02-001705 Jackson County School Board vs. Wilfred Brown Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, November 1, 2002.

Summary: Petitioner school Board did not prove Respondent teacher and coach committed misconduct alleged. Petitioner`s witnesses were not deemed credible.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JACKSON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02 - 1705

)

WILFRED BROWN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, t his cause came on for administrative

hearing before P. Michael Ruff, duly - designated Administrative

Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, in

Marianna, Jackson County, Florida, on June 11, 2002, and

July 25, 2002. The appearances were as f ollows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: H. Matthew Fuqua, Esquire

Bondurant and Fuqua, P.A.

Post Office Box 1508

Marianna, Florida 32447

For Respondent: Marva A. Davis, Esquire

121 South Madison Street

Post Office Drawer 55 1

Quincy, Florida 32353 - 0551

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns

whether the Respondent committed certain alleged acts of

improper conduct in the form of inappropriate statements to

female students and whether he committed acts of inappropriate

touching of a female student and therefore, whether the

Petitioner has just cause to terminate him as a contract teacher

(Physical Education teacher and basketball coach).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Respondent, Wi lfred Brown, is a member of the

instructional staff of the Jackson County School Board. On

April 8, 2002, the Superintendent of Jackson County Schools

notified the Respondent that he believed that there was just

cause to terminate him. On April 16, 2002, Mr. Brown requested

that an administrative hearing be conducted and the Jackson

County School Board suspended him without pay pending the

outcome of the hearing.

The case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative

Hearings and ultimately to the undersigned Administrative Law

Judge. The School Board contends it has just cause to terminate

the Respondent based upon alleged inappropriate comments and

physical contact by the Respondent with two female students of

the Sneads High School.

The cause came on for hearing on June 11, 2002. The

hearing was not concluded on that date and was re - scheduled and

completed on July 25, 2002. The Petitioner School Board

presented two witnesses at the initial hearing, Charlsie Maphis

and Holly Roberts the compl aining students, who were students at

Sneads High School during the tenure of the Respondent Wilfred

Brown, and at the times pertinent to this proceeding. The

Respondent presented twenty - seven witnesses who are identified

in the record and upon rebuttal t he Petitioner presented the

testimony of Assistant Principal Patricia Dickson.

Upon conclusion of the proceeding the parties' requested

the opportunity to file proposed recommended orders. They

requested an extended schedule for filing those pleadings an d

they were timely filed. The Proposed Recommended Orders have

been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Wilfred Brown is a black male who was employed under an

annual contract by the Jackson County School Board. He was

employed in the position of a physical education teacher and as

the boys' basketball head coach at Sneads High School. Sneads

High School actually enrolls both middle and high school

students. Wilfred Brown was generally called "Coach Brown" at

scho ol. When he assumed the head coach position, he was

permitted to select an assistant basketball coach to assist him.

James Taylor had previously been an assistant basketball coach,

but was not selected to be an assistant basketball coach by

Coach Brown.

2. Charlsie Maphis was a white female student at Sneads

High School. She was a junior during the 2000 - 2001 school term.

She dated a black male basketball player named Jason Brown. Her

father did not approve of inter - racial dating and therefore, she

w as unable to openly date Jason Brown. Because of this Charlsie

Maphis would come to the Sneads High School gym in order to

spend time with Jason Brown.

3. On a number of occasions Jason Brown and Charlsie

Maphis would demonstrate inappropriate displays of affection, in

terms of the Student Conduct Code, while they were in the gym.

They would, for instance, sit between each others legs, lay

their heads in each others' laps and otherwise engage in close

physical contact, none of which was considered appr opriate

student behavior. When Coach Brown observed this behavior he

would make them stop. Charlsie Maphis explained to Coach Brown

that due to their racial differences she could not date Jason

outside of school and also stated that the gym was the only

place that they could spend any time together. Coach Brown did

not accept this explanation and did not respond in a sympathetic

way. Instead, he continued to enforce the Student Conduct Code.

He would thus not allow Charlsie Maphis and Jason Brown to

"h ang - out" in the gym and demonstrate inappropriate conduct.

