10-009452TTS Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Luis G. Guerrero Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, August 3, 2011.

Summary: Teacher dismissed for inappropriate relationship with student and encouraging her not to respond to subpoena.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI - DADE )

COUNTY, FLORIDA. )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 10 - 9452

)

LUIS G. GUERRERO, )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________ )

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge Eleanor M. Hunter of the Division

of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing on

April 27, 2011, at video teleconference sites in Miami and

Tallahassee, Florida. Due to Judge Hunter's retirement,

Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale has assumed

responsibility for this case, pursuant to section 120.57(1)(a),

Florida Statutes.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Christopher La Piano, Esquire

School Board AttorneyÓs Office

School Board of Miami - Dade County

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire

1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the district school board

has just cause to dismiss the Respondent from employment,

pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed March 14, 2011,

Petitioner alleged that it has just cause to dismiss Respondent,

pursuant to sections 1001.32(2), 1012.22(1)(f), 1012.33(1)(a)

an d (6)(a), and 447.209, Florida Statutes, because Respondent

violate d School Board r ules 6Gx13 - 4 - 1.09, 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21, and

6Gx13 - 4A - 1.213 .

The Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges that, at all

material times, Respondent was a math teacher at Miami Coral

Park Senior High School where, during the 2009 - 10 school year,

he engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a female high

school student. The Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges

that Respondent maintained a sexual relationship with the

student, as well as an inappropriate level of telephone and

text - messag ing contact. The Amended Notice of Specific Charges

alleges that Petitioner had ordered Respondent not to have any

contact with the student during the administrative

investigation, but that, during this period, Respondent

contacted the student and discuss ed the case with her. In these

discussions, Respondent allegedly tampered with the witness and

attempted to cause her not to cooperate with the investigation.

In Count I, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges

that Respondent committed misconduct in office so serious as to

impair his effectiveness in the school system, in violation of

Florida Administrative Code R ule 6B - 4.009(3), which incorporates

the Principles of Professional Conduct set forth in Florida

Administrative Code R ule 6B - 1.006. Resp ondent allegedly failed

to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from

conditions harmful to learning or the student's mental health,

physical health, or safety; exploited a relationship with a

student for personal gain or advantage; and failed to maintain

honesty in all professional dealings.

In Count II, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges

that Respondent committed immorality, in violation of Florida

Administrative Code R ule 6B - 4.009(2). Respondent allegedly

engaged in conduct that was inconsistent with the standards of

public conscience and good morals, and the conduct was

sufficiently notorious to bring himself or the education

profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair his

service in the community.

In Count III, th e Amended Notice of Specific Charges

alleges that Respondent violated School Board rule 6Gx13 - 4 - 1.09,

which provides that all of Petitioner's employees are prohibited

from engaging in unacceptable relationships or communications

with students. The rule de fines such relationships or

communications to include dating, sexual touching or behavior,

making sexual or indecent propositions or comments, exploiting

an employee - student relationship, or demonstrating any other

behavior that lends an appearance of impr opriety.

In Count IV, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges

that Respondent violated School Board rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.21, which

requires all of Petitioner's employees to conduct themselves, in

their employment and in the community, so as to reflect credit

upon themselves and the school system.

In Count V, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges

that Respondent violated School Board rule 6Gx13 - 4A - 1.213, which

requires Respondent to conform to the Code of Ethics.

At the hearing, Petitioner ca lled four witnesses and

offered into evidence ten exhibits: Petitioner Exhibits 1 - 3,

6 - 7, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 19. Respondent called one witness and

did not offer into evidence any exhibits. All exhibits were

admitted.

The court reporter filed the trans cript on May 23, 2011.

The parties filed their proposed recommended orders on June 29,

2011.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner first hired Respondent in January 1990 as a

substitute teacher. In 1992, Petitioner changed Respondent's

status to a permanent t eacher.

2. Respondent began teaching at Miami Coral Park Senior

High School in January 1996, but left from 2000 to 2004 to teach

in Collier County. Upon return to Petitioner's school system

for the 2004 - 05 school year, Respondent was assigned to a

diff erent high school, but later transferred to Coral Park when

this school needed a basketball coach. In addition to coaching

basketball during the 2008 - 09 school year, Respondent co - taught

a math class.

3. One of Respondent's math students was J. V., wh o was

born on April 10, 1991. She started attending Coral Park Senior

High School mid - way through her sophomore year in 2008 after

moving to Miami in August 2007. She turned 18 in the spring of

her junior year and graduated from Coral Park on June 10, 20 10.

