05-001786 Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Ismael Delgado Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, March 2, 2006.

Summary: The evidence is insufficient to prove that two students engaged in oral sex in Respondent`s classroom. Petitioner is not entitled to dismiss Respondent for just cause based mainly on the allegation that he failed to stop or prevent the alleged sex act.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 05 - 1786

)

ISMAEL DELGADO, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case c ame before Administrative Law Judge John G.

Van Laningham for final hearing on October 6 and 7, 2005, in

Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Luis M. Garcia, Esquire

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire

Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.

2595 Tampa Road, Suite J

Palm Harbor, Florida 34684

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether a d istrict school board

is entitled to dismiss a teacher for just cause based

principally upon the allegation that he failed to prevent or

stop two students from engaging in oral sex in his classroom.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At its regular meeting on May 18, 2005, Petitioner School

Board of Miami - Dade County suspended Respondent Ismael Delgado

without pay pending his dismissal as a member of the district's

instructional staff. This action resulted from the allegation

that on December 6, 2004, Mr. Delgado had failed to prevent or

stop two students from engaging in oral sex in his classroom.

Having been notified in advance of Petitioner's likely

decision, Mr. Delgado's legal counsel already had requested a

formal hearing, by letter dated May 12, 2005. Thus, on May 19,

2005, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative

Hearings ("DOAH") for further proceedings. Thereafter, on

June 20, 2005, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific

Charges.

At the final hearing, which took place on October 6 and 7,

2005, Petitioner called the following witnesses: Detective Lisa

Rodriguez; Pamela Garman; Victor Lopez; Rosann Sidener; Aaron

Roberts; La'Shan Coglin; Carl Smith; Lucy Iturrey; and four

students, whose names are being kept confidential. With the

u ndersigned's permission, Petitioner filed the deposition of

Telicia McQueen after the hearing, and her testimony was made

part of the evidentiary record. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through

20 were received in evidence. 1

Mr. Delgado testified on his own beh alf, and he presented

the testimony of Thomas Wright as well. In addition,

Mr. Delgado offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 3, and these

were admitted.

The two - volume final hearing transcript was filed on

January 17, 2006. Each party timely file d a Proposed

Recommended Order before the established deadline, which was

enlarged to February 3, 2006.

Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida

Statutes refer to the 2005 Florida Statutes.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Miami - Dade County School Bo ard ("School Board"),

Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized

to operate, control, and supervise the Miami - Dade County Public

School System.

2. As of the final hearing, Respondent Ismael Delgado

("Delgado") had been employed as a teacher in the Miami - Dade

County Public School System for approximately 12 years. At all

times relevant to this case, Williams was assigned to Booker T.

Washington Senior High School, where he taught students with

disabilities.

3. The alleged events giv ing rise to this case allegedly

occurred on December 6, 2004. The School Board alleges that on

that date, during Delgado's fourth - period class, a female

student named R. B. fellated a male student named D. B., while

Delgado busied himself on the computer, paying no attention to

the brazen carnality on display in his presence. The School

Board charges that at about 11:15 a.m., a young man named

K. M. —— who was not a student of Delgado's —— chanced to enter

Delgado's locked classroom (somehow without attracti ng Delgado's

attention) to check up on R. B. at precisely the moment she

happened to be orally stimulating D. B.'s penis. K. M. was

purportedly shocked to see this behavior —— too shocked,

evidently, to mention anything about it to Delgado, who

allegedly re mained glued to his computer, oblivious. K. M.

later reported the alleged incident to another teacher,

investigations ensued, and Delgado ended up being accused

effectively of causing the students' sexual misconduct, for

which the School Board now wants t o fire him.

4. Delgado consistently has maintained —— and testified at

hearing —— that nothing extraordinary occurred in his classroom on

December 6, 2004. He claims that he neither saw nor heard R. B.

and D. B. engage in any sexual activity; indeed, Delg ado insists

that such behavior could not possibly have taken place in his

presence. The undersigned fact - finder believes Delgado's

testimony in this regard, which is more credible and persuasive

than the evidence to the contrary, and finds, on the record as a

whole, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that R. B.

and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's presence, as charged.

5. Because Delgado witnessed nothing of the sort alleged,

it is difficult to make affirmative findings concerning wha t, if

anything unusual, occurred in Delgado's classroom on December 6,

2004. Compounding this difficulty, the students who testified

were poor witnesses.

