08-005576
Florida A And M University Board Of Trustees vs.
Novella Franklin
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, June 23, 2009.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, June 23, 2009.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY, )
14BOARD OF TRUSTEES, )
18)
19Petitioner, )
21)
22vs. ) Case No. 08-5576
27)
28NOVELLA FRANKLIN, )
31)
32Respondent. )
34)
35RECOMMENDED ORDER
37Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this
47case on March 4, 2009, in Tallahassee, Florida, before
56Barbara J. Staros, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
68APPEARANCES
69For Petitioner: Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire
75Florida A & M University
80Office of the General Counsel
85300 Lee Hall
88Tallahassee, Florida 32307
91For Respondent: John Londot, Esquire
96Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
99101 East College Avenue
103Post Office Drawer 1838
107Tallahassee, Florida 32302
110STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
114The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from
123her employment with Petitioner for the reasons set forth in a
134termination letter dated October 3, 2008.
140PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
142By letter dated October 3, 2008, Petitioner, Florida A&M
151University, Board of Trustees (FAMU), notified Respondent,
158Novella Franklin, that she was dismissed from employment,
166effective at the close of business on October 16, 2008.
176Respondent filed a Request for Formal Hearing and Protest
185of Dismissal Action. Petitioner referred the request for
193hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about
203November 4, 2008.
206A Notice of Hearing, dated November 14, 2008, scheduled the
216hearing for February 2 and 3, 2009.
223On January 15, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel
233and Request for Continuance. Following a telephone hearing on
242the Motion, the Request for Continuance was granted and the
252hearing rescheduled for March 3 and 4, 2009. The parties later
263indicated that only one day would be necessary. The case was
274heard on March 4, 2009.
279At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of five
287witnesses: Janet Johnson, Sharla Givens, Rosa Christie,
294Danielle Kennedy-Lamar, and Ronald Gaines. Petitioner offered
301exhibits lettered A through M, which were admitted into
310evidence.
311Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the
320testimony of two additional witnesses, Allison McNealy and
328Saundra Inge. Respondent offered Exhibits numbered 12, 14, 19,
337and 20 which were admitted into evidence. Respondents Exhibit
34621 was proffered. A ruling on the admissibility of Respondent's
356Exhibit 21 was withheld and the parties given the opportunity to
367address this issue in proposed orders. Upon consideration,
375Respondents Exhibit 21 is rejected and not in evidence. 1/
385A Transcript consisting of two volumes was filed on
394March 19, 2009. On April 16, 2009, the parties filed an Agreed
406Motion for Continuance to Submit Proposed Recommended Order.
414The Agreed Motion was granted and the parties timely filed
424Proposed Recommended Orders which have been duly considered in
433the preparation of this Recommended Order.
439FINDINGS OF FACT
4421. Respondent Novella Franklin began her employment with
450FAMU in 1987. From 1993 to December 1996, and again from
461November 1999 through 2008, Ms. Franklin worked in the
470Registrars Office. At all times material to this proceeding,
479Respondent held the position of Office Manager in the
488Registrars Office.
4902. On or about June 2, 2008, Ms. Janet Johnson accepted
501the position of Registrar at FAMU. Ms. Johnsons first day of
512employment was July 7, 2008. Prior to that date, the position
523of Registrar had been vacant for some time.
5313. Ms. Johnson had previously worked for FAMU at a time
542not material to this proceeding. Ms. Johnson and Respondent
551knew each other from the time of Ms. Johnsons previous
561employment there.
5634. In mid-June 2008, Respondent asked Roland Gaines, Vice
572President for Student Affairs, for Ms. Johnsons telephone
580number so that she could contact Ms. Johnson regarding several
590matters related to her transition to employment at FAMU.
599Mr. Gaines assistant provided Ms. Johnsons telephone number to
608Respondent.
6095. In mid-to-late June 2008, Respondent phoned Ms. Johnson
618to welcome her back to FAMU and to assist Ms. Johnson with her
631transition back to FAMU. During telephone conversations,
638Respondent asked Ms. Johnson if she needed Respondents
646assistance with securing employment related items such as a
655parking decal, name plate, business cards, and access into the
665building where the Registrars Office is located. Respondent
673also asked Ms. Johnson if she wanted Respondent to order
683signature stamps for the office.
