10-010698TTS St. Lucie County School Board vs. Patricia Davis Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, November 1, 2011.

Summary: Ten-year bus paraprofessional's failure to constantly monitor ESE students, to perform duty of greeting students and escorting to seats, and to call for help in an emergency was not just cause for termination, but was for 1-year suspension.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 10 - 10698TTS

)

PATRICIA DAVIS , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

on August 16 and 17, 2011 , by video telecon ference at sites in

Tallahassee and S t. Lucie, Florida, before John D. C.

Newton, II, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APP EARANCES

For Petitioner: Elizabeth Coke , Esquire

Leslie Jennings Beutell , Esquire

Law Offices of Richeson and Coke, P.A.

317 South Seco nd Street

Fort Pierce, Fl orida 34948

For Respondent: Mark Wilensky , Esquire Dubiner

& Wilensky, LLC

515 No rth Flagler Drive , Suite 325

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - 4349

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

As stipulated by the parties, the issue in this case is

whether there is Ðjust causeÑ to terminate the employment of

Patricia Davis.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petition er, St. Lucie County School Board (School Board),

employed Respondent, Patricia Davis (Ms. Davis), as a bus aide.

As a result of an incident on February 8, 2010, it determined to

terminate her employment.

On October 21, 2010, the School Board issued a l etter that

recommended termination of Respondent as a paraprofessional bus

aide due to allegations of Ðjust causeÑ, pursuant to

section 1012.40 ( 2 ) , Florida Statutes (2010) , 1 / and the applicable

Collectiv e Bargaining Agreement .

The School Board maintains t hat Ms. Davis violated:

1. School Board rule 6.301(3)(b)xii . , by

neglect of duty;

2. School Board rule 6.301(3)(b)xix . by

violating any rule, policy, regulation, or

established procedure;

3. School Board rule 6.301(3)(b) xxv . , by

sleeping during wor king hours;

4. School Board rule 6.301(3)(b)xxvi . , by

violating safety rules;

5. School Board rule 6.301(3)(b)xxix . , by

violating the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession, the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession, the Standards of Competent and

Professional Performance, or the Code of

Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.

6. The Code of Ethics of the Education

Profession in Florida, Flori da

Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1 . 001(2), by

failing to exercise the best pro fessional

judgment and integrity.

7. The Code of Ethics of the Education

Profession in Florida, Flori da

Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1 . 001(2), by

failing to always have the concern for

students as her primary professional

concern.

8. The Code of Ethic s of the Education

Profession in Florida, Flori da

Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1.006(3)(a), by

failing to make a reasonable effort to

protect a student from conditions harmful to

learning and/or to the st udentÓs mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

On November 8, 2010, School Superintendent Michael Lannon

(Mr. Lannon) advised Ms. Davis in writing of his intent to

recommend termination of her employment to the School Board.

Mr. Lannon suspended Ms. Davis without pay effective November 9,

2010. The School Board accepted the recommendation.

On December 1, 2010, Ms. Davis petitioned for an

administrative hearing to contest her termination. She seeks

reinstatement, back pay, and a clear performance record as her

remedy.

On December 16, 2010, the School Board referred the

petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a

hearing. The School Board also issued and filed a Statement of

Charges and Petition for Termination on December 16, 201 0 .

The hearing was scheduled for March 17, 20 11. During the

course of this proceeding, the parties filed a total of 21

motions and other documents addressed to discovery issues, which

were ruled upon. On February 23, 201 1 , the undersigned granted

Ms. DavisÓ Motion for Continuance based upon medical emergencies

in counselÓs immediate family. The hearing was re - scheduled to

May 24, 2011. On April 27, 2011, Ms. Davis filed a combined

Motion to Compel, for Sanctions, and for Continuance. The

School Board opposed it. Ms. DavisÓ request for a continu ance

was based upon delays due to the continuing discovery disputes.

The continuance was denied. On May 12, 2011, Ms. Davis filed a

renewed Motion for Continuance, again based on the long - running

discovery disputes. An O rder of May 13, 2011, granted the

motion. The case was re - scheduled to August 16, 2011. On

June 10, 2011, the School Board m oved to continue the hearing.