6. The School Board called four purported eyewitnesses to

the alleged sexual act: R. B. and D. B ., the alleged

participants; K. M., the student who serendipitously caught the

two flagrante delicto; and A. S., another student in Delgado's

class. Each one individually came across as an unreliable

witness. None seemed to possess (or was able to articu late) a

clear and precise memory of the remarkable alleged events, yet

each recounted details that struck the undersigned as being

implausible at best. Moreover, taken together, their stories

are inconsistent and, in material respects, irreconcilable. In

support of these general observations, the undersigned will add

the following particular findings, to underscore the care with

which the evidence has been weighed.

7. As mentioned, the students who testified gave

conflicting accounts about what occurre d. The points in

conflict are not mere minor details, as the School Board argues,

but rather involve material facts, such as when the alleged

sexual act took place and what Delgado was doing at that time.

The details are critical because it is not enough for the School

Board to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex on

December 6, 2004. In addition, the School Board alleged and

must prove that the sex act took place in Delgado's classroom,

while he was present; that Delgado knew or should have kn own

what was going on; and that Delgado failed to take reasonable

steps to prevent or stop the students from having oral sex.

8. The following table presents a summary of the

eyewitness testimony regarding six basic questions raised at

hearing:

R. B. D . B. A. S. K. M.

When did In the morning, right In the middle of Before lunch; Before the bell

act occur? before, and continuing class. the bell rang rang. Between

after, the bell rang. at 11:50 a.m., 11 a.m. and

It was at the so between 11 11:15 a.m.

end of class, a.m. and 11:30 Before 12:15

when the bell a.m., but p.m.

rings. Class witness is

was over. unsure.

K. M. came after

the class was

over.

Where did At R. B.'s desk, in the At the front of At the At a desk.

act occur? front of the class. the room. teach er's desk

in the back.

(A. S. had to

turn around to

see.)

Where was Before the bell rang, At the board, on At the board. Behind the

Delgado? at his desk, in the one side of the computer.

back of the room. classroom,

After the bell, he was facing away from

in hallway. the stu dents.

What was Before the bell, Writing on the Writing a Busy looking at

Delgado looking at "perfume" on board with a science the computer.

doing? the computer; he didn't marker; he problem (or

see the act. After the didn't know that something) on

bell, Delgado was in students were the board.

the hallway, watching having sex.

students. He didn't see

Not looking at what was

the computer. happening.

He didn't see

any sexual

activities.

R. B. D . B. A. S. K. M.

What did No one said Students were

other anything. not standing up

students Students were to block

do? standing up to Delgado's view.

shield R. B. and

D. B., so They were

Delgado couldn't playing cards or

see the act. something.

Were other Yes, K. W. & S. J. Yes. T. H. did Doesn't Didn't see that.

students Their pants were down som ething remember;

having sex at their ankles. They (unclear). didn't see

too? stood by the wall, Also, K. W. that.

having regular sex. "jacked" S. J.

Students told hem to while they were

stop. Delgado couldn’t sitting down at

see the couple, but one of the

heard the students and teacher's desks.

told S. to get off K. No one said

They ignored Delgado anything.

and continued.

9. Although many discrepancies are obvious, focus on the

question of Del gado's whereabouts. Two students placed Delgado

behind his computer at the relevant moment. Two others recalled

that he was writing on the board. The School Board insists that

Delgado was engrossed in his computer; it became invested in

this theory duri ng the investigative phase when an examination

of the cookies on the hard drive of Delgado's classroom computer

turned up electronic evidence that the Yahoo website might have

been opened at 11:37 a.m. 2 If Delgado were at the computer,

however, then both D. B. and A. S. gave unreliable testimony on

this significant point. 3 Conversely, if D. B. and A. S. were

believed, then the reliability of the accounts of R. B. and

K. M. would be brought into question. The inconsistencies

ultimately undermine the cred ibility of each of the student

witnesses.

10. Apart from the testimonial inconsistencies, none of

the students, considered individually, impressed the undersigned

as being a trustworthy witness. R. B.'s testimony was vague and

childlike, offering little on which the fact - finder could get

any traction. Her story, in a nutshell, is that D. B. and some

other students goaded her into performing oral sex on D. B., to

which she reluctantly consented in the vain hope that compliance

would put an end to persist ent prodding. R. B. also testified

that while she was sucking on D. B.'s penis, two other students

(S. J. and K. W., a male and female) were standing by the wall,

their pants down at their ankles, having regular sex. This

latter is beyond belief and sugg ests to the undersigned that

R. B. has difficulty distinguishing fantasy from fact. That

being the case, the undersigned considers her testimony

unreliable and has discounted it accordingly.

