03-000216 Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Debbie T. Darlington Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, November 24, 2003.

Summary: Recommended that food service manager who removed food and supplies, and allowed her husband to remove food and supplies from the cafeteria, should be suspended and demoted.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI - DADE COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 03 - 02 16

)

DEBBIE DARLINGTON, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrat ive

Hearings, by its designated Administrative Law Judge, Richard A.

Hixson, held a final hearing in the above - styled case on July 10

and September 15, 2003, by video teleconference with the parties

participating in Miami, Florida, and the Administrative L aw

Judge presiding in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Denise Wallace, Esquire

Miami - Dade County Public Schools

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire

AFSCME Council 79

99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224

North Miami, Florida 33169

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues for determina tion in this matter are: 1) whether

the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of

Specific Charges filed on March 5, 2003; and 2) if so, whether

Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the

School Board of Miami - Dade Coun ty.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated January 16, 2003, Petitioner, the School

Board of Miami - Dade County (School Board) notified Respondent,

Debbie T. Darlington, that the School Board at its meeting on

January 15, 2003, had suspended her and initia ted dismissal

proceedings against her. Respondent filed a timely notice with

the School Board contesting the School Board's action and

requesting an administrative hearing. On January 24, 2003, the

matter was referred to the Division of Administrative He arings.

Pursuant to the O rder entered by the Administrative Law Judge,

the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges on March 3,

2003.

The Notice of Specific Charges (Notice) alleged that while

Respondent was employed as a food service manager fo r Liberty

City Elementary School, she had taken food or supplies from the

school cafeteria, and had allowed her husband to take food or

supplies from the school cafeteria. The Notice set out three

counts of violations as just cause for Respondent's dismis sal

from her employment: Count I, Conduct Unbecoming a School Board

Employee; Count II, Non - Performance and Deficient Performance of

Duties; and, Count III, Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A -

1.21 Regarding Employee Responsibilities and Duties.

The hearing was initially scheduled for March 28, 2003.

Pursuant to the requests of the parties, the hearing was re -

scheduled for July 10, 2003. Because the hearing was not

completed at that time, an additional day of hearing was held on

September 15, 2003. At the hearing, the Board presented the

testimony of Linda Whye, Susan Keye, Samuel Woodside,

Dorothy Paulk, Norman Santana, Penny Parham, Margaret Lloyd,

Julio Miranda, and Barbara Moss. The Board also presented

Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which were

received in evidence.

Respondent, Debbie T. Darlington, testified in her own

behalf, and presented the testimony of her husband, Ernest Myles.

Respondent also presented the deposition testimony of her mother -

in - law, Charlie Mae M yles, which was filed without objection

subsequent to conclusion of the hearing. Respondent also

presented Respondent's Exhibits 1 (composite), 2 (composite),

and 3, which were received in evidence.

A transcript of the hearing held on July 10, 2003, was filed

on September 11, 2003. A transcript of the hearing held on

September 15, 2003, was filed on October 20, 2003. The Board

filed its Proposed Recommended Order on November 7, 2003.

Respondent filed her Proposed Recommended Order on November 10,

2003. The parties' Proposed Recommended Orders have been

considered in the rendering of this Recommended Order. All

statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2002), unless

otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1. Petitioner, the School Board of Miami - Dade County

(School Board), is responsible for operating, controlling, and

supervising the free public schools in the Miami - Dade County

school district and has the power to suspend and dismiss

employees. Art. XI, § 4(b), Fla. Const; § 1001.32, F la. Stat.

2. Respondent, Debbie T. Darlington, at all material

times, was employed by the School Board. Respondent is a member

of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal

Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME), and covered by a collective

bargaini ng agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (the

Contract). Respondent is now, and at all material times was,

married to Ernest Myles. Her mother - in - law is Charlie Mae

Myles. Neither Ernest Myles nor Charlie Mae Myles is or was at

any time employed by the School Board.