After graduating, J. V. enrolled in a local community college

and published a novel that is sold by Barnes & Noble bookstores.

4. During the 2008 - 09 school year, J. V.'s contact with

Respondent involved typical student - teacher interactions in the

cla ssroom, hallways, and other school settings. They had

exchanged cell phone numbers and spoke on the phone once or

twice per month and texted each other with the same frequency.

The record does not describe the nature of these communications,

but the reco rd fails to suggest any impropriety in the

relationship during J. V.'s junior year.

5. During the 2009 - 10 school year, J. V. was not assigned

to any of Respondent's classes, but she began to visit him in

his classroom in the morning before school star ted. The

frequency of these visits varied from zero to three times per

week. During these visits, J. V. and Respondent talked about

her family, her social life, and some of her medical issues,

including the fact that she was being treated for depression.

J. V. also told Respondent that she might have ovarian cancer,

although she later learned that she merely had a cyst.

6. While attending Coral Park, J. V. was living with her

aunt, who had become her legal guardian. J. V.'s relationship

with her aun t was strained at times. J. V.'s mother was living

in the Dominican Republic, and her father, with whom her mother

did not wish her to live, resided in New York.

7. During the 2009 - 10 school year, J. V. and Respondent

exchanged numerous cell phone call s and texts, at nearly all

hours of the day and night. Although J. V. initiated most of

the calls and texts and Respondent did not respond to all of her

calls and texts, Respondent never asked her to stop calling and

texting him.

8. Their relationship intensified in October or November

of J. V.'s senior year. J. V. has testified that she and

Respondent had sexual intercourse. Respondent testified that

they did not. Neither witness is a model of veracity. J. V.

embellished her story with dates that d id not occur and was not

perfectly clear in her recollection of the details of

Respondent's condominium and tattoo. As noted below, Respondent

repeatedly encouraged J. V. not to testify, to avoid being

served with a subpoena, and, if served, to ignore the subpoena.

9. Regardless whether sexual intercourse took place, the

relationship between J. V. and Respondent, by the end of 2009,

became excessively intimate for what is appropriate between a

teacher and a student and included some form of sexual activ ity.

A series of texts from Respondent to J. V. in late March or

early April 2010 reveal the intimacy that had arisen between

them: "I wanted 2 jump u," "2 many eyes!," "Muah," "Im in da

gym if u can pass by," "It would have been hard," and ÐI'l b

here." The time devoted to remote communications between

Respondent and J. V. provides some basis for assessing the

nature of their relationship: from October 2009 through

November 2010, Respondent and J. V. exchanged over 1600 texts

and consumed over ten hour s in phone conversations.

10. Without success, Respondent tried to explain the more

incriminating of the texts sent in March or April 2010 from his

cell phone. Respondent testified that these texts were sent by

an unauthorized user of his phone, probably a member of his

basketball team. It is diffi cult to understand why a player

would risk the wrath of his coach, but the absence of any

response from J. V. -- either to the principal or Respondent --

following receipt of the first of these texts suggests that the

relationship of Respondent and J. V. had already involved some

form of sexual contact.

11. One also finds indirect proof of an intimate

relationship in the conduct of Respondent following Petitioner's

decision to initiate dismissal proceedings again st him. To

credit Respondent's version of events, for the sake of

discussion, he was confronted by a student's accusations of

sexual intimacy that were a total fabrication. His response was

to encourage her to engage in more dishonesty, rather than

merel y to tell the truth. Even if Respondent's version of

events concerning the lack of intimacy were credited -- and it is

not -- his subsequent conduct, as amply documented by numerous

texts discussed in detail below, constitutes a startling lack of

honesty in p rofessional dealings and disregard for the mental

health of a former student.

12. Shortly after receiving an allegation that Respondent

was engaged in a sexual relationship with J. V., on April 9,

2010, Petitioner removed Respondent from Coral Park and pl aced

him on alternative assignment in a district office. By letter

dated April 9, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent of the nature

of the charges, including the initials of the student, and

ordered Respondent not to have any contact with the complainant

or witnesses with an intent to interfere with the investigation.

13. On April 10, 2010, Respondent and J. V. met at a club

known as Mama Juana's; according to both of them, the meeting

was by chance and little was said. However, ignoring the

directive not to speak with witnesses, Respondent told J. V.

that he was being investigated for having a relationship with

her and showed her a letter from Petitioner that, supposedly,

Respondent happened to have with him at the time of this chance

meeting. There i s insufficient evidence to find that Respondent

and J. V. are lying about the circumstances leading up to the

meeting or what was said during it.

