01-001131 Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Gregory Adams Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, October 26, 2001.

Summary: Allegations of child abuse not proven; teachers reinstated with back pay.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 01 - 1131

)

GREGORY ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 01 - 1132

)

BRETT T. SCANLON, )

)

Respondent. )

__________ _______________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in this cause was

held on May 24 - 25, 2001, in Miami, Florida, and on

September 14, 2001, via video - teleconference at sites in Miami

and Tallahassee, Florida, before Fl orence Snyder Rivas, a

duly - designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeas t Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent Leslie A. Meek, Esquire

Adams: United Teachers of Dade

2200 Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33137

Fo r Respondent Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire

Scanlon: 2800 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 900

Miami, Florida 33137

H. T. Smith, Esquire

1017 Northwest 9th Court

Miami, Flori da 33136

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is whether the School Board

has proven the allegations set forth in the Notices of

Specific Charges dated April 3, 2001, and, if so, what penalty

should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMEN T

On Mar ch 14, 2001, Petitioner, Miami - Dade County School

Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board") acted to suspend and

initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondents. The

Respondents timely requested hearings pursuant to Section

231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. These causes were filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings

on March 22, 2001, and were consolidated for final hearing by

Order dated April 10, 2001.

The School Board furnished its Notice of Specific Charges

to each Respondent on April 3, 2001. Petitioner alleges that

Respondents were guilty of misconduct in office, violation of

School Board rules pertaining to conduct unbecoming a School

Board employee, corporal punishment, child abuse, violence in

the workplace, a nd violation of the State Board of Education

Rules contained in the Code of Ethics of the Education

Profession in Florida (Ethics Code), and the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida

(Professional Conduct Principles).

At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony

of the following witnesses: William Tagle, School Board

police detective; Dr. Diane Cotter, school psychologist

qualified as an expert witness without objection; complaining

witness Miguel Suarez 1 ; Paulette Martin, principal; Carmen

Gutierrez, assistant principal; Silvia Gomez, mother of the

complaining witness; Martha Ortega, Adrianna Garcia, Millie

Johnson, Suzanne Burstein, and Dr. Joseph Finn, teachers; and

Dr. Thomasina O’Donnell, district direc tor of Petitioner’s

Office of Professional Standards (OPS). Petitioner’s Exhibits

numbered 1 - 12 were admitted into evidence.

Respondents testified in their own behalf, and presented

the testimony of Dr. Charles Miller, parent, and Leah

Gilliard, te acher. Respondents' Exhibits numbered 1 - 4 were

admitted into evidence with Exhibit 3 being late - filed by

stipulation. These exhibits were submitted and considered on

behalf of both Respondents.

Subsequent to the hearing, on June 1, 2001, Petitioner

move d to reopen the evidence in order to introduce a copy of a

written statement into evidence. The statement was testified

about at the time of the hearing but was not located until

after the hearing. The motion was granted, and as a result,

the parties wer e afforded a video - teleconference evidentiary

hearing on September 14, 2001.

The parties were unprepared to discuss case law relevant

to the statement's admissibility on that date. The

undersigned was initially inclined to rule that the copy of

the document could not be admitted over objection absent an

explanation of what had happened to the original. The parties

were afforded leave to submit memorandums of law in support

of, or opposition to, the statement's admissibility. Upon

consideration of c ase law, the motion to admit the statement

is granted and the document is admitted into evidence as

Petitioner's Exhibit 13. It has been considered along with

all the other evidence and testimony in the case.

A transcript of the proceedings was filed on J une 18,

2001. However, the disposition of this case was substantially

delayed by the sudden serious illness of counsel for

Respondent Scanlon. The undersigned wishes to acknowledge the

efforts of H. T. Smith, Esquire, who entered the case on

behalf of Sc anlon post - hearing, and worked diligently to

assist in the resolution of this case as expeditiously as

possible under difficult circumstances.