Respondent's Employment History with the School Board

3. Respondent was first employed by the School Board on

December 4, 1981, as an associate educator at Westview

Elementary School.

4. Respondent had a break in service from Augu st 23, 1983

to November 1, 1993. Respondent then worked as a part - time food

service worker at Westview Middle School from November 1, 1993

to January 12, 1995.

5. Respondent had another break in service from

January 12, 1995 to August 27, 1997. From Aug ust 27, 1997 to

March 19, 1999, Respondent worked as a part - time food service

worker at North Miami Beach Senior High School. Beginning on

March 20, 1999, Respondent worked as a part - time food service

worker at Sabal Palm Elementary School. At some time

thereafter, Respondent entered the Food Service Manager Training

Program. As part of this training program, Respondent was

required to serve in a variety of school settings, including

elementary, middle and high schools.

6. In March of 2000, Respondent b egan her training

rotation for elementary schools at Liberty City Elementary

School (Liberty City). When Respondent first went to Liberty

City, she was working in the capacity as a trainee in the Food

Service Manager program. Respondent was under the sup ervision

of Margaret Poole, who was then serving as the Food Service

Manager for Liberty City. During Respondent's first week at

Liberty City, Ms. Poole was injured on the job and did not

return to Liberty City. Because Respondent was performing very

wel l, Linda Whye, the principal at Liberty City requested that

Respondent stay as temporary Food Service Manager until the

completion of the school year. Respondent finished her Food

Service Manager program in July 2000.

7. After Respondent satisfactorily c ompleted the 1999 - 2000

school year, Principal Whye hired Respondent to serve as the

Food Service Manager at Liberty City. Respondent was assigned

permanently to Liberty City as of October 19, 2000.

8. Respondent served as the Food Service Manager at

Libe rty City during the 2000 - 2001 and 2001 - 2002 school years.

In that capacity, Respondent supervised eight to nine employees.

Her job responsibilities included the fiscal management and

operation of the food services program at Liberty City.

9. Until Janua ry of 2002, Respondent generally received

satisfactory - to - excellent evaluations in the performance of her

duties. Respondent was noted on occasion for failing to keep an

accurate daily food record.

Reports of Improprieties

10. Sometime in January 2002, P rincipal Whye learned that

Respondent had set off the school alarm system in the cafeteria.

This incident occurred at a time after Respondent's regularly

scheduled work hours.

11. About a week after the alarm system was set off by

Respondent, Samuel Wood side the head custodian at Liberty City,

contacted Principal Whye regarding a break - in at Liberty City

which occurred over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend.

Because of the proximity in time to Respondent's setting off the

alarm system, Principal Whye asked Woodside if he had noticed

anything unusual going on at the cafeteria. Woodside responded

that he had observed an increase in deliveries to the cafeteria,

and that he had seen Respondent's husband, Ernest Myles, and

Respondent's mother - in - law, Char lie Mae Myles, in the cafeteria

workplace area on several occasions.

12. Principal Whye then contacted Penny Parham, former

Food Service Director of Operations for Regions I, II and III,

which Region III included Liberty City. Ms. Parham currently

serves as the Administrative Director for the Miami - Dade Public

Schools Food and Nutrition Department. Principal Whye asked

Ms. Parham if she could determine whether food or supplies were

missing from the cafeteria inventory at Liberty City. In

response to Pri ncipal Whye's request, Ms. Parham prepared a

comparison report from one school year to the next to determine

whether the amounts of food and supplies consumed at Liberty

City were substantially equal.

13. Ms. Parham's report, which was sent to Principal W hye

on March 4, 2002, showed that in comparing the same period

(September/October) at Liberty City in 2000 to 2001, there was a

23.6 percent increase in purchased food costs, and a 57.9

percent increase in cost of supplies, without any corresponding

increa se in the student population at Liberty City. Ms. Parham

also reported that when costs and revenues were balanced, the

food service program at Liberty City showed a 438.7 percent

negative change. Ms. Parham recommended that a more detailed

audit be perfo rmed to account for these increases in food

services at Liberty City.