11. D. B.'s version of the alleged event differs from

R. B .'s in one immediately apparent respect: as D. B. tells it,

he was practically the victim, R. B. the aggressor who pulled

down his pants and commenced sucking on his penis against his

wishes. This is unlikely —— almost absurd, the undersigned

thinks —— but D . B.'s testimony in this regard is notable insofar

as it exposes a desire (also evident, incidentally, in R. B.'s

testimony) to shift the blame —— for whatever happened —— to someone

else. Like R. B., D. B. testified that other students also

engaged in sexual activity that morning in Delgado's classroom.

In particular, D. B. asserted that K. W. had "jacked" S. J.

( i.e. masturbated his penis) while the couple had been sitting

down at one of the teacher's desks. The undersigned believes

that D. B.'s testimony about K. W. and S. J. is most likely a

fabrication. 4 Having given testimony that is probably untrue,

D. B.'s credibility is suspect and his testimony as a whole must

be discounted.

12. A. S. testified that on the morning in question, he

turned around a nd saw R. B. and D. B. at the teacher's desk in

the back of room, R. B.'s mouth on D. B.'s penis. Apparently

witnessing two classmates openly engaging in a sexual act was

not a remarkable event for A. S., for he claims to have looked

away and said nothing to the teacher (who was, according to

A. S., writing a problem on the board at the time). The

undersigned considers this to be implausible. He can scarcely

believe that a student in A. S.'s supposed position would react

in the blasé manner that A. S. d escribed. The testimony as a

whole is not credible.

13. K. M.'s testimony is full of improbabilities. To

begin, the undersigned is skeptical that K. M. just happened to

be running an errand for his teacher in the middle of fourth

period, allowing him t o detour to Delgado's classroom to check

up on R. B. —— whom , he said, he treated "like a sister" —— at the

very moment she was performing fellatio on D. B. This is too

contrived to be believable. Second, the undersigned does not

believe that K. M. could hav e entered Delgado's classroom ——

which, it is undisputed, was locked while class was in session ——

without Delgado knowing about it, which is what K. M. claims

occurred. Third, the undersigned rejects as incredible K. M.'s

testimony that he stood watching R. B. suck on D. B.'s penis for

a considerable period of time (several minutes), unobserved by

Delgado, without saying anything to the teacher. Fourth, the

undersigned disbelieves K. M.'s testimony that he slipped out of

the secure classroom unnoticed by Del gado. Finally, K. M.

testified at hearing with some certainty that he had reported

the incident the next day, after carefully considering whether

to do so. Yet, the contemporaneous written record reflects that

he reported the matter within hours after it s alleged

occurrence. Standing alone, this latter would be a relatively

minor discrepancy. But viewed in the light of other facially

improbable details, this discrepancy is more troubling. All

things considered, the undersigned harbors genuine doubt

reg arding K. M.'s reliability as a witness.

14. The School Board offered the unsworn written

statements of eight students, including the four who testified

at hearing. These are hearsay and hence can be used, if at all,

only to supplement or explain othe r admissible evidence. 5 To

give a flavor of the nature and quality of the evidence

presented in support of the charges against Delgado, the

undersigned will reproduce the statements of the non - testifying

students below. 6

15. S. J. 7 gave a statement dat ed December 8, 2004,

wherein he recounted: 8

it happen when [R. B.] was siting between

[D. B.] legs and when I went to get my paper

from the printer and I turn around I seen

[R. B.] sucking [D. B.] penis I was not the

only one seen them [K. M.] seen them al so

this happen 2 minutes before the bell rang

that how the other person which is [K. M.]

seen them when he walk into the room and

seen them thats how everything started. I

was not involved with them.

S. J. signed another statement, dated December 14, 2004 , in

which he wrote:

When the problem happen the teacher was

right in front of them but he told her to

stop but she wouldnt. He told her plenty of

times to go down stairs to see Ms. Thomas

but she wouldnt. but when they were doing

it in the corner in he see them crowed

around he gets up to see what's going on

thats the only time he gets up to see. the

problem doesn't occur now scense she not in

the class anymore.

16. K. W.'s 9 December 7, 2004, statement provides as

follows:

when she came in she starte d to play with

[nickname deleted] and he said to leave him

and still cap playing with and he got up

side on the other side of the classroom and

teacher her to stop she cap on playing with

him and I when to sleep after that I does

not know that they had sex or not.

17. T. H. gave two written statements. The first, dated

December 7, 2004, states:

I was seating down on the char in I sha [D.

B.] in [R. B.] [R. B.] was sukin [D. B.]

penis two times.

T. H.'s second statement is dated December 10, 2004. Ther ein he

wrote:

Mr. Dilgado trys to stop hus from having six

bet we keep on going in he call ower house

bet we cap on going.