By stipulation of the parties the deadline for proposed

recommended orders was extended to September 30, 2001. All

parties filed timely submissions which have been carefully

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The incident giving rise to this case occurred on

November 14, 2000. At that time, Respondents Gregory Ada ms

(Adams) and Brett T. Scanlon (Scanlon) were employed as

teachers by the School Board and assigned to William Chapman

Elementary School (Chapman). Adams has been employed by the

School Board since August 1996, and has taught at Chapman

since 1998.

2. Scanlon has been employed by the School Board at

Chapman since October 1999. Adams and Scanlon shared a second

grade classroom during Scanlon's first year at Chapman, and

Adams became a mentor to him. At the start of the 2000/2001

school year, Scan lon was assigned to teach third grade, while

Adams continued to teach second grade.

3. The complaining witness against Adams and Scanlon,

Miguel Suarez (Miguel), was nine years old at the time of the

incident. Like many of the teachers and adminis trators at

Chapman, Miguel is of Hispanic origin. English is his second

language.

4. Miguel's academic functioning is quite low. In terms

of expressing himself, he functions at a four or five - year - old

level. His memory functions no better than tha t of a five -

year - old. He was not sure, for example, what school he had

attended last year. Miguel is unable to reliably sequence

events. He is eager to please and, at least in the presence

of the undersigned, attempted to ascertain what adult

authority figures wanted and to give it to them.

5. Miguel's learning disabilities are not the first

thing one notices about Miguel. Indeed, Miguel began the

2000/2001 school year as a second grade student in a regular

education class. It was not until mid - October that the

professional educators who worked with him daily mustered

sufficient evidence to identify his learning disabilities and

appropriately place him into a learning disabilities (LD)

program for part of the day.

6. Miguel's family is n ot adept at communicating

effectively with school teachers and administrators. Miguel's

mother, Silvia Gomez (Gomez), does not strive for a united

front between home and school.

7. In addition to his mother, Miguel resides with her

live - in boyfriend . Both are irregularly employed. Sometime

prior to the incident on November 14, 2000, Miguel's father

had committed suicide. Miguel was aware that his father had

died, but had never received counseling directed to this loss.

8. Adams is an Afric an - American from an impoverished,

hardscrabble background. Out of seven siblings, he and one

other have achieved a college education. Adams feels an

obligation to encourage children of similar background.

Scanlon is a white male, who previously served i n the armed

forces. His professional bearing is reminiscent of what

official Miami used to look like. He too is committed to

teaching.

9. At the time of the final hearing, Chapman’s racial

and ethnic composition, as well as the mix of English and

S panish spoken as first languages, typifies the rich diversity

of Miami - Dade County in the 21st century. But it also

provided fertile ground for misunderstanding,

miscommunication, and mixed signals.

10. Compounding the potential for trouble at Chapm an, at

the time of the incident, some teachers employed a practice

called ”time - out” to deal with students with whom they were

having a problem at a moment when they were not able or

willing to deal with the problem themselves.

11. Time - out, though not part of the officially approved

discipline program at Chapman, was widely known in the school.

The practice was discontinued after and as a direct result of

this incident. At the time of the incident, Adams and Scanlon

had a good faith belief that it was a form of professional

courtesy within the school, and not an act which would place

one’s career in jeopardy.

12. Time - out was initiated by the teacher having

difficulty with a particular student. She would take or send

the disruptive student to a fellow teacher who would use his

own discretion in returning the child to a compliant mode.

Sometimes, the mere act of sending the child to another

teacher was sufficient to inspire contrition. Sometimes it

wasn't. Sometimes a child would join the time - out teacher's

classroom. Sometimes the child would be taken to a private

area and given a stern lecture.

13. Miguel, due to his learning disabilities and in

particular his extremely poor communication skills, was not a

good candidate to respond positivel y to a stern lecture.

Rather, it was frightening to him, particularly when delivered

by two adult male teachers previously unknown to him.

14. Adams, on the other hand, had good results in the

past with students referred to him for time - out. Adams was

e xperienced in administering time - outs for fellow teachers,

and the record reflects no complaints about either

Respondent's techniques with reference to their handling of

time - outs.