14. Sometime in February 2002, after she had already

contacted Ms. Parham, Principal Whye was contacted by

Margaret Lloyd, an employee in the cafeteria who told her that

some food and s upplies from the cafeteria had been taken for use

at the Martin Luther King parade. Principal Whye also received

an anonymous note stating that she should watch what Respondent

was doing in the cafeteria at Liberty City. Because the note

was anonymous, P rincipal Whye took no specific action in regard

to those allegations at that time. Margaret Lloyd later

revealed that she was the author of the anonymous note.

15. On March 4, 2002, after receiving Ms. Parham's report,

and in light of the concerns raised by statements of employees,

Principal Whye requested that the Miami - Dade Schools Police

Department (Department) conduct an investigation to determine

whether food and supplies were being removed from the Liberty

City cafeteria by the Respondent and her hu sband.

The Investigation

16. On March 6, 2002, the Department assigned the case to

Detective Norman Santana to conduct a Preliminary Personnel

Investigation.

17. On March 13, 2002, Detective Santana interviewed

Principal Whye, Samuel Woodside, and Margar et Lloyd, each of

whom provided written statements confirming their previous

observations regarding improprieties at the Liberty City

cafeteria.

18. Also on March 13, 2002, Detective Santana contacted

Julio Miranda, District Director for Investigative Aud its, to

advise him of the ongoing personnel investigation. Mr. Miranda

was already aware of the case and stated that he would conduct

an audit investigation.

19. On March 14, 2002, Detective Santana interviewed

Ms. Parham, who provided him with her repor t and a written

statement confirming the results of her comparison review, as

well as the profit and loss statement for Liberty City's food

service program.

20. On March 28, 2002, Detective Santana interviewed

Susan Keye, Assistant Principal at Liberty Ci ty. Ms. Keye

provided a written statement regarding an incident in the fall

of 2001, when Respondent reported to Principal Whye that a

freezer had broken and food had spoiled; however, there was no

verification that a report of the freezer malfunctioning had

been made, nor any work order showing repair of the freezer.

21. On April 24, 2002, Detective Santana met with

Mr. Miranda who stated that through the audit investigative

process, no investigative research was done.

22. Also on April 24, 2002, Detect ive Santana interviewed

several cafeteria workers at Liberty City: Eric Curtis,

Barbara Jackson, Mildred Bennett, and Dorothy Paulk. Each

provided written statements. Ms. Jackson and Ms. Bennett stated

that they did not observe Respondent remove any foo d or supplies

from the Liberty City cafeteria. Mr. Curtis and Ms. Paulk each

stated to Detective Santana that they had at various times

observed Respondent and her husband and her mother - in - law remove

items from the Liberty City cafeteria.

23. On June 7, 2002, Detective Santana filed Preliminary

Personnel Investigation Report G14335. Incorporated in

Detective Santana's report were the written statements of all

the above - listed persons whom he interviewed, along with the

profit and loss report prepared by Ms. Parham. The Preliminary

Personnel Investigation Report G14335 concluded that a violation

of School Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21 by Respondent was

substantiated.

Post Investigation Proceedings

24. On September 26, 2002, a conference - for - the - record was

c onducted in order to address the findings against Respondent,

set out in Preliminary Personnel Investigation Report G143335.

In attendance at the conference - for - the - record were Frederic E.

Conde, Executive Director; Essie S. Pace, Region Director,

Region III Operations; Principal Whye; Herman Bain and

Sonia Devoe, AFSCME representatives; and Respondent. The

purpose of the conference for the record was to review the

results of the investigation, the investigation's substantiation

of Respondent's violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21,

and Respondent's future employment status with the School Board.