6886. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Denise Jones
698was the Administrative Assistant for the Office of the
707Registrar.
7087. On June 26, 2008, Ms. Johnson sent an e-mail addressed
719to Respondent and Ms. Jones which stated as follows:
728Good morning ladies,
731Novella, thanks for contacting me and
737gathering pertinent information to assist
742with my arrival to FAMU.
747Attached are several copies of my signature,
754select one (a good looking clear one) and
762use for the documents & stamps needed in the
771office. Select from one of the Janet E.
779Johnson signatures.
781Please protect these signatures. In the
787past they should be destroyed once used.
794I look forward to seeing you all on the 7th.
804Janet E. Johnson
8078. Attached to the e-mail were several versions of
816Ms. Johnsons signature, as referenced in the e-mail.
8249. After receiving Ms. Johnsons e-mail, Respondent spoke
832to Ms. Jones, who provided Respondent with the name and phone
843number of the Tallahassee Stamp Company. Ms. Jones is the
853person who typically orders supplies for the Registrars Office
862through a requisitioning process. Respondent learned from
869Ms. Jones that the budget had not yet been approved to purchase
881office supplies.
88310. In late June or the beginning of July, Respondent
893called Tallahassee Stamp Company and spoke to an employee there.
903On July 2, 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Tallahassee Stamp
914Company wherein she placed an order for a signature stamp
924containing Ms. Johnsons signature. The e-mail contained the
932same attachment that Ms. Johnson provided in her e-mail to
942Respondent and Ms. Jones. Respondents e-mail to the stamp
951company stated, Good morning. See attached signature for a
960stamp. The third from the top.
96611. At the time she placed the order for the stamp,
977Respondent did not inform anyone at FAMU that she had placed the
989order.
99012. On July 21, 2008, Ms. Jones prepared a requisition for
1001five signature stamps containing Ms. Johnsons name. On
1009July 24, 2008, Ms. Johnson approved the requisition for the five
1020signature stamps.
102213. In addition to her position as Office Manager at the
1033Registrars Office, Respondent was the Head Coach of the FAMU
1043womens bowling team. On July 25, 2008, Respondent left to
1053attend a funeral in Chicago for a student athlete who had been
1065killed in a car accident. Respondent returned to work mid-day
1075on July 29, 2008.
107914. On July 30, 2008, Respondent reported to work in the
1090morning and then left for a doctors appointment. On the way
1101back to work, she stopped by Tallahassee Stamp Company. She
1111picked up one stamp with Ms. Johnsons signature and paid for it
1123with her personal funds. She then stopped for lunch and
1133thereafter returned to work around 12:30 p.m.
114015. Upon returning to work, Ms. Sharla Givens, a
1149Transcript Specialist in the Registrars office, walked by
1157Respondents desk. Respondent then showed Ms. Givens the
1165signature stamp she had just picked up from the stamp company
1176and informed Ms. Givens that she had purchased it with her own
1188funds. Ms. Givens describes her reaction to Respondent having
1197the stamp as shocked.
120116. Respondent then went to the desk of Rosa Christie, the
1212receptionist for the Registrars Office, and showed Ms. Christie
1221the stamp. Ms. Christies desk is just outside Ms. Johnsons
1231office.
123217. Respondent informed Ms. Christie that she had
1240purchased the stamp for Ms. Johnson and that Ms. Johnson should
1251not have to wait until funds were available to receive a
1262signature stamp. Ms. Christie told Respondent that that was
1271nice. Respondent also told Ms. Jones and another staff
1280member, Ms. Thomas, about having the signature stamp.
128818. That afternoon, at approximately 4:45 p.m., Respondent
1296was called into Ms. Johnsons office and received a written
1306reprimand for a matter unrelated to the allegations which form
1316the basis for this proceeding. This meeting took 20 to 25
1327minutes. Respondent did not inform Ms. Johnson that she had the
1338signature stamp during this meeting or at any other time.
134819. Respondent was upset at having received a written
1357reprimand. She prepared a written response which was ultimately
1366submitted to the Assistant Registrar on August 5, 2008.
137520. Danielle Kennedy-Lamar is the Associate Vice President
1383for Student Affairs and is in charge of enrollment management.
