02-000974 Pinellas County School Board vs. Thaddeus Starling Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 23, 2002.

Summary: Teacher charged with solicitation; pled nolo to charge, but did not immediately report it to School Board. Recommend written reprimand for failure to immediately report arrest, dismissal of all other charges, and reinstatement with back pay and benefits.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02 - 0974

)

THADDEUS STARLING, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to n otice, Fred L. Buckine, an Administrative Law

Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a formal

hearing in this case on May 17, 2002, in Largo, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jacqueline Spoto - Bircher, Esquire

Pinellas Count y School Board

301 Fourth Street, Southwest

Post Office Box 2942

Largo, Florida 33779 - 2942

For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire

Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.

2595 Tam pa Road, Suite J

Palm Harbor, Florida 34684

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent's employment with the

Pinellas County School Board should be terminated for just cause

for violations of Pinellas County School Board Policies 8.04(4)

and 8.25(1)(a), (d), and (x).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 25, 2002, Respondent was notified by letter from

Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent of Pinellas County School

Board (the School Board), that he was being recommended for

dismissal at the School Board meeting on February 12, 2002. On

February 7, 2002, Respondent requested a formal administrative

hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. On

March 7, 2002, the matter was referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearin gs. On March 19, 2002, a Notice of

Hearing, scheduling the final hearing for May 2, 2002, and the

Order of Pre - Hearing Instructions were entered. On April 24,

2002, Petitioner filed a Motion to Continue, and on April 29,

2002, an Order Granting the Conti nuance and Rescheduling the

Hearing for May 17, 2002, was entered. On May 13, 2002, the

Parties' Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation was filed.

At the final hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of

five witnesses: Detectives Christina Bentham and Jason L andrem,

St. Petersburg Police Department; Dr. J. Howard Hinsley,

Superintendent, Pinellas County Public Schools; Edward Baldwin,

Principal, John Hopkins Middle School; and James Michael Baker,

Office of Professional Standards for the Pinellas County School

Board. Petitioner offered thirteen exhibits (P - 1 through P - 13),

which were accepted in evidence. Respondent testified on his

own behalf and offered the testimony of his wife, Lomia

Starling. Official Recognition was taken of Sections 120.569,

120.57, 2 31.36 and 796.07, Florida Statutes (2001).

A two - volume Transcript was filed on June 5, 2002, and on

June 7, 2002, respectively. Respondent filed a Notice of Taking

Deposition of David Perry, but the deposition was not introduced

in evidence. On June 24 , 2002, the Parties filed a Joint Motion

for Enlargement of Time to file proposed recommended orders, and

on June 25, 2002, an Order granting the motion was entered

enlarging the time to July 7, 2002. Respondent and Petitioner,

on July 2, and July 5, 2002 , respectively, filed Proposed

Recommended Orders with memoranda of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon observation of the witnesses while testifying,

their ability for accurate recall and the review of exhibits in

evidence and pleadings contained in the fi le, the following

relevant and material facts are found.

1. Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, is the

governing board of the Pinellas County School District. In

1995, the Board adopted School Board Policy 8.25 "Discipline of

Employees."

2. Res pondent, Thaddeus Starling (Starling), has been a

teacher for 23 years with the last 17 of those years spent in

Pinellas County as a full - time teacher. Starling has worked for

the last three years as a physical education instructor at the

John Hopkins Mid dle School, located on 16th Street in St.

Petersburg, Florida.

3. At all times relevant and material to these

proceedings, Starling was employed pursuant to a professional

services contract with the School Board pursuant to Section

231.36, Florida Statute s (2001).

4. Mr. James Baldwin, a principal for over 15 years and

the current principal of John Hopkins Middle School, testified

that he has personally known Starling for 15 to 16 years and has

been his supervisor and principal for three years. As far as he

knows, Starling has never done anything wrong to suggest that he

was not a good man. He is good with the students and has

received good annual evaluations. There is no evidence in the

record to suggest that Starling has ever been disciplined by the

S chool Board.