14. By letter dated June 4, 2010, which was delivered to

Respondent during a conference - for - the - record held on that date,

Petitioner again ordered Respondent not to contact any of the

parties involved in the investigation.

15. By letter dated August 25 , 2010, Petitioner advised

Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the

School Board, during its meeting of September 7, 2010, that it

suspend Respondent without pay and initiate dismissal

proceedings against him. By letter dated Septem ber 8, 2010,

Petitioner advised Respondent that the School Board had taken

these actions.

16. Upon receipt of the September 8 letter, Respondent

testified that he resumed communicating with J. V. who, by this

time, had graduated from high school. In fa ct, Respondent had

received a call from J. V. on September 5 and had spoken with

her for 70 minutes until nearly midnight that night. On October

5, J. V. again called him, and they talked for 41 minutes.

Other lengthy calls -- each about 15 minutes -- were initiated by

J. V. on October 16, 2010, and January 6, 2011. However, there

were few, if any, communications between Respondent and J. V.

for five months following their meeting at Mama Juana's on April

10.

17. On September 11, 2010, Respondent texte d J. V.: "I

got suspended w/o pay. Basically fired!" J. V. replied, "Whoa!

Wait, now what?! Hon?" After a couple of more exchanges, in

which Respondent stated that he would have to go to trial, J. V.

asked, "Is there anything that I can actually do to help you

out?" Respondent's reply: "Of course. No matter what happens

dont show up if they talk 2 u. Not even if they suebpena [sic]

u. They cant do anything if [sic] 2 u dont go." J. V. replied,

"Anything there is to do, I suppose, i'll do to help you out. I

dont want you to stay in this mess. . . . I still care about

you tons, I just wanted you to know that :p."

18. This is a remarkable exchange of texts. Respondent

baldly asked J. V. to ignore a subpoena. J. V. scrupulously

conditioned her wi llingness to help with "I suppose." Here,

Respondent was asking J. V. to behave dishonorably, and J. V.,

his former student, displayed some misgivings, as she apparently

was wrestling with her loyalty to Respondent and her desire to

behave honorably. Thi s is a repulsive perversion of the role of

the educator. Although J. V. was no longer a student in

Respondent's school, Respondent was still a member of the

education profession, and, in his dealings with J. V. and

Petitioner, he was continuing to deal wi th a matter that

involved the discharge of his professional duties.

19. On September 18, 2010, Respondent initiated another

series of texts, but these involved unremarkable matters, such

as how J. V. liked college and a job that she had recently

started.

20. On September 24, 2010, J. V. initiated a series of

texts with "Hello lost :p." Respondent answered, "Hey, me?

Cabrona since now u have a bf [boyfriend] u dont have time 4

me!" When J. V. texted that she was "not afraid of the dark, im

just afraid of staying alone, period," Respondent responded, "I

m not offering any services any more."

21. Respondent testified that he was referring to math

services, but, given the circumstances, this explanation is

impossible to credit. On the other hand, the services were as

likely those of a trusted counselor as of a sexual partner. The

text of J. V., however, displays the vulnerability of

Respondent's former student, even though nearly one year had

passed since the intensification of their relationship to

i nappropriate levels.

22. The next day, Respondent renewed the texting exchange.

J. V. texted that a certain singer "literally places you in my

head." Respondent answered, "Thats a good place 2 b. I thought

u didnt anymore." J. V. declaimed that she th inks too much, and

Respondent answered, "Then why havent u let me c u [see you]?"

J. V. replied, "Because i know that is all I am gonna be allowed

to do, just see you. And I don't know if that's okay with you."

Respondent responded, "It be nice 2 cu tho ugh. Even 4 a short

while." J. V. agreed, and Respondent replied, "Since now u r da

complicated 1 u let me know when." J. V. promised she would and

quickly asked what Respondent was up to. Respondent texted,

"Let me know if they try 2 get in cotact [si c] w/u? They should

b setting a date 4 da hearing soon." Injecting the same element

of doubt that she had raised when she offered, on September 11,

to help Respondent, J. V. texted, "I seriously doubt that [they

will get in contact with me]. But i'll le t you know in case

they do, i suppose (emphasis supplied)."

23. These texts lend support to the finding that the

relationship between Respondent and J. V. was inappropriately

intimate during her senior year. It appears that one of them

broke if off, poss ibly over the objection of the other. J. V.'s

second use of "I suppose" revealed again her ambivalence about

the situation in which Respondent had placed her in asking her

not to cooperate with Petitioner's prosecution of its case

against him. As J. V. c ontinued to wrestle with her loyalty

toward Respondent and unwillingness to behave dishonorably,

Respondent steadfastly toyed with her emotions, such as by

saying that it felt good to be in her thoughts, and he did not

think she thought of him anymore.