The motion was denied. The hearing convened August 16, 2011, as

scheduled.

The School Board presented the testimony of Maurice G.

Bonner, Dr. Robert John Brugnoli, Donald R. Carter, Paul Gavoni,

Frank Krukauskas, Michael J. Lannon, John David Morris, Kathleen

Noble, Susan Ranew, and Bill Tomlinson. School Board Exhibits

1, 5, 7, 8, 11 through 22, 24, 25, 27 through 29, 31 through 35 ,

38, 41, 42, 44, 53, 55, 56, 73, and 77 through 81 , were received

in to evidence.

Ms. Davis presented the testimony of Dr. Stephen Alexander

and Marvel Ann Figueroa. Ms. Davis also testified. Ms. Davis

did not offer any exhibits into evidence.

The T rans cript was filed September 16, 2011. Both parties

timely filed proposed recommended orders . They have been fully

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The School Board employs Ms. Davis as a bus

paraprofessional. M s. Davis has satisfactorily served the

School Board as a bus paraprofessional for approximately ten

years, without any significant discipline.

2 . Ms. Davis is a continuing status employee.

3 . Ms. Davis is covered by the CTA - CU bargaining unit

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

4 . During the 2009 - 2010 school year, until February 8,

2010, Ms. Davis was assigned to regularly work on bus

number 2407. Ms. Marvel Ann Figueroa was the driver regularly

assigned to bus number 2407.

5 . During the 2009 - 2010 school year, Ms. Davis was

assigned to supervise Exceptional Student Education (ESE)

students during transport to and from school on bus number 2407.

6 . During the 2009 - 2010 school year, until February 8,

2010, C.P. 2 / was regularly transported on bus numb er 2407 , to and

from Palm Pointe Educational Research School (Palm Pointe).

C.P. is a student with autism.

7 . During the 2009 - 2010 school year, until February 8,

2010, C.P. was under Ms. DavisÓ supervision during transport on

bus number 2407 .

8 . Ms. Da vis was aware that C.P. was non - verbal.

9 . Ms. Davis recognized that s tudent C.P. was an ESE

student with autism .

10 . Ms. Davis knew that C.P. was required to use a safety

harness/ E - Z vest during transport.

11 . As required by School Board rules , C.P. Ós Emergency

Information ESE Bus Form was provided to the staff on bus

number 2407 , and located on the bus on February 8, 2010. The

form provided minimal information. It provide d family

information and contact numbers. A block labeled "Non - verbal"

is chec ked. In a space labeled "Special instructions for

Dealing with Student," one word appears: "Autism." In the

"Special Bus Equipment" section , "E - Z on Vest" is checked.

12. School officials knew that within the past two years

C.P. Ós behavior included vig orous head banging. They also knew

that within the past two years C.P. had worn a protective

helmet. C.P. Ós educational plans included techniques developed

to manage head banging and other self - injurious behavior.

13. The school did not inform Ms. Davis of the history of

head banging or of the risk of the behavior. This information

did not appear on the ESE form.

14. The School Board did not provide the bus with a helmet

or other protective or cushioning gear.

15 . On February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis was working on bus

number 2407 .

16 . On t he morning of February 8, 2010, before boarding

students, Ms. Davis performed the pre - trip inspection required

by her job duties. It included verifying that the seat belts

were securely attached to the seats and that all seat belts were

in working condition.

17 . Ms. Davis was not feeling well that morning. But she

chose to work rather than call in sick. This was poor judgment

that contributed to the events of the morning.

18 . Ms. Davis and the driver, Ms. Figueroa, discussed

Ms. DavisÓ illness . They agreed that Ms. Figueroa would get off

the bus to escort the children to their seats. This service was

a responsibility of Ms. Davis, the bus paraprofessional.

19 . On the morning of February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis sat at

the front of the bus. Her training and instructions said that

the aide was to sit at the back of the bus. But the

Transportation Director had repeatedly approved seating charts

for the bus that showed Ms. Davis sitting at the front.

