provided:

Paperwork is very weak, and record-keeping is

almost non-existent. Long-distance personal

phone calls have been made on school phones and

on school time after direct instructions to the

contrary....Record-keeping must be more accurate

and more detailed to document work done with and

for students. Compliance with directives is

mandatory. All calls on school phones will be

school related!....Progress will be monitored

closely....Assistance will be provided as needed

and/or as requested....Notebook with updated forms

to be filled out on each student in Time-Out and

those counseled otherwise will be provided.

25. Mr. Shearer provided the Respondent with materials appropriate to

maintain records on counseling activities. There is no evidence that such

materials were utilized or that the Respondent made any effort to address the

performance deficiencies noted by Mr. Shearer.

26. On March 26, 1991, Principal Shearer completed a guidance assessment

form which set forth the Respondent's professional evaluation and performance

ratings. The Respondent refused to sign the evaluation. Mr. Shearer noted that

the Respondent required improvement in the areas of "utilization of time", and

"routine office procedures". The Respondent's overall performance rating was

unsatisfactory. The comments section provided that:

Mr. Ellis has made some improvements in his

general attitude and has begun to have a little

more student contact, but there is still much

room for improvement. There are several major

areas that are still unsatisfactory. At this

time I am recommending that his contract not be

renewed for the 1991-92 school year.

27. Attached to the guidance assessment form were "notices of desired

improvement" identifying the improvements expected of the Respondent. The

notices provided additional information related to the Respondent's performance

deficiencies and indicated that the principal was recommending non-renewal of

Respondent's employment contract.

28. As to desired improvements in utilization of time, the notice of

desired improvement provided:

Continues to miss too much time from school.

Still spends too much of his school day without

direct contact with students. Has not been

consistent enough on his follow-up of many of

the children referred to him for counseling....

Must make school attendance a higher priority.

Must show more initiative in meeting with students

having problems. Initial contacts must be followed

up and documented on a regular basis....Should meet

with teachers on a regular basis to see what students

are experiencing difficulties that he might be able

to help with....Every consideration will be given to

working out student schedules to allow maximum contact

time with the Guidance Counselor.

29. As to desired improvements in routine office procedures, the notice of

desired improvement provided:

Paperwork remains very poorly and sloppily done.

Record-keeping is still very sketchy....Record-keeping

must be more accurate and more detailed to document

work done with students....Assistance will be provided

as needed or as requested....Will continue to supply

record books, calendars, files, etc. as may be needed

to help keep organized and documented.

30. By letter to Respondent dated April 11, 1991, Hendry County School

Superintendent Burke informed the Respondent that due to the Principal Shearer's

assessment and evaluation, he was being notified that "your performance

deficiencies have not been corrected. Further I am notifying you that you shall

not be issued a new professional service contract for the next school year."

31. The Time-Out program was continued through the remainder of the 1990-

91 school year, but was thereafter discontinued. Mr. Shearer assessed the

program as having been unsuccessful, at least in part due to the lack of

interest and negative attitude regarding the program by the Respondent, who

believed the program to have been a punitive measure against him by Mr. Shearer.

32. Guidance counselors in the Hendry County Schools are asked to

"volunteer" 1/ to assist school officials in obtaining psychological and

social histories of students who may be emotionally or environmentally

handicapped. The practice is to seek out a counselor who is assigned to the

same school as the student. The counselor interviews the child and family, and

completes appropriate paperwork containing the relevant information. The forms

are not complicated and do not require special expertise to complete. The

counselor receives $20 for each complete history taken and $10 to update a

previously taken history.

33. The Respondent was asked and agreed to take the history of a specific

Westside Elementary School student. Neither the student nor the family spoke

English to the extent that the Respondent, speaking only English, would be able

to conduct the interview. In such situations, interpreters may be used, but the

interview is to be conducted by the counselor.

34. The Respondent did not ask if he could use an interpreter and did not

seek approval to give the interview assignment to another teacher. The

Respondent asked Rosa M. Santana, a Spanish speaking second grade teacher at

Westside Elementary, to perform the interview. He did not offer to compensate

her prior to her performing the interview.

35. On or about April 28, 1991, Ms. Santana interviewed the child and

family. Ms. Santana took her mother, who speaks Spanish fluently, with her to

the interview. The Respondent was not present when the interview was done. Ms.

Santana completed the interview form and listed herself as the interviewer. Ms.

Santana thereafter returned the interview form to the Respondent. He altered

the interview form to identify himself as the interviewer and Ms. Santana as an

interpreter. He then submitted the completed form and the bill for $20 to

school officials as his charge for taking the student's social history. School

officials became aware of the fact that the Respondent did not complete the

interview, and paid the money to Ms. Santana rather than to the Respondent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

36. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes.

37. The professional services contract under which the Respondent was

employed specifically provides that the Respondent may not be dismissed except

for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The issue

presented for consideration in this case is whether just cause exists for the

termination of Mr. Ellis. Just cause includes, but is not limited to,

misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of

duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Section 231.36(1)(a),

Florida Statutes.

38. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent's professional service

contract should not be renewed due to misconduct in office and unsatisfactory

performance. In order to prevail, the Petitioner must, by a preponderance of

the evidence, establish the facts supporting the dismissal. In this case, as to

the Respondent's unsatisfactory performance, the burden has been met.

39. The Respondent was employed by the Hendry County School Board pursuant

to a professional service contract, as identified at Section 231.36(3), Florida

Statutes. A professional service contract shall be renewed each year unless the

superintendent charges the employee with unsatisfactory performance as

determined under the provisions of Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, and

notifies the employee in writing, no later than six weeks prior to the end of

the post school conference period, of performance deficiencies which may result

in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of

employment.

40. Performance assessments are to be performed at least annually. A

written copy of the assessment shall be given to the employee not later than ten

days after the assessment takes place. The written report of the assessment

shall be discussed with the employee by the person responsible for preparing the

report. In the event that the employee is not performing his duties in a

satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such

determination, describe such unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance

in helping to correct the deficiencies within a reasonable, prescribed period of

time. Section 231.29(3), Florida Statutes.

41. Upon receiving notice of an unsatisfactory performance assessment, an

employee may meet with the superintendent or his designee for an informal review

of the determination of unsatisfactory performance or may request a transfer to

another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator for the

subsequent year of employment. The employee is to be provided assistance and

inservice training opportunities to correct the noted performance deficiencies

and be evaluated periodically so that he will be kept apprised of progress

achieved. Not later than six weeks prior to the close of the post school

conference period of the subsequent employment year, the superintendent shall

notify the employee, in writing, whether the performance deficiencies have been

corrected. Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes.

42. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner complied with the

aforementioned requirements of Sections 231.29 and 231.36, Florida Statutes.

43. Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics

of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative

Code, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in

Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, which is so

serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system. Rule

6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code. Unsatisfactory performance is defined

as set forth in Standards of Competent Professional Performance, as adopted at

Chapter 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code.

44. As to the alleged misconduct in office, the evidence fails to

establish that such misconduct is so serious as to impair the Respondent's

effectiveness in the school system.

45. As to the alleged unsatisfactory performance, the evidence establishes

that the Respondent fails to meet the Standards of Competent Professional

Performance, Chapter 6B-5, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the

Respondent failed to keep records in accordance with responsibilities designated

by law and with the accepted practices of the school district, Rule 6B-5.003(1),

Florida Administrative Code; failed to utilize available instructional materials

and equipment necessary to accomplish the designated task, Rule 6B-5.003(4),

Florida Administrative Code; failed to adopt or develop a system for keeping

records of student progress, Rule 6B-5.003(6), Florida Administrative Code;

failed to demonstrate competence in relevant management techniques, Rule 6B-

5.007, Florida Administrative Code; failed to demonstrate instructional and

social skills which assist others to interact constructively, Rule 6B-5.010(3),

Florida Administrative Code; and failed to comply with reasonable requests and

orders given by and with proper authority, Rule 6B-5.010(6), Florida

Administrative Code.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

RECOMMENDED that the Hendry County School Board enter a Final Order

terminating the professional services contract of Aaron Ellis at the end of the

1990-91 school year.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this __22nd__ day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee,

Florida.

___________________________________

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this __22nd__ day of November, 1991.

ENDNOTES

1/ The "volunteers" receive compensation for the work.

APPENDIX

CASE NO. 91-3404

The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by

the parties.

Petitioner

The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and

incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:

78. Rejected as to the phrase "rating him unsatisfactory". The January

1991 evaluation does not specifically state that the evaluation is

unsatisfactory although a reading of the entire assessment package would

indicate that such characterization is accurate.

Respondent

The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and

incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:

10-12. Rejected, contrary to evidence which establishes that the

Respondent was encouraged to avail himself of opportunities to improve his

professional abilities and that appropriate materials were made available to

permit the Respondent to address the deficiencies related to record-keeping and

time management. Principal Shearer discussed matters with Respondent on several

occasions and offered appropriate suggestions. The Respondent, who apparently

did not believe his performance was inadequate, made little or no effort to

alter his activities.

13. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The letter of June 21, 1990,

provides an explanation of Principal Shearer's expectations related to the

Respondent's assignment.

17. Rejected, contrary to evidence. Although there was minimal

improvement in two areas, Respondent's performance was still unsatisfactory.

19-20. Rejected, contrary to evidence. The January 8, 1991 evaluation

documents the deficiency. There is no evidence which indicates that the

evaluation is not accurate.

26. Rejected, contrary to evidence. The letter of January 26, 1990

clearly states that "all long distance calls must be directly related to

Westside Elementary school students...."

Copies Furnished:

William C. Burke, Superintendent

Hendry County Schools

Post Office Box 1980

LaBelle, FL 33935

Harry Blair, Esquire

Post Office Box 1467

Fort Myers, FL 33902

Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire

Post Office Box 1547

Tallahassee, FL 32302-1547

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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