15. Adams and Scanlon had no knowledge of Miguel’s

limitations and special circumstances on November 14, 2000,

when one of Miguel’s teachers, Leah Gilliard (Gilliard), was

angry at Miguel for “helping” to collect books without

permission.

16. Gilliard delivered Miguel to Adams, who in turn

sought the assistance of his colleagu e Scanlon.

17. Miguel’s time - out ended in a student bathroom, where

Respondents used language and metaphors which may have been

effective with a third grader of average communication skills,

but which served only to frighten Miguel.

18. In particula r, Scanlon asked Miguel why he wanted to

throw his life away and if he wanted to flush everything down

the toilet. Asked by Scanlon questions to the effect of why

he was throwing his education away like he was flushing it

down the toilet, Miguel started l aughing. It may well be that

Miguel laughed out of fear, or confusion, but Scanlon and

Adams perceived disrespect.

19. Rather than switch metaphors, Adams took Miguel to a

child - size toilet stall and said “This is your life going down

the drain if you don't get serious about education.” As he

said this, he flushed the toilet with his foot.

20. Miguel was sufficiently chastened to obey Adams'

direction to apologize to Scanlon for having been (in

Respondents' perception) rude. Miguel did not cry or e xhibit

other signs of distress to Respondents as they escorted him

from the bathroom.

21. Scanlon returned to his own classroom and Adams

returned Miguel to Gilliard. At Adams' direction, Miguel

apologized to Gilliard and the time - out ended.

22. Miguel said nothing of the incident until later that

night. At bedtime, Miguel told Gomez that “a brown man and a

white man” had “put his head in the toilet.” Gomez did not

take the claim seriously, and Miguel was not agitated or

upset. Gomez told Miguel to go to sleep and he did so.

23. The next morning, however, Miguel said he did not

want to go to school, so his mother went to school with him.

In the presence of Miguel, she first met with Gilliard, and

next with teacher Millie Johnson (Johnson). Johnson, on

hearing the toilet story, said to Miguel in a loud and

“forceful” voice, “They didn't really do that, did they?”

Miguel answered, “They almost.”

24. Adams was summoned, and admitted to having had

Miguel in his custody for time - out, but not to any typ e of

physical abuse.

25. By this time, Miguel had told at least three adults,

his mother, Gilliard, and Johnson, that he, Adams, Scanlon,

and a flushing toilet were all in proximity to one another

while Miguel was being sternly double - teamed on the subjec t of

his behavior — - a fact which Adams and Scanlon do not dispute.

26. Dissatisfied with Adams’ explanation, an angry Gomez

left an upset Miguel behind at school to be cared for by

teachers, administrators, and counselors who were busy with

their regular w ork. As the day progressed, Miguel was

required to tell his story to no fewer than four more teachers

and administrators.

27. Miguel began to add substantially and horrifically

to the story he had told his mother the night before.

Meanwhile, Adams and Scanlon were immediately transferred out

of Chapman and assigned to a district office.

28. At different times and places, Miguel has claimed

that Adams kicked walls and slammed doors; that Scanlon

threatened to cut off his tongue and his fingers; that Ad ams

threatened to cut out his tongue and teeth; and that Adams

pushed his head just inside the rim of the toilet seat, near

the water, and asked, “Do you want to drown?”

29. In addition, Miguel has claimed that both teachers

took him to a stairwell where Adams told Miguel that he would

drop him down the stairs, pull out his teeth, and do

"something" to him if he told his mother. Miguel's story has

grown to include allegations that one or both teachers made

him stand on one foot and pretended to push him d own the

stairs. It is also alleged that Adams made him run up and

down the stairs chasing an unidentified boy that they had

picked up on their way to the stairs.

30. For reasons not reflected in the record, a couple of

days after the incident, Miguel's mother's live - in companion

came to the school office screaming, “How could teachers do

this!”