1393Prior to the time that Ms. Johnson was hired as Registrar and
1405for a short time thereafter, student transcripts were stamped by
1415Ms. Kennedy-Lamars administrative assistant, Allison McNealy.
142121. Ms. McNealy learned from Ms. Givens that Respondent
1430had a signature stamp. Ms. McNealy reported this to
1439Ms. Kennedy-Lamar and inquired whether she, Ms. McNealy, would
1448continue to stamp transcripts.
145222. On August 1, 2008, Ms. Kennedy-Lamar had a previously
1462scheduled meeting with Ms. Johnson. During this meeting,
1470Ms. Kennedy-Lamar asked Ms. Johnson if Ms. Johnson was aware
1480that Respondent had a stamp bearing Ms. Johnsons signature.
1489Ms. Johnson informed Ms. Kennedy-Lamar that she was not aware
1499that Respondent had a signature stamp.
150523. Ms. Kennedy-Lamar then instructed Ms. McNealy to ask
1514Ms. Givens if she had any transcripts and, if so, to have
1526Respondent stamp them. Ms. Kennedy-Lamar did this to determine
1535whether such a stamp existed.
154024. Ms. Givens then delivered several transcripts to
1548Respondent, asked Respondent to stamp the transcripts, and
1556advised Respondent that Respondent had the authority to stamp
1565the transcripts.
156725. Respondent did not immediately stamp the transcripts,
1575but eventually stamped them as instructed.
158126. At the time she stamped the transcripts, Respondent
1590did so with authorization form Ms. Kennedy-Lamars office.
159827. The transcripts then were returned to Ms. Kennedy-
1607Lamar, who recalls that there were approximately 20 transcripts.
1616Ms. Kennedy-Lamar then gave the stamped transcripts to
1624Ms. Johnson. The stamped transcripts were not disseminated to
1633the students or whoever requested them.
163928. Ms. Johnson thereafter instructed Ms. Jones to cancel
1648the stamp order that she had previously authorized and prepared
1658another signature to order a different signature stamp.
166629. At the time Respondent was instructed to stamp
1675transcripts, the standard procedure was as follows: Ms. Givens
1684or Ms. Thomas from the Registrars Office, or on some occasions
1695Respondent, would bring printed transcripts to Ms. McNealy in
1704Ms. Kennedy-Lamars office. Ms. McNealy would stamp the
1712transcripts. Ms. McNealy would then notify Registrar staff that
1721the transcripts were ready for pickup. Ms. Givens, Ms. Thomas,
1731or on some occasions Respondent, would retrieve the stamped
1740transcripts. Ms. McNealy did not conduct a review of the
1750transcripts before stamping or ask Ms. Kennedy-Lamar to review
1759them prior to stamping them.
176430. Roland Gaines is Vice-President for Student Affairs at
1773FAMU. On May 8, 2008, Dr. James Ammons, President of FAMU,
1784delegated to Mr. Gaines the authority to administer all
1793applicable FAMU regulations, policies, and procedures affecting
1800employment and personnel actions consistent with Chapter 10 of
1809FAMU regulations.
181131. On September 18, 2008, Mr. Gaines wrote a letter to
1822Respondent notifying her of the Universitys intent to dismiss
1831her from employment and placing her on leave with pay. The
184210.302(3)(y), and 10.302(3)(cc) as authority, and states in
1850pertinent part as follows:
1854This employment action is being considered
1860against you for the following alleged work
1867violations:
1868* * *
1871This proposed employment action is being
1877considered against [sic] for your alleged
1883failure to follow the protocols established
1889by the University Registrars Office for
1895processing student transcript requests. In
1900addition, you allegedly requested, via e-
1906mail, the production of a facsimile stamp
1913bearing the signature of the Registrar; used
1920your personal funds to purchase the stamp;
1927and embossed 43 transcripts totaling 140
1933documents which were released without
1938appropriate review and approval by the
1944designated University authority. The
1948enclosed documents from the Division of
1954Audit and Compliance provide further details
1960of the subject allegations of misconduct.
196632. The September 18, 2008, letter also provides
1974Respondent with an opportunity to request a predetermination
1982conference to present an oral or written statement, or both, to
1993refute or explain the charges against her.