5. Starling has been with his wife 14 years and married to

her for the last eight years. Their pastime over the years has

been fishing in and around the St. Petersburg area. Starling

and his wife regularly fish for mullet in and around the St.

Petersburg area during September and October, when the mullet

are running. Each day that fishing is planned, Starling calls

his wife to identify the spot where they will fish, and she

meets him at the identified spot with their fishing equipment.

6. On September 5, 2001, Starling left school driving a

1983 Camaro by pulling onto 16th Street going toward 22nd

Avenue. He turned left onto 22nd Avenue to Third Street where

he made a left turn. Located along Third Street is one of the

several fishing loc ations where Starling and his wife regularly

fished.

7. Third Street at 20th Avenue was under construction on

September 5, 2002, and Starling had to detour off Third Street

onto 20th Avenue. Starling followed 20th Avenue to the

intersection of 20th Avenu e and Fourth Street, which is

controlled by posted stop signs facing the 20th Avenue traffic.

Because it was raining hard, all the windows in his vehicle were

rolled up when he stopped at the 20th Avenue and Fourth Street

intersection.

8. In response t o complaints made to the St. Petersburg

Police Department, a prostitution decoy detail was dispatched to

the area of 20th Avenue and Fourth Street on September 5, 2001.

Sergeant Quandt, the ranking officer, was in charge of the

detail consisting of Detect ive Christina Bentham, posing as the

prostitute decoy, and Detective Landrem, who was an observer or

"eyeballer" responsible for looking out for the safety of the

female decoy.

9. The crime of solicitation for prostitution focuses on

the conversation be tween the "John" (the person who initiates

conversation with the decoy for the purpose of sex in exchange

for something of value) and the decoy prostitute. No

consummation need occur. The crime is committed by the specific

"words spoken" by the accused.

10. While on the decoy detail, Detective Bentham wore an

electronic device that transmitted her voice to Detective

Landrem, who was equipped with an electronic receiver.

Detective Bentham was also wired with an electronic device that

transmitted her vo ice and the voice(s) of persons speaking to

her to Sergeant Quandt, who controlled the electronic receiving

and recording device. The electronic communication devices

enable the members of the prostitution detail to communicate

among themselves. The elec tronic recording device is to record,

as factual evidence, the solicitation for sex made by the "John"

to the decoy prostitute.

11. On September 5, 2001, Sergeant Quandt had the

electronic recording device in his vehicle. He is the only

member of the p rostitution decoy detail with personal knowledge

of when the recording device was actually operating during this

decoy detail, but was not called by the Board to give testimony.

12. After approximately four hours of waiting in the

pouring - down rain at the intersection of 20th Avenue and Fourth

Street, South, decoy Detective Bentham had not arrested anyone

for soliciting her for prostitution. Sergeant Quandt drove up

to Detective Bentham and ordered her to "get in he was calling

it off." By her admission, Detective Bentham steadfastly

refused to enter Sergeant Quandt's vehicle and insisted she

would stay out longer. Thereafter, Sergeant Quandt drove away

to another location. Detective Bentham went to stand under a

tree approximately 20 yards away from th e intersection.

13. According to Starling, as he sat at the stop sign,

waiting for traffic to clear for his turn onto Fourth Street,

Detective Bentham came from the grass area, walked onto the

sidewalk to the passenger side of his vehicle, and motioned fo r

him to lower his passenger window. Detective Bentham yelled

something to Starling that he did not understand, so he slightly

rolled down the passenger window of his vehicle. According to

Starling, he saw a lady out in the rain waving at his car, and

he thought maybe she needed some help. Starling's testimony is

plausible.

14. According to Detective Bentham, Starling yelled

something to her through his rolled - up passenger window while at

the stop sign. She did not understand what he was saying,

promp ting her to walk approximately 20 yards in the pouring - down

rain to the passenger window of his car. This testimony is not

credible.