4. Charlsie Maphis opined that Coach Brown was a racist

and treated her and Jason Brown more harshly or unjustly because

of their inter - racial dating. She did not feel that Coach Brown

treated ot her students the same way. The evidence demonstrated,

however, that Coach Brown enforced the rules of conduct on other

student couples as well. Other students, however, did not

exhibit the anger or attitude that Charlsie Maphis exhibited

against Coach Br own because he so enforced the rules of conduct.

5. Coach Brown, at some point, told Charlsie Maphis that

she was a distraction to Jason Brown and because of that and her

conduct, Jason Brown was not giving the basketball program his

best effort. Coach Brown eventually removed Jason Brown from

the basketball team during his senior year because Jason did not

cooperate with the Coach and did not "have his heart in the

game."

6. Coach Brown also removed two other black male

basketball players from the t eam. They were Lamar Colston and

Lynn Colston. Lamar and Lynn Colston were considered talented

basketball players but did not get along with Coach Brown.

Their step - father was James Taylor who had once served as

assistant basketball coach at Sneads High School before Coach

Brown became the head coach. Coach Brown selected another

person to replace James Taylor as assistant basketball coach.

This appeared to cause ill - feeling between James Taylor and

Coach Brown as well as his step - sons, Lamar and Lynn Colston.

7. In this regard, Charlsie Maphis claimed that she did

not really know James Taylor. However, James Taylor and his

step - sons lived in the same neighborhood as Charlsie Maphis and

James Taylor was sometimes the umpire for the softball team on

wh ich Charlsie Maphis served as catcher and third baseperson.

Charlsie Maphis' friend, Sarranda Hall, testified that she saw

Charlsie Maphis talking to James Taylor after a ballgame. Kerri

Maphis, the younger sister of Charlsie Maphis, also testified

that their mother was a long - time friend of James Taylor.

Charlsie Maphis also admitted, on cross - examination, that she

gave "shoulder - rubs" to Lamar Colston and the evidence

demonstrates that she must have been fairly close friends with

Lamar Colston and at l east to some extent with his step - father

James Taylor.

8. In consideration of the above facts and the fact that

James Taylor had been the assistant basketball coach at Sneads

High School, Charlsie Maphis' statement that she did not really

know James Tay lor is not deemed credible. Moreover, her failure

to readily admit her knowledge of and acquaintanceship with

James Taylor casts doubt upon her testimony concerning her

motivation to conceal or testify with a lack of candor.

9. In any event, after Coac h Brown removed the Colston

brothers from the basketball team, James Taylor started a

campaign to get Coach Brown fired. Mr. Taylor met with the

principal, administrators, the superintendent and the School

Board itself in an unsuccessful attempt to have C oach Brown

terminated from his position.

10. Charlsie Maphis's father learned that she was dating

Jason Brown and ordered her to stop sometime during the 2000 -

2001 school year. Therefore, Charlsie Maphis was supposed to

have stopped dating Jason Brown and she testified that when

Jason Brown graduated in May 2001, they were no longer dating.

Jason Brown, however, testified that they did not end their

relationship until much later in the year 2001. When school

resumed for the 2001 - 2002 school year, Char lsie Maphis was no

longer in Coach Brown's class. Generally she would only see him

in passing on the school campus or when she specifically made a

trip to the gym. Nonetheless, according to Charlsie Maphis,

even after Jason Brown had graduated, when Coac h Brown would see

her at school he would still "get in her business" by asking her

if she and Jason Brown were still together and how was Jason

getting along.

11. It became clear during that 2000 - 2001 school year and

the 2001 - 2002 school year that Charl sie Maphis did not like

Coach Brown, based upon her own testimony and that of other

students who were aware that she did not like Coach Brown based

upon things they heard her say or the way she acted when she was

in his presence.