24. The next day, after midnight, Respondent renewed the

text exchange again by texting, "143." He explained that this

was beeper code for "i love you." J. V. replied with a beeper

code consisting of the less - intense message, "thinking of you."

25. Except for a congratulatory text, probably for the

publication of J. V.'s novel, the next text exchange took place

on October 13, 2010, in which J. V. apologized for calling so

late, but wanted to know if Respondent could meet her the

following night. They agre ed to meet instead after lunch on the

following day. The following day, they agreed to postpone the

meeting until the following week.

26. On October 15, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge

issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the final hearing for

Januar y 26, 2011. As noted above, a lengthy telephone

conversation between Respondent and J. V. took place the next

day. On October 26, 2010, Respondent texted J. V.: "My lawyer

friend said that 4 da subpoena they have 2 give it in ur hand.

So if y dont answ er the door if they show up, they cant leave it

there. Nd if someone asks y if y r [J. V.] simply say no." As

they exchanged texts about a basketball game that was being

played, J. V. texted that she preferred baseball, and Respondent

replied, "Bat nd ba lls huh?" J. V. answered "Lol [laughing out

loud] :p silly!" She accused him, in Spanish, of a bad thought,

and Respondent disingenuously asked, "What did i say?" Then he

texted, "Lol."

27. This series of texts represent a remarkable confluence

of Resp ondent's inducing J. V. to dishonesty and engaging in

sexual teasing. The remark about a bat and ball was a reference

to male genitalia. Surprisingly, Respondent did not deny the

sexual connotation of this text, but somehow tried to dismiss it

merely as a joking "sexual innuendo." The freedom that

Respondent felt to engage in sexual innuendo with a former

student betrayed the inappropriate intimacy of the relationship

that they once shared -- while she was still a student.

1 4

28. J. V. initiated a text excha nge of Halloween greetings

on October 31. On November 8, 2010, J. V. initiated another

text exchange by asking how Respondent was doing. He asked how

school, work , and her boyfriend were. J. V. typed that all were

fine, and Respondent replied, "I m happ y 4 u!" However, J. V.

texted that there "are certain things that i have to deal with."

Respondent texted her to call him.

29. On November 17, 2010, Respondent initiated another

text exchange in which he again asked about work, school, and

her boyfriend . J. V. replied that all was fine, but her father

was in the hospital. The next day, J. V. texted Respondent: "I

really have to speak to you but i'll do it after i get out of

class:( im so sorry." When Respondent texted her to explain,

J. V. responded , "Because im really placed against the wall."

Respondent answered: "What do u mean. I m the 1 that has lost

everything. Nothing could happen 2 u if u say nothing happened!

What r u thinking about doing? Destroying my [rest of message

lost]." J. V. replied, "Omg [Oh, my God]! Screw you for saying

that as if you'd know me that little to ever think that's

something i'd consider doing to you!" She added, "I'll call you

once i get home, at 9." Respondent added that he was watching a

football game in a bar and "This is killme though. Please let

me know!" J. V. responded that, when Respondent had some time

to call, he should do so.

30. With this text of apology, J. V. was informing

Respondent that she had resolved the dilemma in which Respondent

had p laced her, and she had decided to tell the truth, rather

than behave dishonorably. Casting his professional obligations

aside, Respondent tried to dissuade her from telling the truth

by turning the focus to himself and his need for her to lie and

cover up . Obviously, Respondent's plea for J. V. to say that

nothing happened implies that something happened. And the

something had to be substantial -- i.e., sexual contact, rather

than merely excessive texting between a teacher and student -- for

Respondent to ha ve felt the need to have J. V. conceal the

truth.

31. The next day, Respondent initiated a text exchange by

stating: "Sorry 4 my reaction but please put urself in my shoes

4 da past 7 mos. I've lost everything that i valued nr u r

worried about ur fam finding out. Idk wh [sic]." J. V. did not

respond to this text.

32. Obviously, this text was not an apology for asking

J. V. to behave dishonorably. Instead, Respondent asked J. V.

to identify with his situation. He was sorry merely for having

lost his composure and possibly alienating J. V.

33. On November 26, 2010, J. V. initiated a text exchange

about holiday shopping. The next day, evidently in response to

a telephone call, Respondent texted: "I cant get mad at u. I m

just scared out of my m ind about what the outcome could be!

Thank you 4 assuring me." Three days later, Respondent texted

birthday wishes to J. V.