Consequently , the School Board had authorized Ms. Davis to sit

in the front.

20 . Ms. DavisÓ job duties also required her to constantly

monitor the students. Although Ms. Davis periodically looked

around to check on the students, she did not maintain a constant

view of th em. Due to her illness , Ms. Davis struggled to stay

awake. Her head nodded and her eyes periodically closed

momentarily. Ms. Davis was fighting sleep. S he never fell

completely asleep. But she did not maintain constant

observation of the students.

21 . C.P. and three other students were riding bus

number 2407 on the route to Palm Pointe the morning of

February 8 , 2010 .

22 . Ms. Figueroa properly placed C.P. in his E - Z vest and

secured him by his harness in the middle seat of his bus seat

row . H e w as not seated beside the window.

23 . During the ride to Palm Pointe, C.P. became upset. He

began engaging in self - stimulatory behavior, looking out the

window, shaking his hands, and rocking back and forward in his

seat. The self - stimulatory behavior wa s intermittent.

24 . This behavior, while often and typically exhibited by

autistic children, was more vigorous behavior than C.P. had

previously exhibited while riding the bus.

25 . As the drive to Palm Pointe continued, C.P. began to

hit his hands and then his head against the side of the bus and

the bus window. He rocked back and forward in his seat . He

leaned and rocked from side to side as he banged his head on the

bus window. This behavior continued for about eight minutes.

26 . Before that day, C.P. had never exhibited those

behaviors while riding the bus. On February 8, 2010, C.P. had

been riding bus number 2407 , since the beginning of the school

year, about six months earlier.

27 . Ms. Davis and the bus driver notice d the behavior

quickly. T hey were very concerned about C.P. 's behavior and

safety , as well as the safety of the other children on the bus.

The bus driver could not pull over , because of the traffic

conditions and restrictions resulting from the roads on which

she was driving.

28 . Ms. Davis did not move C.P. f a rther away from the

window. Unfastening C.P. from his harness and attempting to

move him would have been dangerous for him and for the others on

the bus.

29 . Ms. Davis and Ms. Figueroa were panicked and

frightened. They discussed what steps they could take. They

were hesitant to physically approach C.P. because they

remembered being told in training that physical efforts to

control a child with autism would likely cause them to become

more violent.

30. Ms. DavisÓ train ing required her to seek help from a

manager if she did not know how to handle a situation.

Throughout the bus ride on February 8, 2010, as the situation

worsened, Ms. Davis never used the available cell phone to seek

assistance from a manager.

3 1 . Nea r the end of the ride, C.P. Ós head banging broke

the window and cut C.P. He began bleeding, but not profusely.

3 2 . Ms. Davis got the phone number of C.P. Ós mother from

the ESE form and called her. C.P. Ós mother asked them to

continue to the school and said she would meet them there.

33. Ms. DavisÓ call for assi s tance came too late. Her

failure to promptly seek assistance was a neglect of her duties

and a failure to exercise sound professional judgment.

3 4 . As the bus pulled in and stopped at the school, C.P.

calmed. Ms. Davis approached him and comforted him verbally and

physically. Other school employees boarded the bus and escorted

C.P. off where his mother met him.

3 5 . T he emergency intervention duties of a bus

paraprofessional, like Ms. Dav is, include providing ESE students

physical assistance , if needed , during an emergency.

3 6 . Ms. Davis had seen C.P. mildly agitated before

February 8 , 2010. But t here is no persuasive evidence that his

actions included banging his head against the windo w or anything

else , or that he had previously engaged in any self - injurious

activities in Ms. Davis' presence.

3 7 . C.P. 's activities when agitated had included rocking,

jerking, rubbing his fingers together, and humming. These are

all typical self - calm ing behaviors shown by individuals with

autism. They were not unusual for a student with C.P. 's

disability. The behaviors were to be expected and would not

have triggered concerns sufficient to report the behavior.