At the conclusion of the conference for the record, Respondent

was provided "the option of resignation, retirement and/or

redirection" on or before Novemb er 8, 2002.

25. On December 19, 2002, the School Board Superintendent

sent Respondent a letter recommending her dismissal from

employment with the School Board.

26. On January 15, 2003, the School Board took action to

suspend Respondent and initiate proc eedings to dismiss her from

employment. Respondent filed a timely notice contesting her

dismissal.

Notice of Specific Charges

27. The essential factual allegations set forth in the

Notice of Specific Charges as stated in paragraph 9 allege that

"Respond ent had removed food and supplies from the cafeteria and

allowed her husband to remove food and supplies from the

cafeteria for the Respondent's personal use." Three counts are

set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.

28. Count I alleges that "Respo ndent's removal of food and

supplies from the worksite is considered conduct unbecoming a

school employee, and constitutes just cause and a sufficient

basis for Respondent's dismissal, pursuant to Articles II and

XI, s. 4C of the AFSCME Contract, and pursu ant to s.

1022.22(1)(f)(formerly s. 230.23(5)(f)),s. 1012.40 (formerly

s.447.209, Fla. Stat. (2002)."

29. Count II alleges that "Respondent's removal of food

and supplies from the work site for her own personal use is

considered non - performance and defici ent performance of duties

and constitutes just cause and a sufficient basis for

Respondent's dismissal, pursuant to Articles II and XI, s.4C of

the AFSCME Contract, and pursuant to ss 1022(1)(f)(formerly

s. 230.23(5)(f), s. 1012.40 (formerly s. 231.3605), and

s. 447.209, Fla. Stat. (2002)."

30. Count III alleges that "Respondent's conduct, as set

forth herein, constitutes conduct that failed to bring credit

upon herself or the school system and is thereby conduct that is

not in compliance with School Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21." School

Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21 provides in pertinent part, "All

persons employed by the School Board of Miami - Dade County,

Florida are representatives of the Miami - Dade County Public

Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct t hemselves, both

in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will

reflect credit upon themselves and the school system."

31. The Notice of Specific Charges seeks that Respondent's

dismissal be sustained and that her employment with the Schoo l

Board be terminated.

Proof of Charges

32. During the 2001 - 2002 school year, Respondent's

husband, Ernest Myles, regularly was observed on the Liberty

City campus, and was specifically observed in the kitchen area

of the cafeteria workplace. Mr. Myles w as in the kitchen area

of the cafeteria on a weekly basis, at least twice a week.

33. During the same time period, Respondent's mother - in -

law, Charlie Mae Myles, was also regularly observed on the

Liberty City campus, and specifically in the kitchen area of the

cafeteria workplace. Mrs. Myles was not as frequently observed

in the cafeteria as her son.

34. Neither Ernest Myles nor Charlie Mae Myles was

authorized to be on the Liberty City campus.

35. Neither Ernest Myles nor Charlie Mae Myles was

authori zed to be in the Liberty City kitchen area of the

cafeteria workplace.

36. Samuel Woodside, the head custodian at Liberty City,

observed an increase in food and supplies being delivered to the

cafeteria during the 2001 - 2002 school year, even though the

nu mber of students at the school had not increased.

Mr. Woodstock, when questioned about the cafeteria, reported

this to Principal Whye, who then contacted Ms. Parham.

Mr. Woodside's observations were confirmed by Ms. Parham's

comparative review contained in her profit and loss report filed

with Principal Whye on March 4, 2002. The increases in food and

supplies at Liberty City are not explained by transfer slips or

other evidence showing that significant amounts of food and

supplies were transferred out o f Liberty City to other schools.

Similarly, the increase in food and supplies at Liberty City is

not explained by evidence of spoilage. Although Respondent told

Principal Whye that the freezer had broken in the fall of 2001,

there is no evidence of any r epairs performed on the freezer to

account for missing food due to spoilage.