12. Charlsie Maphis' al leges that around the month of

December 2001, she went to the gym and asked Coach Brown to let

her use the phone in his office to call her mother. She

testified that after she came into his office she "slumped down

in a chair" resulting in her abdominal a rea and waist being

exposed to his view because her undershirt slid up when she

slumped down in the chair, according to her testimony. She

contends that after Coach Brown saw her stomach and waistline he

made inappropriate comments about her, such as that she had a

"sexy waistline" and purportedly touched her inappropriately

around her abdominal area and licked her exposed stomach area

and placed his hand on the waistline of her pants. Coach Brown

denied each allegation by Charlsie Maphis that he made

ina ppropriate statements to her or engaged in inappropriate

physical conduct or touching toward her.

13. In this regard Charlsie Maphis made a written

statement, dated February 20, 2002, setting forth her

allegations against Coach Brown, testifying in a si milar manner

at hearing concerning her allegations. In her written

statement, Charlsie Maphis states that it was nothing out of the

ordinary for her to go to Coach Brown's office. However, under

the facts and circumstances of their strained relationship, as

revealed by the testimony at hearing, it is apparent that she

did not like Coach Brown and was not in his class that year and

therefore, it is very unlikely that she would regularly go to

his office for any reason.

14. Most of her time in school she avoided being around

Coach Brown and tried to avoid even speaking to him, according

to her own testimony. When he spoke to her, she, by her own

admission, forced herself to be cordial or publicly respectful.

It thus appears very unusual for her to go to Coach Brown's

office, particularly on a regular basis, as she contends.

15. In essence, Charlsie Maphis claims that the incident

in the office occurred after part of her body was exposed when

her undershirt slid up because she sat slumped in a chair.

Ho wever, when Charlsie Maphis first reported her allegations to

Ms. Dixon, the assistant principal, she claimed that she sat on

a table, not in a chair, in Coach Brown's office on the occasion

in question. This is established by Ms. Dixon's testimony,

which is credited.

16. Although Coach Brown is alleged to have made

inappropriate statements and acted inappropriately after

Charlsie sat slumped in the chair, Ms. Maphis' bare abdominal

area and waistline were not seen and could not be seen beneath

her over - shirt when she demonstrated, during the hearing,

dressed in the same clothing, sitting with the same posture and

holding her hands in the same position as she allegedly was in

on the occasion of the incident.

17. Contrary to her allegations that Coach Brown licked

her on the stomach, Ms. Maphis told two of her friends that

Coach Brown had licked her ear and offered her money to lick her

ear, not her stomach or waistline. These parts of the body are

so far apart and different that her statements to two different

people to the effect that it was her ear and not her stomach

involved in the incident cannot be regarded as an inadvertent

mis - statement. Under the circumstances, its probative value

reflects negatively on the credibility of Charlsie Maphis.

1 8. Ms. Maphis claimed to be so surprised by Coach Brown's

statements and actions that she was unable to move when he

allegedly touched and licked her inappropriately and she claimed

that she had to find an excuse to leave the room after she told

him to "b ack - up."

19. Her statements are not credible because, based upon

her demeanor, she is obviously an assertive person who was not

and is not afraid of Coach Brown. Additionally, it is found,

based upon her testimony that Coach Brown talked on the phone

sev eral times at his desk while she was allegedly sitting in the

chair in his office, that she would have had ample opportunity

to move or leave the office without the necessity of searching

for an excuse to leave.

20. Moreover, at the time of the alleged in cident, Coach

Brown had a class waiting for him outside of his office door in

the gym, and his students, players and assistants were

constantly coming in and out of the office. Having observed the

candor and demeanor of Charlsie Maphis in testifying to th ese

incidents and occurrences, and also observing the candor and

demeanor and apparent credibility of the witnesses opposed to

her testimony, it is found that the incident did not occur as

alleged by Charlsie Maphis and her testimony is not credited.

21. Ms. Maphis also alleged that Coach Brown discussed

meeting her one weekend to exchange massages at his parents'

home were he lived when his parents would be away. This

allegation is not credible because the evidence shows that,

contrary to Ms. Maphis' cla im, Coach Brown's parents had a

strict rule that no child of theirs, including Coach Brown,

could entertain any female in their home while they were not

present. Coach Brown lived in their home. They were not away

for any weekend which would have allowed such an occurrence to

happen during the time period in question, and it is not

established that Coach Brown had any such intention. Ms.