18. N. H. provided two statements, neither of which is

dated. In one he wrote:

[D. B.] in [R. B.] was having sex in the

classroom . I was go to the computer lab.

In the other, N. H. added:

I feel I Mr. Delgado did not see [R. B.] in

[D. B.] have sex in the class.

19. These written statements do not explain or supplement

the admissible evidence; to the contrary, if accepted they would

create additional inconsistencies. Thus, the undersigned has

not based any findings of fact on their contents. The

undersigned has taken note, however, that out of 15 - 17 students

in Delgado's fourth - period class, fewer than half (seven, to be

exac t) testified at hearing and/or signed a written statement

about the alleged incident that was produced at hearing. This

causes the undersigned to wonder what, if anything, the other 8 -

10 students in the class witnessed on December 6, 2004.

20. Given t he paucity of persuasive evidence, the

undersigned is better able to find what was not proved to have

happened, than to find what likely happened in Delgado's

classroom on December 6, 2004, if anything out of the ordinary.

To repeat the key finding above, the School Board failed to

prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's

classroom while he was present.

21. While these students probably did not engage in oral

sex, the undersigned believes that there is a slightly better

than even chanc e, and thus he finds, that D. B. briefly exposed

his penis in Delgado's classroom after the bell had rung and

class had been dismissed, when Delgado was outside of the room

monitoring the hallway, which is what he was supposed to be

doing at the time. 10 Th e undersigned thinks, based on the

evidence presented, that it is reasonably possible (the

probability being between, roughly, 25 percent and 35 percent)

that R. B. might have placed her mouth on D. B.'s penis, but he

cannot make this finding because he is not persuaded that this

likely occurred. What is likely, and what the undersigned

finds, is that D. B.'s exhibition was a type of taunting,

teasing, or sexually harassing behavior directed at R. B.

22. It is found that K. M. likely did enter Delg ado's

classroom, not during the class period as K. M. claimed, but

after fourth period had ended, when Delgado was properly in the

hallway and the door to his room was unlocked. It is found

that, more likely than not, K. M. then learned about D. B.'s

hara ssment of R. B. It is possible that the incident was

already being exaggerated in discussions about what had

happened. At any rate, by the time K. M. reported the incident,

the facts had become distorted.

23. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgad o saw or

knew about, or reasonably should have seen or known about,

D. B.'s misbehavior, which occurred while Delgado was properly

monitoring the hallway between classes. There is no persuasive

evidence that Delgado reasonably should have foreseen D. B.' s

misconduct or that he reasonably could have stopped or prevented

it. 11 There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado was in any

way the cause of, or responsible for, D. B.'s bad behavior.

24. In sum, the undersigned determines as a matter of

ultimate f act that, to the extent anything unusual occurred on

December 6, 2004, in Delgado's classroom, it was student

misbehavior that took place outside the teacher's presence and

beyond the reach of his senses. Delgado neither knew nor should

have known that an ything untoward was occurring. The student or

students who engaged in the misbehavior should have been

punished, not the teacher.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

25. DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

this proceeding pursuant to Sections 1012.33(6 )(a)2., 120.569,

and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

26. In an administrative proceeding to suspend or dismiss

a teacher, the school board, as the charging party, bears the

burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, each

element of the charged of fense(s). See McNeill v. Pinellas

County School Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996);

Sublett v. Sumter County School Bd. , 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla.

5th DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau County School Bd. , 629 So. 2d

226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

27. Delgado's guilt or innocence is a question of ultimate

fact to be decided in the context of each alleged violation.

McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995);

Langston v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

28. In its Not ice of Specific Charges served on June 20,

2005, the School Board advanced four theories for dismissing

Delgado: Misconduct in Office (Counts I); Gross Insubordination

or Willful Neglect of Duty (Count II); Violation of School Board

Rules (Count III); and Conduct Unbecoming a School Board

Employee (Count IV). 12

29. Each of the School Board's several counts depends on

the alleged facts that, on December 6, 2004, two students

engaged in oral sex in Delgado's classroom, and that Delgado,

though present, was inattentive and failed properly to respond

to the situation. 13 The School Board, however, failed to prove

these essential allegations. Thus, all of the charges against

Delgado necessarily fail, as a matter of fact. Due to this

dispositive failure of proo f, it is not necessary to render

additional conclusions of law.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a)

exonerating Delgado of all charges brought against him in this

proceeding; (b) providing that Delgado be immediately reinstated

to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c)

awarding Delgado back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during

the suspension period, together with interest thereo n at the

statutory rate.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2006, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

___________________________________

JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM

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 2nd day of March, 2006.