200033. Respondent submitted a written response and a
2008predetermination conference was held on September 29, 2008.
201634. On October 3, 2008, Mr. Gaines notified Respondent by
2026letter that she was dismissed from employment effective at the
2036close of business October 16, 2008. The letter again cited the
2047same FAMU regulations which were cited in the September 18,
20572008, letter and added no additional or different factual bases
2067for Respondents termination.
207035. The October 3, 2008, letter also advised Respondent of
2080her right to appeal this action.
208636. FAMU referred Respondents appeal of her termination
2094to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this de novo
2104proceeding ensued.
2106CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
210937. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
2116jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter pursuant to
2126Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2008), and its
2135contract to hear such cases.
214038. The parties stipulated that FAMU has the burden of
2150proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent
2159should be dismissed from her employment for the reasons
2168specified in the October 3, 2008, termination letter from
2177Mr. Gaines to Respondent.
218139. FAMU Regulations 10.111, 10.302, and 1.019 are duly
2190promulgated regulations which were in effect at all times
2199material to this proceeding.
220340. The October 3, 2008, dismissal letter alleged that
2212Respondent violated Regulation 1.019(4) which reads in pertinent
2220part as follows:
2223University Code of Conduct:
2227(4) Conflict of Interest and Commitment-
2233Faculty and staff of the University owe
2240their primary professional allegiance to the
2246University and its mission to engage in
2253education, scholarship and research. . .
2259Thus, all officers, faculty, principal
2264investigators, staff, student employees and
2269others acting on behalf of the University
2276hold positions of trust, and the University
2283expects them to carry out their
2289responsibilities with the highest level of
2295integrity and ethical behavior. In order to
2302protect the Universitys mission, members of
2308the University community with private or
2314other professional or financial interests
2319which conflict with applicable State of
2325Floridas, state or federal laws and
2331University rules and policies must disclose
2337them in compliance with the Universitys
2343conflict of interest/conflict of commitment
2348policies and the Florida Code of Ethics for
2356Public Officers and Employees.
236041. The October 3, 2008, dismissal letter alleges that
2369Respondent violated Regulation 10.111(1) and (2)(b), which reads
2377as follows:
2379(1) Disruptive ConductFaculty,
2382Administrative and Professional, and USPS
2387employees who intentionally act to impair,
2393interfere with, or obstruct the orderly
2399conduct, processes, and functions of the
2405University shall be subject to appropriate
2411disciplinary action by the University
2416authorities.
2417* * *
2420(2) Disruptive conduct shall include,
2425but not be limited to, the following:
2432* * *
2435(b) Theft, conversion, misuse or
2440willful damage or destruction of University
2446property, or the property of employees of
2453the University.
245542. The October 3, 2008, dismissal letter alleges that
2464Respondent violated Regulation 10.302(3)(y) and (cc), which
2471reads as follows:
2474Disciplinary and Separation from Employment
2479Actions for University Support Personnel
2484System Employees.
2486(3) Offenses- Standards for
2490Disciplinary Action. The most common
2495occurrences are listed below, but the list
2502is not all-inclusive. The disciplinary
2507actions for the listed offenses have been
2514established to help assure that employees
2520who commit offenses receive similar
2525treatment in like circumstances.
2529* * *
2532(y) Willful Violation of University
2537Written Rules: Regulations and Policies; or
2543Willful violation of State Laws - This
2550includes the willful disregard of internal
2556department written rules and policies. . .
2563* * *
2566(cc) Conduct unbecoming a Public
2571Employee-Conduct, whether on or off the job,
2578that adversely affects the employees
2583ability to continue to perform his/her
2589current job, or which adversely affects the
2596Universitys ability to carry out its
2602assigned mission.
26041. First occurrence- Written reprimand,
2609five (5) days suspension or dismissal.
26152. Second occurrence- Five (5) days
2621suspension or dismissal.