15. Starling and Detective Bentham gave conflicting

testimony about who initially said what to whom. According to

Starli ng, Detective Bentham's first statement to him was, "What

can I do for you?" and he replied, "Well, nothing, I'm headed to

the wall." According to Detective Bentham, her first statement

to Starling was, "What are you looking for?" and he replied,

"Head." Considering the totality of circumstances, Starling's

habit of fishing, the planned fishing at the specific location,

calling home to his wife to meet him, and the road construction

in the area causing detours resulting in Starling's arrival in

the rain a t the intersection of 20th Avenue and Fourth Street,

Starling's testimony are credited.

16. Detective Landrem was in a parked vehicle

approximately 100 yards from Detective Bentham and had control

of a radio that he testified "received" only the words spo ken by

Detective Bentham. According to Landrem, he could not and did

not heard any incriminating statements allegedly made by

Starling.

17. It is undisputed that the decoy prostitution detail,

with electronic recording equipment in their control and on

their person, failed to record the alleged incriminating

statements during the conversation between Detective Bentham and

Starling. Sergeant Quant, ranking police officer in charge of

this detail, was not called by the School Board to testify.

18. Accord ing to Starling, when Detective Bentham began to

speak with him, he said, "Wait a minute," and [I'm going]

"fishing," and rolled his window up with the intent of turning

right onto Fourth Street. Moments before making his right turn,

Starling, looking in his side view mirror, saw Detective Bentham

step off the curb onto the road and walk to a white car that was

directly behind his car when he was on Twentieth Avenue.

Unknown to Starling at that time, the white car was driven by a

male, Mr. Perry, whom Det ective Bentham arrested for

solicitation for prostitution, again without recording that

conversation.

19. After Starling turned onto Forth Street East driving

without stopping toward Ninetieth Avenue, Starling was followed

by Sergeant Quant, but was stopp ed by and arrested by a

uniformed St. Petersburg Police Office and charged with

solicitation for prostitution. Under Section 796.07, Florida

Statutes, this criminal offense is a misdemeanor.

20. Starling obtained local counsel to represent him in

the c riminal proceeding. On November 20, 2001, Starling was

advised by counsel that he would best be served by dropping his

plea of not guilty and entering a plea of nolo contendere .

Starling was advised that his fine would be the amount of his

posted bond, a nd he would have to take a sexually transmitted

disease test. Starling agreed with the understanding the

agreement would be acceptable to the School Board.

21. The County Court of Pinellas County accepted

Starling's plea of nolo contendere , withheld adju dication of

guilt, and placed Starling on four months' probation that he

successfully completed.

22. Starling was advised by his counsel that he did not

have to report his arrest to the School Board until time for his

professional service contract renewal in May of 2002.

23. In January of 2002, after Starling and a colleague saw

a newspaper article about another School Board employee who was

disciplined, in part, for failing to report an arrest and a

withholding of adjudication, they found a policy manual and

talked to a school administrator who advised them to report any

such occurrence to the Office of Professional Standards.

Thereafter, Starling reported the arrest to the School Board.

24. Starling failed to report his arrest to the Office of

Profess ional Standards immediately after his release from jail

on bond. Starling's failure to immediately report his arrest to

the School Board was not an intentional violation of Policy but

was, at worst, excusable neglect based upon the advice received

from co unsel.

25. Starling reported his arrest by the St. Petersburg

Police Department, the charge of solicitation and the

disposition by the court to the Office of Professional Standards

on January 9, 2002. Starling's prolonged delay in reporting his

arrest to the Board is a violation of Pinellas County School

Board Policies 8.04(4) and 8.25(1)(x).