3 8 . In the past when C.P. became agi tated, Ms. Davis had

calmed him by offering cookies and speaking quietly to him.

3 9 . On February 8, 201 0 , these techniques worked briefly.

C.P. paused his head banging , but then resumed.

40 . During Ms. DavisÓ ten years of employment, the School

Board pr ovided her 92 hours of job - related training, an average

of 9.2 hours per year. Of that , 20 hours were her initial

training. Ms. Davis attended the classes and successfully

completed them. The instruction covered a wide range of topics

including equipmen t, procedures for emergencies , such as traffic

accidents, school board policies, and employee relations.

4 1 . The training provided by the School Board included

initial and refresher training in Crisis Prevention Intervention

(CPI). Ms. Davis' most rece nt CPI training was August, 2007.

She successfully completed it. The CPI training is general and

addressed a range of situations. It includes training in verbal

and non - verbal techniques. The techniques range from soothing

and calming to physical restr aint.

4 2 . There is no persuasive evidence that any of the CPI or

other training specifically addressed the unique problems and

dangers presented by a student in need of physical restraint in

a moving vehicle.

43 . The testimony of School Board witness es who reviewed

the video tape of the incident and the reports highlighted the

difficulty of the situation . The School Board witnesses

believed that C.P. was sitting in a window seat and said

Ms. Davis should have relocated him. Other School Board

witne sses, and common sense, more reasonably maintained that

trying to relocate a physically agitated student in a moving bus

would endanger him and the other passengers.

4 4 . The CPI training did not include techniques specific

to the unique issues presented by students with autism. It did

not provide information about how to address head banging or

suggest techniques such as cushioning the blowsÓ impact when a

person is banging his head against a hard object.

4 5 . Typically, the schoolÓs training involved two days of

in - service presentations about general issues, transportation,

student and personnel issues, including School Board policy,

equipment, safety, and duties of bus drivers and aides. The

training in aggregate provided little specific information about

students with autism and nothing useful about ways to manage

behavior such as that exhibited by C.P. on February 8 , 2010 .

46 . The School Board provided Ms. Davis training in non -

violent crisis intervention. It involved techniques for dealing

with children who are acting out in an aggressive or violent

manner. The training did not emphasize or focus on issues

involving behavior of students with autism. It presented

techniques as equally applicable and effective for all student

populations, incl udi ng ESE students with autism. The training,

however, provided that employees should call their manager for

assistance when faced with a problem they cannot handle.

47 . Autism presents widely varied types of behavior. The

crisis intervention techniques su ggest engaging students in

conversation and establishing a relationship with them through

verbal interaction. This is not particularly useful or

instructive in dealing with situations concerning non - verbal

children.

48 . One of the district's training do cuments is titled

"How well do you KNOW YOUR EQUIPMENT ????? . "

49 . This training document is a representative sample of

the training material that the district relies upon as having

prepared Ms. Davis for the student's head banging. The

information it provided did not.

50 . This is all the document had to say about possible

behaviors of children with autism and how to react to them.

Child may not be able to voice his/her

discomfort, this may be apparent by different

types of behavior:

Rocking

Banging with head or hands

Biting

Yelling, etc.

In retrospect things could be fine, and child

may exhibit inappropriate language and

behavior. Modification training may be

required to minimize their actions and

reactions, to a more acceptable behavior.

DON'T T AKE IT PERSONALLY

51 . The information in other training materials is

similarly non - specific and not helpful in the emergency

Ms. Davis faced.

52 . The CBA states: Ð[a]ny member of the Classified Unit

may be dismissed by the School Board during his/her term of

appointment, when a recommendation for dismissal is made by the

Superintendent, for Ð just cause.Ñ The CBA defines Ðjust causeÑ

to include Ðinsubordination ; neglect of duty; unsatisfactory work

performance; and violation of School Board Policy and/ or

Rules . . . Ñ .

53 . School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) , provides a non - inclusive

list of infractions that support disciplinary action. They

include: neglect of duty; violation of any rule, policy, or

regulation; sleeping during working hours; violation of safety

rules; violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education

Profession ; violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct

for the Education Profession; violation of the Standards of

Competent and Professional Performance; and violation of the Code

of Ethics for Public Officers and employees.