26243. Third occurrence- Dismissal.
262843. Before analyzing the individual regulations alleged to
2636have been violated, the allegations of Respondents conduct must
2645be examined. These allegations or charges were set out in
2655Mr. Gaines September 18, 2009, letter to Respondent and were
2665not expanded in the October 3, 2008, termination letter. These
2675letters constitute the charging documents in this case and,
2684therefore, define the parameters of this analysis. The
2692September 18, 2008, letter states in pertinent part:
2700This proposed employment action is
2705being considered against [sic] for your
2711alleged failure to follow the protocols
2717established by the University Registrars
2722Office for processing student transcript
2727requests. In addition, you allegedly
2732requested, via e-mail, the production of a
2739facsimile stamp bearing the signature of the
2746Registrar; used your personal funds to
2752purchase the stamp; and embossed 43
2758transcripts totaling 140 documents which
2763were released without appropriate review and
2769approval by the designated University
2774authority. The enclosed documents from the
2780Division of Audit and compliance provide
2786further details of the subject allegations
2792of misconduct.
279444. The evidence does not establish the allegation or
2803charge that Respondent failed to follow protocols established by
2812the Registrars office for processing transcript requests. The
2820evidence established that Respondent stamped the transcripts
2827only after being instructed to do so and with the understanding
2838that she, at that particular time and under the particular
2848circumstances, had the authority to do so from the Office of the
2860Associate Vice-President of Student Affairs.
286545. The evidence does not establish the allegation or
2874charge that Respondent embossed 43 transcripts, totaling 140
2882documents which were released without appropriate review and
2890approval by the designated University authority. As to the
2899number of transcripts, the evidence established that 15-to-20
2907transcripts totaling approximately 43 sheets of paper were
2915stamped or embossed.
291846. Further, the evidence does not establish the
2926allegation or charge that the transcripts were released without
2935appropriate review. The usual practice for stamping transcripts
2943was, in essence, ministerial in nature. The transcripts stamped
2952by Respondent received as much review and approval as any
2962other transcripts stamped at that time, inasmuch as they usually
2972were stamped at the direction of Ms. Kennedy-Lamar, but not with
2983any substantive review or approval by her or her office.
299347. The evidence does establish the allegation or charge
3002that Respondent requested via e-mail the production of a
3011facsimile stamp bearing the signature of the Registrar, and paid
3021for with her personal funds. Since this allegation or charge
3031was established by the evidence, the question then becomes, did
3041Respondent violate any of the regulations cited as authority in
3051the charging documents when she ordered the production of the
3061facsimile stamp bearing the signature of the registrar and paid
3071for it with her personal funds? 2/
307848. FAMU argues that by securing the Registrars signature
3087stamp, which it characterizes as a clandestine process, which
3096did not involve the Registrar, and by failing to timely inform
3107the Registrar that the stamp was in her possession, that
3117Respondent violated both Regulations 1.019(4) and 10.302(3)(cc).
312449. Respondent was one of two recipients of an e-mail from
3135the incoming Registrar specifically instructing the recipients
3142to select a clear signature and order a signature stamp. The
3153body of the e-mail from the incoming Registrar references
3162Respondent, not the other recipient. This communication clearly
3170involved the incoming Registrar. Once Respondent picked up the
3179stamp, she showed it to other staff members upon returning to
3190the office. The facts simply do not support the description of
3201Respondents procurement of the stamp as clandestine.
320850. There is no evidence that Respondent violated
3216University Regulation 1.019(4) relating to the University Code
3224of Conduct. The thrust of subsection (4) goes to disclosure of
3235potential conflicts of interest, of which there are none in this
3246case. Further, no evidence was presented that Respondent used
3255or attempted to use the signature stamp for her own benefit.
3266Finally, this regulation does not provide a disciplinary basis
3275with respect to the conduct alleged to have been committed in
3286this case.
328851. Nor does the evidence support a conclusion that
3297Respondent engaged in conduct unbecoming a public employee.
3305Accordingly, the evidence does not support a conclusion that
3314Respondent violated University Regulation 10.302(3)(cc).
331952. Finally, the charging documents allege that Respondent
3327violated University Regulation 10.111(1) and (2)b. Subsection
3334(1) advises that University employees who intentionally act to
3343impair, interfere with, or obstruct the orderly conduct,
3351processes, and functions of the University shall be subject to
3361appropriate disciplinary action. Subsection (2)b. references
3367theft, conversion, misuse or willful damage or destruction of
3376University property.
337853. Respondent did not steal, convert, misuse, or
3386willfully damage or destroy University property when she ordered
3395and purchased the signature stamp. She only used it when
3405instructed to do so.