26. By letter of January 25, 2002, as amended thereafter,

the Office of Professional Standards, the School Board's

attorney and the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office ,

Superintendent J. Howard Hinesley sent the following notice of

suspension and dismissal letter to Starling:

January 25, 2002

Dear Mr. Starling:

This is to advise you that you were

suspended with pay effective January 11,

2002, until the School Board meeting on

February 12, 2002. The Board will meet at

1:00 p.m. in the conference hall of the

Administrative Building located at the

address on this letterhead. At that

meeting, I shall recommend that the Board

sustain your suspension and dismiss you. If

the Board enters its Final Order at that

meeting, the effective date of your

dismissal will be February 13, 2002. My

recommendation for dismissal is based on the

fact that on September 5, 2001, you were

arrested by St. Petersburg Police for

solicitation for prostitution. On

November 15, 2001, you pled nolo contendere

to the charge. Your actions are violation

of School Board Polices 8.04(4) and

8.25(1)(a),(v), and (x), the Code of Ethics

and Principles of Professional Conduct of

the Education Profession in Florida, and

constitute just cause for your dismissal

pursuant to Florida Statute 231.36.

You are entitled to a hearing regarding my

recommendation. This hearing, if requested

will be pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida

Statutes. Your request for a hea ring must

be submitted, in writing, to Staff Attorney,

Jackie Spoto Bircher, no later than 4:30

p.m. on Monday, February 11, 2002. If you

do not request a hearing, this failure

constitutes an admission of the allegations

made in this letter. Due to the n ature of

the charges against you, I will recommend

that you be suspended without pay effective

February 13, 2002, until the conclusion of

the administrative hearing process, if you

request such a hearing. If you have any

questions regarding these procedur es, you

may contact the Staff Attorney's office at

588 - 6221. (Emphasis added.)

27. During the final hearing, counsel stipulated to an

error in the above Notice in charging a violation of Pinellas

County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(v). Counsel agreed th at the

charge should be violation of Pinellas County School Board

Policy 8.25(1)(d). The stipulation amending the charge against

Starling was accepted.

28. Dr. Hinesley testified that on those occasions when he

considers his recommendation to discipline employees, he adheres

to the following process: first, when an employee is alleged to

have committed a criminal act involving solicitation of

prostitution he listens to his Staff's version of whether or not

there is any question of guilt in terms of wheth er this act

actually occurred; and second, if in the opinion of Staff and of

the people who investigated the incident, the criminal act did

occur, he was limited by Board Policy to recommending dismissal

based on the penalty range contained in School Board policy

8.25(a).

29. With regard to this case, Dr. Hinesley testified that

at the time Mr. Barker presented this case to him, he did not

know whether Mr. Barker's investigation consisted of cross -

examination of police officers or merely reading and relyin g

upon reports, including police reports, provided by staff; he

did not talk to the police officers nor did he talk to Starling.

He had no knowledge of whether Mr. Barker or his staff

questioned all the parties involved for purpose of determining

whether, in fact, the alleged solicitation for prostitution had

occurred. Dr. Hinesley affirmed that had his staff provided him

with a report that Starling had not committed the alleged

criminal act of solicitation for prostitution, his

recommendation to the Boar d would not have been dismissal.

Dr. Hinesley also agreed that should the result of this

administrative proceeding conclude that the alleged solicitation

for prostitution had not occurred, his recommendation of

discipline less than dismissal is permissib le under his

understanding of Board's policy 8.25(1)(a). Based upon his

authority and extensive experience in the Pinellas County

Education system, I accept the opinions of Dr. Hinesley and find

his testimony credible and conclusive regarding application of

Pinellas County School Board's discipline policy.

30. Based on the Finding of Facts herein above, the School

Board has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that Starling solicited for prostitution decoy Detective

Bentham, on September 5 , 2001, as alleged in the School Board's

Notice of a Recommendation of Dismissal dated January 25, 2002.

31. Based upon the foregone Findings of Fact, Starling has

rebutted the presumption of guilt based on his plea of nolo

contendere for solicitation of prostitution.

32. However, based upon the foregone Findings of Fact, the

School Board has proven by a preponderance of evidence that

Starling violated Subsections 8.04(4) and 8.25(1)(x) of the

School Board's Policy for not timely reporting his September 5 ,

2001, arrest.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

33. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case.

Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), and Subsection 231.36(6)(a)2,

Florida Statutes (2001).