54 . The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in

Florida (Fl orida Admin istrative Code R ule 6B - 1.001) , and the

Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession

in Florida (Fl orid a Admin istrative Code R ule 6B - 1 .006 ) require

Ms. Davis to have concern for the students as her primary

professional concern; to seek to exercise the best professional

judgment and integrity; and to make reasonable efforts to protect

students from harmful conditions.

CONCL USIONS OF LAW

55 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat . (201 1 ) .

56 . The School Board advances four factual bases for

termination, all occ urring on February 8, 2010. They are :

Ms. DavisÓ handling of C.P. Ós head banging ; sitting in the front

of the bus ; not getting off the bus to greet each student and

escorting the students to their seats ; and sleeping on duty.

The School Board maintains that violation of any one or more of

the applicable School Board Rules or sections of the Code of

Ethics , are good cause to terminate Ms. Davis. The clear focus

of the School BoardÓs termination decision, however, is the

handling of C.P. Ós head banging.

57 . The School Board bears the burden of proving the

allegations of its petition for termination of employment by a

preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch.

Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2 d DCA 1996).

58 . Ms. Davis is an Ðeducationa l support employeeÑ as

defined by section 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes. She may be

terminated for Ð just cause Ñ as defined in the CBA.

§ 1012.40 (2)(c) , Fla. Stat.

59 . Ð Just cause Ñ for discipline is a reason which is

rationally and logically related t o an employeeÓs conduct in the

performance of the employeeÓs job duties and Ðimputes removal or

termination for misconduct, some violation of the law, or

derelict of duty on the part of the officer or employee

affected.Ñ State ex rel. Hathaway v. Smith , 3 5 So. 2d 650, 651

(Fla. 1948).

60 . A preponderance of the evidence established that on

February 8, 2010, Ms. Davis did not perform the duty of getting

off the bus to greet students and escorting them to their seats.

61 . The School Board did not prove that by sitting at the

front of the bus, Ms. Davis violated a governing rule or policy.

The persuasive evidence proved that although the School Board

had a rule requiring the paraprofessional to sit in the back of

the bus, the Transportation Director had approved a seating

chart that plainly showed Ms. Davis sitting at the front of the

bus. Therefore Ms. DavisÓ presence at the front of the bus was

approved by the School Board.

62 . The School Board did not establish that Ms. Davis was

sleeping on the job . But , a preponderance of the evidence

proved that Ms. Davis did not maintain the constant supervision

of the students as required by her job.

63 . Ms. Davis' handling of C. P . is the focus of the School

Board's decision to terminate. One solution advoc ated by

several School Board witnesses with the benefit of hindsight,

time , and not being subject to the urgency of the moment , was

moving C.P. That solution illustrates how difficult the

situation was. The solution is also problematic . It would

likely have endangered C.P. further , as well as the other bus

passengers. It was also uninformed , since the witnesses thought

that C.P. was sitting beside the window.

64 . Another solution School Board witnesses propose, again

with the benefit of hindsight, time , and no pressure, was that

Ms. Davis should have removed her sweatshirt and used it as a

cushion between C.P. Ós head and the window. The sweatshirt

would have provided minimal cushioning , a nd that sort of action

was not covered in the training provided.

65 . Notably the school was aware of the risk of head

banging with C.P. and had planned for it in his educational

plan. It did not have a plan for dealing with head banging on

the bus and did not warn Ms. Davis or the driver of the

possibility. A plan could have included providing a meaningful

cushion to use if C.P. started head banging and advance

preparation for such an incident.

66 . The third solution advocated by the School Board

witnesses was physical and verbal soothing. Ms. Davis initially

tr ied to sooth C.P. , giving him cookies and speaking to him. It

ceased working. She was then faced with a choice between

approaching him and possibly triggering more violent and self -

destructive behavior or doing nothing , which permitted the head

banging t o continue and perhaps wind down, as it did. The

persuasive evidence does not establish that one choice would

have been better than the other.