34. On November 30, 2010, J. V. suggested that they get

together and have lunch "one of these days." Respondent agreed,

but no d ate was set. On December 1, 2010, J. V. texted

Respondent, as well as a number of others, that her book was

available for purchase, and he texted congratulations.

35. On December 14, 2010, J. V. texted a friend: "I'm

alright most of the times lol. Havi ng a bf has helped me a lot.

I'm not alone anymore missing the teacher :("

36. What this text lacks in detail it makes up for in

candor. It is the most direct evidence of the emotionally

vulnerable condition of J. V. immediately after Respondent

insiste d that they stopped seeing each other in April 2010.

37. J. V. initiated the next text exchange on January 4,

2011, when she sent new year's greetings to Respondent. When

she asked how he was doing, Respondent replied, "I m ok but

getting very anxious over the hearing coming up soon!!" J. V.

texted that no one had been in touch with her, but Respondent

assured her that she would get something soon. He asked her,

"Do you have any idea what you are going to do for the hearing?"

J. V. answered, "I'm not gonna do anything." Respondent

replied, "We'll talk before then."

38. On January 5, J. V. called or texted Respondent, who

replied for her to call him that night. She texted that she

would, and he responded, evidently in reference to a phone

message, " What are you fuzzy about?" J. V. answered: "The

lawyer that always calls from the school board called me not too

long ago, that's all." When it became apparent that J. V. could

talk then on the phone, the texts ended, evidently so Respondent

and J. V. c ould talk on the phone. As noted above, a lengthy

telephone conversation took place between Respondent and J. V.

the next day.

3 9 . Sometime during January 2011, J. V. and Respondent

spoke by telephone, and Respondent warned her that the

authorities would be able to retrieve her text messages. One

may safely infer that Respondent was unaware previously of the

availability of such data or the ability of Petitioner to

supplement its pleadings to add as grounds for dismissal acts

and omissions taking place a fter the initiation of the case

against him.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

40 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this

proceeding. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), 1012.33(6)(a)2 . Fla. Stat.

(2010).

41 . Petitioner is required to prove the material

allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Dileo v.

Sch . Bd . of Dade C nty. , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

42 . Section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that

Respondent's contract shall authorize dismissal during the term

of the contract for "just cause." Section 1012.33(1)(a) defines

"just cause" to include "misconduct in office."

43 . Florida Administra tive Code Rule 6B - 4.009(3) provides

in relevant part:

Misconduct in office is defined as a

violation of the . . . Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule

6B - 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to

imp air the individualÓs effectiveness in the

school system.

44 . Rule 6B - 1.006 provides in relevant part :

(1) The following disciplinary rule shall

constitute the Principles of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession in

Florida.

* * *

(3) Obligation to the student requires that

the individual:

(a) Shall make reasonable effort to

protect the student from conditions harmful

to learning and/or to the studentÓs mental

and/ or physical health and/or sa fety.

* * *

(h) Shall not exploit a relationship

with a student for personal gain or

advantage.

* * *

(5) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the individual:

(a) Shall ma intain honesty in all

professional dealings.

45 . Respondent committed two sets of acts of misconduct in

office, either of which impaired his effectiveness in the school

system. First, while J. V. was still a student at Coral Park,

Respondent repeatedly engaged in an inappropriately intense

emotional relationship and in a sexual relationship with a

student. At minimum, this inappropriate relationship

constituted a failure to make reasonable effort to protect the

student from conditions harmful to the stu dent's learning,

mental health, and safety and constituted the exploitation of a

student for personal gain or advantage.

46 . Second, after J. V. had graduated from Coral Park,

Respondent repeatedly failed to maintain honesty in all

professional dealings . The inception of his dealings with J. V.

were in the teacher - student relationship, and his conduct during

the investigation and prosecution of the dismissal case also

constituted professional dealings. As amply noted above,

Respondent displayed no comp unctions about inducing a reluctant

former student to behave dishonorably in her dealings with

Petitioner in order to save Respondent's job.

47 . Based on these conclusions, it is unnecessary to

address the remaining grounds cited by Petitioner for dismiss al.

RECOMMENDATION

It is

RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order

dismissing Respondent from employment on the ground of

misconduct in office.

DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2011, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

___________________________________

ROBERT E. MEALE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850)488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850)921 - 68 47

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 3rd day of August , 2011.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gerard Robinson, Commissioner

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk

D epartment of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Christopher La Piano, Esquire

School Board AttorneyÓs Office

School Board of Miami - Dade County

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430

Miami, Florida 33132

Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire

1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written 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.