Maphis' testimony in this regard is not credited.

22. There may have been a financial motive for the

allegations b y Ms. Maphis. After the allegations became public

she told one of her friends that she was going to get some money

out of Coach Brown and admitted consulting an attorney about a

civil lawsuit against Coach Brown. In fact, Ms. Maphis told the

School Resou rce Police Officer, Brian Stagner, that "she felt

she could get some money out of this."

23. Although Ms. Maphis claims that Coach Brown had

engaged in inappropriate conduct with other students or former

students, each one of these students or former st udents denied

that any such conduct had ever occurred. In fact, each of them

testified that Coach Brown was completely professional in his

conduct toward them at all times.

24. Ms. Maphis may also have been motivated out of dislike

for Coach Brown. Sh e told Office Brian Stagner, that ". . . she

was going to do everything she could to fuck him up." She told

Officer Stagner that "if she could not go after him criminally

that she would go after him civilly" and that she felt she

"could get some money out of this." This conversation took

place during a school day at Sneads High School where Officer

Stagner was the Police Department's School Resource Officer.

25. In any event, after observing Charlsie Maphis and her

testimony at the hearing and listenin g to the testimony of

Officer Stagner, other witnesses, and considering all the other

evidence, it is concluded that Charlsie Maphis' testimony may be

motivated by some malicious intent toward Coach Brown. Due to

her general lack of credibility, I also do not credit her

allegations that Coach Brown asked her to meet him one weekend;

that he called her into his office and offered her $75.00 to let

him "lick her again"; or that he asked her to come to his home

one weekend to exchange massages.

26. Holly R oberts claims that around the month of December

2001, she went to Coach Brown's office to use the telephone and

when she arrived Coach Brown asked her to input some student

absentees into his computer. While she was doing this and while

he was having a te lephone conversation, she observed a vacation

brochure on his desk related to Hawaii. Holly Roberts admits

asking Coach Brown if she could go with him to Hawaii. She then

alleges that he told her that he would buy her a ticket to go

with him to Hawaii. It is apparent from the totality of the

testimony and circumstances that she asked him if she could go

to Hawaii more or less in jest or in a joking manner. Coach

Brown denies that he offered to buy her a ticket to Hawaii.

27. Holly Roberts also mainta ins that Coach Brown asked

her to come to his home while his parents were out of town for

the weekend to give him a massage. Coach Brown admits that

Holly Roberts asked him if she could go to Hawaii, but denies

offering to buy the ticket and moreover test ified that he

jokingly told Holly Roberts that she could go to Hawaii with him

if she would pay $9,000.00 or $10,000.00 for tickets and costs

for everybody in his party to go. He denies ever talking to her

concerning her coming to his parents' home during their absence

or giving him massages or shoulder rubs.

28. The preponderant evidence establishes that Holly

Roberts is not a credible witness in this regard. The totality

of the evidence and circumstances related to her and to witness

Montario Garrett establishes that she was dating, or in a close

personal relationship with Montario Garrett. She did not tell

the truth about the nature of the letter that she wrote to

Montario Garrett. She maintained that she wrote it to help him

break up with Lauren F aircloth, a fellow student. Montario

Garrett testified contrarily, however, that it was a "love

letter" and that they were in a dating relationship. The plain

language of the letter clearly supports his version of its

nature. It appears likely that she misrepresented the nature of

their relationship due to her fear of her parents or her

father's disapproval of her inter - racial dating relationship

with Montario Garrett since Holly Roberts is white and Montario

Garrett is black. She falsely accused Montar io Garrett and

Michael Reed of telling her that Coach Brown had inquired if she

would date "black boys." She also falsely testified that she

was afraid of Coach Brown because Montario Garrett had told her

that Coach Brown had a history of "messing with ot her young

girls." Montario Garrett categorically denied that he ever told

her that story.