34. The School Boar d seeks to dismiss Respondent from

employment as a teacher for violations of Pinellas County School

Board Policies 8.04 and 8.25(1)(a), (d), and (x), the Code of

Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education

Profession in Florida, which co nstitute just cause for

Respondent's dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida

Statutes (2001).

35. The Pinellas County School Board, as Petitioner, has

the burden of proof in this employee dismissal hearing, and the

standard of proof is by a preponde rance of the evidence. Dileo

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

1990); Accord , Allen v. School Board of Dade County , 571 So. 2d

568 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).

36. Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.04(4), provides:

All employees are required to notify their

supervisors immediately if they are arrested

or given a Notice to Appear for any criminal

offense, including driving under the

influence (DUI) and other criminal traffic

offenses and local ordinance violations

punishable by any period of incarceration or

charged in any way with such offenses. . . .

37. School Board Policies 8.25(1)(a), (d), and (x),

provide:

(a) Inappropriate sexual conduct,

including but not limited to lewd and

lascivious behavior, indecent exposure,

solicitation of prostitution, sexual

batters, possession or sale of pornography

involving minors, sexual relations with a

student. . .

* * *

(d) Committing or Conviction* of a

Criminal Act -- Misdemeanor.

* * *

(x) Failure to Comply with School Board

Policy, State Law, or Appropriate

Contractual Agreement

* * *

*Conviction is defined as a finding of

guilt, a plea of guilty, a plea of nolo

contendere , or entering a Pre - Trial

Intervention program, whether or not there

is a formal adjudication of guil t.

38. Subsections 231.36(1)(a) and (4)(c), Florida Statutes

(2001), provide:

(1)(a) Each person employed as a member

of the instructional staff in any district

school system shall be properly certificated

pursuant to s. 231.17 or s. 231.1726 or

empl oyed pursuant to s. 231.1725 and shall

be entitled to and shall receive a written

contract as specified in chapter 230. All

such contracts, except continuing contracts

as specified in subsection (4), shall

contain provisions for dismissal during the

term of the contract only for just cause.

Just cause includes, but is not limited to,

the following instances, as defined by rule

of the State Board of Education: misconduct

in office, incompetency, gross

insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or

convictio n of a crime involving moral

turpitude.

* * *

(4)(c) Any member of the district

administrative or supervisory staff and any

member of the instructional staff, including

any principal, who is under continuing

contract may be suspended or dismissed a t

any time during the school year; however,

the charges against him or her must be based

on immorality, misconduct in office,

incompetency, gross insubordination, willful

neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction

of a crime involving moral turpitude, as

these terms are defined by rule of the State

Board of Education. Whenever such charges

are made against any such employee of the

district school board, the district school

board may suspend such person without pay;

but, if the charges are not sustained, h e or

she shall be immediately reinstated, and his

or her back salary shall be paid. In cases

of suspension by the district school board

or by the superintendent of schools, the

district school board shall determine upon

the evidence submitted whether the charges

have been sustained and, if the charges are

sustained, shall determine to either dismiss

the employee or fix the terms under which he

or she may be reinstated. If such charges

are sustained by a majority vote of the full

membership of the district school board and

such employee is discharged, his or her

contract of employment shall be thereby

canceled. Any such decision adverse to the

employee may be appealed by the employee

pursuant to s. 120.68, provided such appeal

is filed within 30 days after the decision

of the district school board.

39. The Board has failed to establish by a preponderance

of the evidence that Starling committed the act of soliciting

prostitution from Detective Bentham on September 5, 2001. Thus,

the Board has not establis hed a violation of Pinellas County

School Board Policy 8.25(1)(a).

40. The parties admit that Respondent was arrested and

charged with soliciting for prostitution, a second - degree

misdemeanor proscribed by Subsections 796.07(2)(e) and (f),

Florida Statute s, and entered a plea of nolo contendere to that

charge.

41. Respondent's arrest on the criminal charge of

solicitation for prostitution and the entry of a plea of nolo

contendere to that charge constitutes the factual basis of the

School Board's case fo r dismissal for a violation of Pinellas

County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(d). The facts in Clark v.