340954. Finally, The undersigned is not persuaded that
3417Respondent engaged in disruptive conduct as contemplated by
3425subsection (1) of the above regulation. While Respondent did
3434not use the requisition process that is normally used, she
3444ordered the stamp after having received direction to do so.
3454RECOMMENDATION
3455Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
3465Law, it is
3468RECOMMENDED:
3469That Petitioner enter a final order rescinding its
3477October 3, 2008, letter terminating Respondent from employment,
3485thereby entitling Respondent to reinstatement to a comparable
3493position, and appropriate back pay from the effective date of
3503her termination until the date of reinstatement.
3510DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2009, in
3520Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
3524S
3525BARBARA J. STAROS
3528Administrative Law Judge
3531Division of Administrative Hearings
3535The DeSoto Building
35381230 Apalachee Parkway
3541Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
3544(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
3548Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
3552www.doah.state.fl.us
3553Filed with the Clerk of the
3559Division of Administrative Hearings
3563this 23rd day of June, 2009.
3569ENDNOTES
35701/ At hearing, FAMU objected to the admission of Respondents
3580Exhibit 21 on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Counsel
3589for the parties describe Respondents Exhibit 21 as an e-mail
3599from FAMUs General Counsel to Dr. ODour, Vice President of
3609Audit and Compliance for FAMU. Petitioner argues that the
3618document was disclosed during discovery and, therefore, any
3626privilege has been waived. FAMU describes the disclosure as
3635inadvertent and made on the eve of hearing. FAMU argues that
3646the document is protected as attorney work product, citing
3655Section 119.07(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes. That argument is
3662rejected as the disclosure was made during discovery, not as a
3673result of a public records request. However, the undersigned
3682recognizes that waiver of the attorney-client privilege is not
3691favored in Florida. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lease Am., Inc. ,
3702735 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), cited with approval in
3715TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. Aben E. Johnson, et al. , 799
3727So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Moreover, the undersigned has
3738considered the limited facts regarding the disclosure, has
3746applied the relevant circumstances test, See Abamar Housing
3755and Development, Inc. v. Lisa Daly Lady Décor, Inc. , 698 So. 2d
3767276 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997), and has determined that this
3777inadvertent disclosure does not constitute a waiver of the
3786privilege. Accordingly, Respondents proffered Exhibit 21 is
3793not in evidence and has not been considered.
38012/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, FAMU conceded that no
3811evidence was offered that suggests that Respondent violated
3819internal department written rules and policies in violation of
3828University Regulation 10.302.(3)(y). Therefore, the analysis
3834will not address that regulation.
3839COPIES FURNISHED :
3842Avery McKnight, Esquire
3845Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire
3849Florida A & M University
3854Office of the General Counsel
3859300 Lee Hall
3862Tallahassee, Florida 32307
3865John K. Londot, Esquire
3869Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
3872101 East College Avenue
3876Post Office Drawer 1838
3880Tallahassee, Florida 32302
3883Dr. Eric J. Smith
3887Commissioner of Education
3890Turlington Building, Suite 1514
3894325 West Gaines Street
3898Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
3901Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel
3906Department of Education
3909Turlington Building, Suite 1244
3913325 West Gaines Street
3917Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
3920NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
3926All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
393615 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
3947to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
3958will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 06/23/2009
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/16/2009
- Proceedings: Agreed Motion for Continuance to Submit Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 03/19/2009
- Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes 1&2) filed.
- Date: 03/04/2009
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/27/2009
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Staros from J. Londot advising that Respondent has no objection to changing the hearing date filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/27/2009
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Staros from L. Bogan regarding agreed upon date for hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/23/2009
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing and Order on Motion to Compel (hearing set for March 3 and 4, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
- Date: 01/22/2009
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/25/2008
- Proceedings: Notice of Non-representation of Respondent Before the Division of Administrative Hearings filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/14/2008
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for February 2 and 3, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
Case Information
- Judge:
- BARBARA J. STAROS
- Date Filed:
- 11/05/2008
- Date Assignment:
- 11/06/2008
- Last Docket Entry:
- 11/08/2019
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
Avery McKnight, General Counsel
Address of Record -
Avery D. McKnight, General Counsel
Address of Record -
Avery D. McKnight, Esquire
Address of Record