29. Moreover, Holly Roberts minimizes her acquaintanship

with Charlsie Maphis. However, there were numerous

opportunities for Holly Roberts and Charlsie Maphis t o be

together and to communicate during their tenure at Sneads High

School. They were both in the same DCT class for two semesters

in the 2001 - 2002 school year. They were on the softball team

together in February of 2002 when these allegations were made

public. Holly Roberts rode to school everyday with one of the

best friends of Charlsie Maphis' younger sister. Before the

allegations against the Respondent became public the younger

sister Kerri Maphis, Nicole Rabon and their other friend

Samantha Wilke rson, had been discussing rumors about alleged

inappropriate conduct by Coach Brown including the rumors of his

alleged misconduct towards Charlsie Maphis, Kerri's older

sister.

30. During the first and second semester of the 2001 - 2002

school year, Char lsie Maphis and Holly Roberts were in Mr.

Stoutamires' Career Development class. Charlsie Maphis and

Holly Roberts testified that Mr. Stoutamire did not require

students enrolled in this class to attend class everyday.

Instead, students were on their own and could go and come to

work or even go home, according to their testimony. Both

Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts had an unexcused absence from

two of their classes on February 20, 2002, and apparently left

the campus together.

31. During the first and second semester of the 2001 - 2002

school year, Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts played softball

together, beginning in February 2002. Charlsie Maphis was the

catcher and James Taylor, who also had a history of enmity

towards the Respondent, was an ump ire at some of those softball

games.

32. Moreover, it is significant that the most serious

conduct alleged against Coach Brown is alleged to have occurred

months before it was ever reported. The initial reports were

not even made by the alleged victi ms. The manner and timing in

which the allegations of Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts

became public appears to have been planned. Kerri Maphis,

Charlsie's younger sister, and Nicole Rabon, who rode to school

daily with Holly Roberts and their friend Sa mantha Wilkerson,

went to the office of Ms. Dixon, the assistant principal,

together to report to Ms. Dixon the rumors concerning Coach

Brown. Within a short time after they spoke with Ms. Dixon,

both Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts voluntarily reported

their allegations to the School Resource Officer, Brian Stagner.

Moreover, the unrefuted testimony of Coach April Goodwin reveals

that Holly Roberts did not have the best reputation in her

school community for truth and veracity. Consequently, Holly

Rob erts' testimony regarding the facts and the nature of the

interaction she had with Coach Brown, concerning which she made

her complaints, is not credited. It is apparent that whatever

occurred in this interaction with Coach Brown in his office

concerning a trip to Hawaii was, at most, simply a joking or

jesting reference to their going to Hawaii on a vacation trip.

It is determined, based upon the testimony of Coach Brown and of

his parents, as well as the numerous witnesses who described

Coach Brown as b eing an instructional employee and coach who

never exhibited any unprofessional or inappropriate conduct or

behavior, that the incident concerning his purported invitation

to Holly Roberts to come to his home on the weekend, when his

parents were purported ly to be absent, simply did not occur.

33. Wilfred Brown grew up in Jackson County and attended

Jackson County public schools. His parents are respected and

respectable citizens who retired from employment with the state.

Wilfred Brown and his brother s participated in high school

sports, and after graduating from high school, Wilfred Brown

attended college. Upon graduating from college he returned home

to Jackson County and ultimately was hired as the head coach of

the Sneads boys basketball team.

3 4. Respondent Brown primarily resided with his mother and

father at times pertinent hereto. His mother and father do not

allow him or his brothers to bring female companions to their

home when the parents are not at home and do not allow their

sons' fema le friends to stay overnight in their residence.

35. Coach Brown is a Deacon in his church and a Sunday

school teacher. He also works with the youth in his church and

community. He provides free basketball camps for youth athletes

during the summer. He has an outstanding reputation in his

community for truth and veracity. He has a reputation among

students at school for requiring them to abide by the rules of

good conduct and of being professional and an exhibitor of good

conduct himself. There is n o evidence that Coach Brown has ever

been previously accused or found guilty of any inappropriate,

unprofessional statements or behavior towards students or young

females at any time or location.