School Board of Lake County, Florida , 596 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 5th

DCA 1992) are strikingly similar to the facts found in the

instant case. In Clark the scho ol teacher was charged with the

misdemeanor of abuse of an aged or disabled person. The school

teacher pled nolo contendere to the criminal misdemeanor charge,

and the court withheld adjudication and placed the school

teacher on probation. The school tea cher fulfilled the

conditions of probation and was released after completing

probation. In Clark , the hearing officer in the administrative

proceeding found that the acts of abuse had not occurred.

42. The Clark court held that the School Board erred in

concluding, notwithstanding the hearing officer's findings of

fact to the contrary, that Clark was guilty of immorality. The

analysis there is applicable in this case.

43. The Clark court reasoned that a plea of nolo contendre

the misdemeanor charge wa s not evidence of the commission of the

criminal act in our system of justice. A plea of nolo

contendere to a criminal charge is not conclusive grounds for

dismissal. See Kinney v. Department of State, Division of

Licensing , 501 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Ayala v.

Department of Professional Regulation , 478 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1985).

44. The School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended

Order that its Policy 8.25(1)(d) proscribes employees from

committing or being convicted of a misdemeanor. Starling did

not commit the act of solicitation of prostitution. Thus, the

issue becomes whether Starling should be dismissed for being

convicted of a misdemeanor. Pinellas School Board Policy 8.25

defines "conviction" to include a plea of nolo contend ere and

the withholding of adjudication.

45. In Ayala , supra , the court held that the Board of

Medical Examiners could consider a nolo contendere plea as a

conviction, but had to afford the applicant the opportunity to

rebut a presumption of guilt on the criminal charges by

"explaining the reasons and circumstances surrounding his plea

of nolo contendere , and thereby attempt to convince the Board he

is not guilty of a crime in violation of the [statute]."

(Emphasis added.) Id. at 1118 - 1119.

46. Pursu ant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes,

Respondent requested an administrative hearing, which is a de

novo proceeding to resolve disputed facts underlying the

criminal charge of solicitation for prostitution. This de novo

proceeding afforded Starling an opportunity to rebut the

presumption of guilt of the criminal charge. Respondent

established that he did not commit the act of solicitation for

prostitution as charged.

47. The School Board established that Respondent

technically violated Pinel las County School Board Policy

8.25(1)(x) by failing to timely report his arrest as required by

Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.04(4). The evidence

established that Respondent did act to report and did

immediately report his arrest when he became aw are of the policy

through a newspaper article. The delay in reporting his arrest

to the Board, albeit based upon incorrect advice of counsel, is

a technical, non - intentional, violation of the policy. The

penalty range for this violation is caution to dis missal.

48. Pursuant to School Board Policy 8.25(3) there are a

number of factors to be considered when determining the

appropriate penalty within a penalty range. In this case, there

was no student involvement; no danger to the public; no

repetiti ons of the offense; and no prior discipline. Respondent

is a long - time, above - satisfactory evaluated employee of the

School Board. He was not aware he was in violation of the

policy, and when he did become aware, he immediately remedied

the situation. A ll these factors mitigate the penalty to be

imposed for this first - time minor policy violation.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is:

RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a

Final Order issuing a written reprimand to Respondent for his

failure to immediately report his arrest, dismiss all other

charges filed against Respondent, and reinstate Respondent to

his position with back - pay and benefits.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August 2002, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

FRED L. BUCKINE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 967 5 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of August, 2002.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Jacqueline Spoto Bircheri, Esquire

School Board of Pinellas County

301 F ourth Street, Southwest

Post Office Box 2942

Largo, Florida 33779 - 2942

Mark Herdman, Esquire

Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.

2595 Tampa Road, Suite J

Palm Harbor, Florida 34684

Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent

Pinellas County School Board

301 Four th Street, Southwest

Largo, Florida 33770 - 3536

James A. Roberson, General Counsel

Department of Education

The Capitol, Suite 1701

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written except ions 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 in this case.