ENDNOTES

1 / There was, at hearing, considerable controversy ove r the

admissibility of a videotape of the forensic interview of R. B.,

the female student who allegedly performed fellatio on a male

classmate. The School Board argues that this videotape —— which

is part of Petitioner's Exhibit 9 —— is admissible under the

h earsay exception for the statements of child victims. See §

90.803(23), Fla. Stat. This raises an interesting evidentiary

question, which the undersigned declines to resolve because the

videotape —— which the undersigned has viewed —— is cumulative

evidence. R. B.'s out - of - court statements, as captured on the

videotape, are consistent with, and add nothing of substance to,

her sworn testimony at hearing. Thus, whether the videotape is

considered independent, substantive evidence pursuant to

§ 90.803(23), F la. Stat., or, alternatively, corroborative

hearsay under § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat., makes no difference:

the findings and conclusions herein are the same, either way.

2 / The testimony about this cookie and its import was

unimpressive. The bottom line is that the cookie's presence in

Delgado's machine shows, at most, that his computer was on and a

browser open at 11:37 a.m.; it does not establish that Delgado

was actually viewing the Internet at that time, much less prove

that he was so engaged in surf ing the Web that he could ignore

two students having oral sex in his classroom.

3 / Delgado's location at the time of the alleged sex act is

clearly a material fact. The School Board naturally urges that

Delgado was at the computer as opposed to the boar d because the

resulting image is that of an indifferent, neglectful teacher

who was not even instructing his students, let alone controlling

the classroom. If, however, he were busy writing problems on

the board, as both D. B. and A. S. testified, then De lgado at

least would have been engaged in a proper pedagogic activity,

raising the question whether he reasonably could have missed the

alleged sex act, assuming the latter occurred. And if Delgado

were in the hallway (as R. B. suggested) when the alleged sex

act took place, then he reasonably might not have seen the

alleged sex act, assuming it occurred —— a situation which would

constitute an exculpatory alternative to the School Board's

theory.

4 / This testimony —— insinuating everyone was doing it —— strik es

the undersigned as tactical blame shifting.

5 / See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat.

6 / The written statements of the students who testified are

cumulative evidence.

7 / This is the same S. J. who, according to R. B. and D. B.,

either had regular sex wit h, or was masturbated by, K. W. on the

morning in question.

8 / The spelling and grammar are poor throughout the students'

written statements. Rather than attempt to clean them up or

point out each mistake with a " sic ," the undersigned simply has

reprodu ced the contents of the students' respective statements

as they appear in the record.

9 / K. W. is the student who supposedly engaged in some sort of

sexual activity with S. J. in Delgado's classroom on December 6,

2004, according to R. B. and D. B.

10 / D. B.'s penis, it is found, was exposed for a matter of

seconds at most. To be very clear, moreover, the evidence

persuades the undersigned that D. B. did not ejaculate.

11 / At some point before December 6, 2004, Delgado had

disciplined R. B. for "grabbin g" the boys, sending her to the

office, where nothing was done about her misbehavior. The

evidence is sketchy as to what R. B. actually did to warrant the

referral, but it is reasonable to infer that her misconduct

entailed acting out in a sexually inappr opriate way. It is not

reasonable to infer, however, that her previous misconduct

signaled a propensity to engage in oral sex in class, which

deviant behavior would be not only different in degree but also

in kind. Further, the fact that Delgado actively disciplined R.

B. when she merely "grabbed" the boys suggests that he would not

passively have allowed her to perform fellatio on a student in

his classroom.

12 / The School Board based some of its charges, in part, on the

allegation that Delgado had brou ght "false and frivolous

complaints" against school district personnel. The School Board

abandoned this allegation at hearing, however, and thus no

findings or conclusions pertaining to the "false claims" theory

have been made in this Recommended Order.

13 / The School Board also contends that Delgado failed to attend

some training sessions as directed by the principal of a school

where he had worked in the year 2000 (not Booker T. Washington),

and that this alleged failure constituted gross insubordinatio n.

The evidence, however, does not establish that Delgado

constantly and willfully disobeyed reasonable directives. See

Fla. Admin. Code. R. 6B - 4.009(4). Consequently, this particular

allegation does not merit further consideration.

COPIES FURNI SHED :

Mark Herdman, Esquire

Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.

2595 Tampa Road, Suite J

Palm Harbor, Florida 34684

Luis M. Garcia , Esquire

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33132

Daniel J. Woodring, Gen eral Counsel

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

John L. Winn, Commissioner

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912

Miami, Florida 33132 - 1394

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this R ecommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.