31. For several days following his mother's visit to

Chapman, Miguel was agitated and did not want to go to his

homeroom. The record is unclear as to whether his agitation

was the product of the November 14th incident, or adult

reaction to it as horrific details were added, or being simply

overwhelmed by the attention.

32. Soon after the incident, Miguel was administratively

promoted to a third grade homero om. He continues to be

enrolled at Chapman.

33. Gomez retained an attorney to pursue a civil action

on Miguel's behalf. At the time of the final hearing in this

case, the incident which occurred on November 14 is in active

litigation and requires a sig nificant amount of Miguel's time.

He is fearful of failing this year because he is missing a lot

of school due to the legal proceedings.

34. Gomez and her lawyer sought and received publicity

for their claims against Petitioner. In seeking media

coverag e they knowingly and voluntarily made Miguel's identity

a matter of public notoriety for purposes of influencing the

outcome of the litigation.

35. Because Petitioner's case rests entirely upon

Miguel's claims that he was subjected to criminal conduct far

beyond the time - out described by Adams and Scanlon, the

undersigned paid careful attention to his demeanor under oath.

Miguel attended a significant portion of the final hearing

accompanied by his mother and his lawyer, and listened again

to teachers' ac counts of what he had allegedly told them about

the incident.

36. Miguel's time on the witness stand was prolonged

because he had significant difficulty understanding questions

and even more difficulty in recalling and recounting facts

crucial to the alle gations against Respondents. On several

occasions his attempted answers were simply unintelligible.

37. Miguel's family, by virtue of its lawsuit against

Petitioner, had an obvious financial stake in telling as

horrifying a tale as possible.

38. Simila rly, Adams and Scanlon, whose careers and

livelihoods are at stake, are motivated to downplay the extent

of their efforts to intimidate Miguel into improving his

behavior. The undersigned, therefore, carefully observed

Respondents' demeanor as they testif ied.

39. The testimony of the Respondents and of Miguel, when

evaluated in the context of the entire record, reveals that

Petitioner has failed to establish that Miguel was abused in

the manner described in the Notice of Specific Charges.

Rather, the v ersion of the incident recounted by Adams and

Scanlon is far closer to the truth.

40. The Petitioner's allegations are utterly

inconsistent with any evidence presented about the character

and professional career of Adams and Scanlon. In addition,

they ar e so horrific that one would expect that a child who

had suffered such treatment would be far more traumatized than

the cheerful, if intimidated, little boy who testified at the

final hearing.

41. The undersigned attaches particular significance to

Gomez ' claim at the final hearing that on the night of the

incident, Miguel reported to her most, if not all, of the

abuse allegations against Adams and Scanlon. Yet, all of

Petitioner's witnesses agree that when Gomez confronted Adams

and school authorities t he following day, she said nothing of

the alleged threats of violence and death made against her

son.

42. Gomez claims she did not mention the abuse

allegations the next day because she deemed them unimportant

when measured against the fact that -- taking the evidence in

the light most favorable to the Petitioner -- Miguel's head had

been placed near, but not in, the toilet water. The

undersigned rejects Gomez' testimony that Miguel in fact

claimed, on the night of November 14th, that he had been

subjected to violence, physical abuse, and death threats. Not

only did Gomez fail to mention these most serious charges to

any of the teachers or administrators, she never mentioned

them to school police.

43. It is also significant that the day after the

inciden t, Miguel did not suggest to anyone that any other

children were present on the stairs. It was not until his

deposition was taken in May 2001, that Miguel stated that

another little boy was on the stairs and that the “Brown man”

pulled the little boy from class and made both of them run up

and down stairs. There is no corroborating evidence that this

child exists, or this incident took place on November 14th nor

at any other time.

44. Neither is there any corroboration of any kind for

Miguel's testimon y that several children were in the bathroom

at one time or other during the course of the incident and

each of these children was ordered out by Adams or Scanlon.

Such witnesses, if they existed, would be of obvious value in

providing disinterested testi mony as to, at a minimum, the

demeanor of the Respondents during the incident. Being kicked

out of a bathroom by a teacher is not a daily occurrence. Had

multiple children been subjected to this unusual behavior by

two teachers who were preparing to or w ere in the process of

abusing a second grader, it should not have been difficult to

identify them 24 hours later.