36. Upon observing and considering the demeanor of Wilfre d

Brown and his testimony, carefully weighing and comparing his

testimony to that of the complaining witnesses, and in

consideration of the numerous witnesses as to Coach Brown's

reputation in his community for truth and veracity as well as,

more specifica lly, the testimony concerning his failure to ever

exhibit any inappropriate, unprofessional conduct toward female

students or others, it is determined that Coach Brown is

credible as a witness. His testimony is credited over that of

Holly Roberts and Char lsie Maphis.

37. The testimony of the numerous witnesses as to his

competent performance as a teacher and coach and his good

personal conduct and character, including towards female

students, along with and the lack of any testimony, other than

that of the discredited complaining witnesses, concerning any

unprofessional, inappropriate behavior on his part has been

carefully considered. It is determined that preponderant

evidence has been adduced which establishes that Coach Brown has

not lost his effect iveness as a teacher and a coach in the

Jackson County School community nor in Sneads High School in

particular.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

38. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

(2001).

39. The Petitioner School Board has the burden of proving

just cause for termination of the Respondent in this proceeding

and must carry that burden by a preponderance of evidence. See

Dileo v. Sch ool Bd Of Dade County , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA

1990); and McNeill v. Pinelllas County School Board , 678 So. 2d

476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

40. Section 90.608, Florida Statutes, provides that a

party may attack the credibility of a witness or impea ch that

witness by (1) Introducing statements of the witness, which are

inconsistent with the witnesses' present testimony; (2) Showing

that the witness is biased; (3) attacking the character of the

witness in accordance with the requirements of Sections 9 0.609

and 90.610, Florida Statutes; (4) showing a defect of capacity,

ability or opportunity in the witness to observe, remember, or

recount the matters about which the witness testified; and

(5) proof by other witnesses that material facts are not as

tes tified to by the witness. The Respondent clearly has

successfully attacked the credibility of both complaining

witnesses, Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts, and has

successfully impeached both witnesses, as delineated in the

above findings of fact.

41. Where the complaining witnesses, such as these female

students, have falsely or mistakenly accused a school employee,

who is on annual contract, and the accusations are shown not to

be as reported and alleged, then there can be no just cause for

terminati on. Where, as here, the School Board has pled and

evidenced no other valid reason to terminate employment or to

fail to renew a contract, then the appropriate remedy to make an

employee whole is reinstatement in his job position with back

pay and renewal of his annual contract. Compare , Davis v.

School Board of Gadsden County , 646 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA

1991). School Board of Seminole County v. Morgan , 582 So. 2d

787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

42. In summary and in essence the Petitioner School Board

has not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it had just

cause to terminate Coach Brown in the particulars found and

discussed above. Moreover, the evidence is insufficient to

support a conclusion that the Respondent's effectiveness as a

teacher is impaired because there has not been significant

hostility or condemnation from school community members or

community members in the wider community of Jackson County as a

whole demonstrated toward Coach Brown as a result of the

allegations involved in thi s case. Rather, there has been a

significant demonstration of support for Coach Brown from past

and present students, teachers and other co - workers, friends and

associates, who both attest as witnesses to his good performance

as a teacher, to his good per sonal conduct and character and to

his past record for appropriate conduct and behavior as a

teacher.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and

demeanor of the witnesses an d the pleadings and arguments of the

parties, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School

Board of Jackson County finding that the allegations made

against the Respondent Wilfred Brown are not established and

that he be re - in stated to his position as teacher and basketball

coach with back pay and with renewal of his annual contract.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2002, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

P. MICHAEL RUFF

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1st day of November, 2002.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Marva A. Davis, Esquire

121 South Madison Street

Post Office Drawer 551

Quincy, Florida 32353 - 0551

H. Matthew Fuqua, Esquir e

Bondurant and Fuqua, P.A.

Post Office Box 1508

Marianna, Florida 32447

Daniel Sims, Superintendent

Jackson County School Board

Post Office Box 5958

Marianna, Florida 32447

James A. Robinson, General Counsel

Department of Education

The Capitol, Suite 1701

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Honorable Charlie Crist

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

The Capitol, Plaza Level 08

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit writt en 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 in this case.