67 . But Ms. Davis ignored one choice, one that she was

taught about in her training -- call for assistance.

6 8 . The facts of this case leave the question for

resolution in this proceeding to be this: Do es Ms. DavisÓ

failure to perform her duty to greet and escort the children ,

failure to constantly monitor the students, and failure to call

for assistance, in ligh t of her satisfactory ten - year history of

employment constitute Ð just cause Ñ for terminating her?

Ms. Davis failed to perform her assigned duties. On February 8,

2010 , Ms. Davis neglected her duties in violation of School

Board Rule 6.301(3)(b)xii ., she violated School Board Rule

6.301(3)(b)xii ., by violating established procedures, and she

failed to exercise her best professional judgment in violation

of r ule 6B - 1 . 001(2).

69. The School Board relies heavily upon Lee C ou nty Sch ool

B oar d v. Hall , Case No. 08 - 5409 ( Fla. DOAH June 29, 2009),

adopted by Final Order, School Board of Lee County Case

No. 09 - 0005 ( Lee C'nty Schl. Bd. Sept . 22, 2009). The facts of

that case differ greatly from the facts here. Lee C ounty Sch ool

B oar d v. Hall , involved a bus d river who d id not follow the

S chool B oardÓs specific written protocol for handling fights on

the school bus. In that case , the S chool B oard had provided

specific training for handling fights. The School Board had

also informed the driver of the studentÓs history of fighting.

Also , the bus driver in Lee C oun ty Sch ool B oar d v. Hall had a

history of other disciplinary actions. Ms. Davis does not.

70. Lee C ou nty Sch ool B oar d v. Hall is instructive only in

that it illustrates the significance of protocols a nd training

for handling incidents. Here, the School Board did not provide

specific training for handling self - injurious behavior by

students with autism and did not provide Ms. Davis information

it had about C.P. that would have helped her prepare for th e

events of February 8, 2010.

71. The School Board also relies upon Sch ool B oar d of

Sarasota C ou nty v. Shrader , Case No. 89 - 006946 ( Fla. DOAH

June 6, 1990 ; Fla. Sch . Bd . of Sarasota Sept . 23, 1990). Like

Ms. Davis, Shrader was a bus aide on a bus trans porting ESE

students. There the similarity between the cases ends. Shrader

yelled at a student and kicked at him. She was also yelling and

screaming at t he other children on the bus. Also when removing

the child from the bus she held his elbow from beh ind, a

technique that was not consistent with her training.

72. The facts here do not rise to the level of the facts in

the preceding cases that supported termination. Ms. Davis faced

an emergency for which she had not been well trained. The

circumst ances including the inability to stop the bus and the

nature of autism created a situation wit h no clearly correct

choices, except the choice to call for help.

73. Ms. Davis' failure s to perform her job duties do not

amount to "just cause" for terminati on . They do amount,

however, to Ð just cause Ñ for a one - year suspension.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered pursuant to

section 435.06, suspending Respondent, Patri cia Davis, from

employment for a period of one year , starting November 9, 2010 .

DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November , 2011 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II

Administrative Law Judge

Divis ion of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1st day of Novemb er , 2011 .

ENDNOTES

1 / All citations to the Florida Statutes are to the 2010 edition

unless otherwise noted.

2/ This O rder refers to the student by initials to provide

confidentiality .

COPIES FURNISHED :

Mark Wilensky, Esquire

Dubiner & Wilensky, P.A .

515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 325

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - 4349

Elizabeth Coke, Esquire

Richeson & Coke, P.A.

317 South Second Street

Post Office Box 4048

Fort Pierce, Florida 34948

Michael Lannon, Superintendent

St. Lucie County School Board

4204 Okeechobee Road

F ort Pierce, Florida 34947 - 5414

Lois Tepper, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Gerard Robinson

Commissioner of Education

Department of Edu cation

Turlington Building, Suite 1214

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

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 exce ptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.