45. Petitioner attempted to corroborate Miguel's

testimony through a school psychologist, Diane Cotter

(Cotter). She opined that the allege d abuse actually

occurred. Cotter has no personal knowledge of the incident,

does not treat Miguel, and has no credentials in forensic

psychology.

46. With deference to the witness, the undersigned

disagrees with her opinion as to Miguel's reliability.

47. The record as a whole establishes that Miguel's

story grew in direct response to the attention and

reinforcement he was receiving as the flushing toilet story

was embellished with allegations of criminal child abuse.

48. Petitioner, at its duly - n oticed meeting of March 14,

2001, took action to suspend Adams and Scanlon without pay and

to initiate dismissal proceedings against them pursuant to

Sections 230.23(5)(f) and 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

49. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these

proceedings. Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.

50. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly -

constituted school board charged with the d uty to operate,

control, and supervise all free public schools within the

School District of Miami - Dade County, Florida. Article IX,

Constitution of the State of Florida. Section 230.03, Florida

Statutes.

51. Since Petitioner seeks only to dismiss Resp ondents

as employees, but not to revoke their teaching certificates,

it need only prove the allegations set forth in the Notice of

Specific Charges by a preponderance of the evidence. Allen v.

School Board of Dade County , 571 So. 2d 568 (3d DCA 1990);

Dil eo v. School Board of Dade County , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1990).

52. The complaining witness is competent to testify and

his testimony was considered along with all other evidence and

testimony in the case.

53. The Petitioner has alleged that R espondents are

guilty of misconduct in office, violation of School Board

rules pertaining to employee conduct, violence in the

workplace, failure to report child abuse, corporal punishment,

and the Ethics Code and Professional Conduct Principles.

54. Rul e 6B - 4.009, Florida Administrative Code, provides

in pertinent part as follows:

(3) Misconduct in office is defined as a

violation of the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession as adopted in

Rule 6B - 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles

of Professiona l Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule

6B - 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to

impair the individual’s effectiveness in

the school system.

55. Rule 6B - 1.001, Florida Administrative Code, the

Ethics Code, provides in pert inent part, as follows:

(1) The educator values the worth and

dignity of every person, the pursuit of

truth, devotion to excellence. . . .

(2) The educator’s primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the s tudent’s

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will

seek to exercise the best professional

judgment and integrity.

(3) Aware of the importance of

maintaining the respect and confidence of

one’s colleagues, of student s, of parents

and of other members of the community, the

educator strives to achieve and sustain the

highest degree of ethical conduct.

56. Rule 6B - 1.006, Florida Administrative Code, the

Principles of Professional Conduct, provides in pertinent

part , as follows:

(3) Obligation to the student requires

that the individual:

(a) Shall make reasonable effort to

protect the student from conditions harmful

to learning and/or to the student’s mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

* * *

(e) Shall not intentionally expose a

student to unnecessary embarrassment or

disparagement.

(f) Shall not intentionally violate or

deny a student’s legal rights.

57. Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated

Rule 6B - 1.001(3)(a),(e), and (f), Fl orida Administrative Code,

in that they failed to value Miguel's worth and dignity;

failed to exhibit a professional concern for Miguel; failed to

exercise the best professional judgment; and failed to

maintain the respect of their colleagues, parents and members

of the community. Violation of any of these rules comprises

just cause for the termination of Respondents' employment.

58. Petitioner further contends that Respondents have

violated Rule 6B - 1.006(1),(2), and (3), Florida Administrative

Code, in t hat they failed to protect Miguel from conditions

harmful to his learning, mental and/or physical health and/or

safety; have exposed Miguel to unnecessary disparagement; and

have intentionally violated his legal rights.

59. As to each of the foregoing cha rges, the only

evidence against Respondents is Miguel's testimony. For the

reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact, the undersigned

does not credit Miguel's shifting and escalating accounts of

what transpired between him and Respondents on November 14,

2000.