37. Dorothy Paulk has worked for the School Board for more

than 29 years. Ms. Paulk is affectionately known at Liberty

City as "Miss Dot," and attends the same church as the

Res pondent. Respondent and Ms. Paulk had a good working

relationship. Ms. Paulk has no animosity toward Respondent and

her testimony is deemed highly credible. Ms. Paulk observed

Respondent remove items from the Liberty City cafeteria and

spoke to Responde nt regarding her taking items from the

cafeteria prior to being interviewed by Detective Santana.

Ms. Paulk also observed Respondent's husband remove some oil and

other supplies from the Liberty City cafeteria. Ms. Paulk also

stated that other employees, including herself, had removed

items from the Liberty City cafeteria.

38. Margaret Lloyd worked in several capacities at the

Liberty City cafeteria during the 2001 - 2002 school year.

Ms. Lloyd saw Respondent's husband and mother - in - law in the

kitchen are a of the cafeteria on numerous occasions. Ms. Lloyd

did not have a good working relationship with Respondent, and in

March of 2002 was reassigned from the cafeteria to work as a

teacher's aide in the Liberty City pre - school program.

Ms. Lloyd no longer w orks for the School Board, and testified

that she holds no animosity toward Respondent.

39. Ms. Lloyd observed Respondent and her husband, Ernest

Myles, remove food and supply items from the Liberty City

cafeteria including meats, fruits, food container s, and wrapping

paper. Ms. Lloyd's testimony was consistent with her prior

statements to Principal Whye, as well as her interview and

handwritten statement provided to Detective Santana on March 14,

2002, and her typewritten statement of April 25, 2002, t o the

audit investigator, Mr. Miranda. Ms. Lloyd's testimony is

deemed credible.

40. The value of the food and supply items removed from

the Liberty City cafeteria during the 2001 - 2002 school year by

the Respondent and her husband was not established.

Pr ogressive Discipline

41. On February 7, 2002, Respondent received a written

memorandum from Principal Whye referencing a verbal warning

Respondent had received regarding Respondent's absenteeism for

the pay period in February 2, 2001, and Respondent's

fal sification of attendance records more than one year earlier.

The memorandum further admonished Respondent for failing to be

on duty and not notifying Ms. Keye.

42. On March 7, 2002, Principal Whye issued a written

memorandum from Principal Whye referenci ng a verbal warning

Respondent had received for inappropriate behavior with

Ms. Lloyd and another cafeteria worker.

43. Both of these warnings to Respondent occurred after

Principal Whye was aware of the reported improprieties in the

cafeteria.

CONCLUS IONS OF LAW

44. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these

proceedings. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 120.60(5), Fla. Stat.

45. Prior to her suspension, Darlington was employed as a

Cafeteri a Manager and assigned to Liberty City Elementary

School.

46. Darlington is a member of the American Federation of

State, County and Municipal Employees (AFCSME). AFCSME and the

School Board have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement

(AFCSME Con tract), which includes provisions for the discipline

of its members.

47. Article II, section 3, of the AFSCME Contract

provides:

It is understood and agreed that management

possesses the sole right, duty and

responsibility for operation of the schools

and that all management rights repose in it,

but that such rights must be exercised

consistently with the other provisions of the

agreement. These rights include, but are not

limited to, the following:

A. Discipline or discharge of any employee

for just ca use; . . . .

48. Article XI, section 1, of the AFSCME Contract provides

for due process rights to employees and states:

Progressive discipline steps should be

followed, however, in administering

discipline, the degree of discipline shall be

reasonably r elated to the seriousness of the

offense and the employees [sic] record.

Therefore, disciplinary steps may include:

1. Verbal warning;

2. Written warning (acknowledge);

3. Letter of reprimand;

4. Suspension/demotion; and

5. Dismissal.

Moreover, Article XI, section 1, of the AFSCME Contract further

provides: "[I]t is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken

against AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members shall be

consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or

corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of

discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the

offense and the employee's record."

49. Pursuant to AFSCME Contract, Article XI, section 4C,

an "employee is separated by the [School Board] for disciplinary

cause arising from the employee's performance or non - performance

of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary

time."

50. The School Board has the burden of proving just cause

to suspend and initiate dismi ssal proceedings against Darlington

by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County

School Board , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School

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

v. School Board of Lake Coun ty , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA

1990).

51. Section 1012.22, Florida Statutes (2001), provides

that a school board has the power to suspend and dismiss

employees.

52. The AFSCME Contract, by its very terms, permits the

School Board to take into consider ation the employee's entire

record in determining the degree of discipline to be imposed

each time the occasion arises to consider the imposition of

discipline. Miami Dade County School Board v. Nairn , Case No.

01 - 2483, 2002 WL 262613, *5 (Fla. Div. Admin Hrgs. Feb. 25,

2002).

53. The School Board alleged three independent grounds for

dismissing Darlington: (1) conduct unbecoming a School Board

employee; (2) nonperformance and deficient performance of

duties; and (3) violation of School Board Rules re garding

employee responsibilities and duties.

54. The School Board alleges in the Notice of Specific

Charges that Darlington violated School Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A -

1.21, which provides in pertinent part that

All persons employed by the School Board of

Miami - Dade County, Florida, are

representatives of the Miami - Dade County

Public Schools. As such, they are expected to

conduct themselves, both in their employment

and in the community, in a manner that will

reflect credit upon themselves and the school

system .

Violation of this School Board Rule constitutes just cause to

discipline Respondent's employment.

55. The School Board has established, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that Respondent committed the acts alleged in

the Notice of Specific Charges. Ms. Paulk and Ms. Lloyd

provided credible evidence that Respondent and her husband

removed food and supplies from the Liberty City cafeteria for

their personal use. Although evidence was also presented

regarding Respondent's mother - in - law, the Notice of S pecific

Charges did not contain allegations in that regard, and no

conclusions are made in that respect. Mr. Woodside also

provided credible corroborating testimony regarding the increase

in supplies and food delivered to the cafeteria in comparison to

de liveries made under the supervision of other cafeteria

managers.

56. The School Board has demonstrated by a preponderance

of evidence that Respondent's performance as Food Service

Manager at Liberty City rises to a level of conduct unbecoming a

School Bo ard employee, deficient performance or nonperformance

of job duties, and violation of School Board rules regarding

employee responsibilities and duties in violation of School

Board Rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21.

57. Respondent, however, is entitled to progressive

d iscipline for these violations. Until February 7, 2002,

Respondent had no disciplinary history with the School Board.

The verbal warnings issued by Principal Whye on February 7,

2002, and March 7, 2002, were for problems, one over a year old,

and unrelat ed to the removal of food and supplies. Dismissal

from employment is the most severe discipline permitted. In

this case, the evidence shows Respondent took, and allowed her

husband to take several items from the Liberty City cafeteria.

The value of the items taken by the Respondent and her husband

was not established, but consisted of items such as cooking oil,

some paper supplies, fruit, and a canned ham. A review of

Respondent's complete record indicates generally prior

satisfactory to excellent perfo rmance. Although Respondent's

conduct in this case is very serious, under the progressive

discipline provisions cited above, suspension and demotion is

appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECO MMENDED that a final order sustaining the discipline of

Debbie T. Darlington for just cause, and imposing a one - year

suspension without pay and a demotion to food service worker.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon Count y, Florida.

S

___________________________________

RICHARD A. HIXSON

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 the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 24th day of No vember, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Denise Wallace, Esquire

Miami - Dade County Public Schools

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire

AFSCME Council 79

99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224

North Miami, Florida 33169

Honorable Jim Horne

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Merrett R. Stierhelm, Superintendent

Miami - Dade County Public Schools

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exc eptions 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.