60. The expert testimony of school psychologist Cotter,

considered in its entirety and in the context of the record as

a whole, is nothing more than vouching for Miguel's

credibility. The trier of fact is not bound by the expert's

opinion as to the believability of a witness. Troinger v.

State of Florida , 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1974); Ward v. State of

Florida , 519 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Put another way,

expert testimony may not be offered to directly vouch for the

credibility of a witness. Kruse v. State , 483 So. 2d 1383

(Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

61. The School Board has failed to demonstrate by a

preponderance of evidence that Adams and/or Scanlon committed

any or all of the specific acts of abuse alleged. Rather, the

evidence establishes the ill - fated time - out began with the

best of intentions on the part of both teachers who were

acting in accordance with an established, although not

formally acknowledged, practice within the school of teachers

supporting and assisting one another in dealing with children

who were, for whatever reason, beyond a particular teacher's

ability to deal with at a given moment.

62. Although Petitioner has claimed that other students

could corroborate aspects of Miguel's story, no corroborating

witnesses have been pr oduced. There are no physical

indications of abuse. There is no evidence that Miguel would

even remember this incident were it not for the ongoing

reminders which come with the litigation process. There is no

evidence of mental or emotional trauma on a level approaching

what would be expected in a child who had been subjected to

even one of the traumatic events alleged, let alone all of

them. There was no evidence that Miguel responds to terror by

falling silent, rather than crying out in fear, or cryin g

promptly upon being released into the custody of his family.

Instead, the evidence is that he was calm on his return to

class, and calm until the next morning.

63. While it is theoretically possible that two

dedicated teachers with unblemished records could

simultaneously turn into monsters, the more probable

explanation is that Miguel was in fact distressed and angry

about the dressing down he received that day. When he finally

told his mother the story at bedtime, he did not get the

reaction he hoped for. Whether he decided to embellish the

story to gain sympathy, or whether he did in fact become more

distressed the longer he thought about the incident is

unknowable. What the evidence does establish, however, is

that Miguel's story grew in direct pr oportion to the amount of

attention he received in the telling.

64. Because the evidence establishes that Adams' and

Scanlon's accounts of the event are substantially truthful,

and that Miguel's is not, the record as a whole compels the

conclusion that Petitioner has failed to prove misconduct in

office, and lacks just cause for the termination of

Respondents' employment.

65. Petitioner argues that Scanlon's acknowledgment on

cross - examination that he would not have wanted his own child

to experience w hat Miguel experienced is, in and of itself, an

admission that Scanlon had, at a minimum, reason to suspect

child abuse by Adams and therefore had a duty to report same.

The undersigned observed the demeanor of the interested

witnesses with particular car e. Observation of Scanlon under

oath, coupled with a careful review of the actual question

asked and answer given in the context of the entire final

hearing, indicates that Scanlon provided an ambiguous answer

to an ambiguous question. The record reveals that Scanlon has

denied every specific allegation of abuse from the very

beginning and throughout the final hearing. In that context,

what the Petitioner seeks to characterize as an admission is,

at most, an acknowledgment that if he knew then what he kn ows

now, he'd have let Gilliard deal with her own problem

students.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Miami - Dade County School Board issue

a final order reinstating Gregory Adams and Brett T. Scanlon

with back pay.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

_______________________________

FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCO M 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 26th day of October, 2 001.

ENDNOTE

1/ For reasons discussed in the Findings of Fact, below,

Miguel's right to keep his identity secret has been waived.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Mia mi, Florida 33132

Leslie A. Meek, Esquire

United Teachers of Dade

2200 Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33137

Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire

2800 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 900

Miami, Florida 33137

H. T. Smith, Esquire

1017 Northwest 9th Court

Mia mi, Florida 33136

Dr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue

Miami, Florida 33132

James A. Robinson, General Counsel

Department of Education

The Capitol, Suite 1701

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any

exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the

agency that will issue the final order i n this case.