12-001258 Broward County School Board vs. Automotive Techncal Charter High School Of South Florida, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 10, 2012.

Summary: School Board met the burden to establish good cause to non-rew the Charter School upon both statutory and contractual grounds.

Case No. 12-1258

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

RECOMMENDED ORDER )

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICAL CHARTER )

HIGH SCHOOL OF SOUTH FLORIDA, )

INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this

case on June 5, 2012, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before June

C. McKinney, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire

Office of the General Counsel

11th Floor

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

For Respondent: Daniel Woodring, Esquire

The Woodring Law Firm

Suite 1-C

203 North Gadsden Street

The White House

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

and

Matthew J. Carson, Esquire

Rumberger, Kirk, and Caldwell, P.A.

Suite 702

215 South Monroe Street

Post Office Box 10507

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Broward County School Board has good cause to non-

renew Automotive Technical Charter High School of South Florida,

Inc.'s Charter School Agreement.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At a regularly scheduled meeting on March 20, 2012, the

Broward County School Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board")

voted not to renew the Charter School Agreement existing between

it and Automotive Technical Charter High School of South

Florida, Inc., ("Respondent" or "Parkway Academy" or "school").

Parkway Academy elected to dispute the reasons for the non-

renewal and requested a hearing by letter dated April 2, 2012.

Because the school requested a formal proceeding, the matter was

referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH").

The presiding administrative law judge set the final

hearing for June 5, 2012. Both parties appeared at the

appointed place and time.

On June 4, 2012, the undersigned heard Parkway Academy's

Motion to Address Preliminary Matter by telephone conference.

The undersigned ruled that the burden of proof is on the School

Board, which is asserting the affirmative in this matter by

issuing a Notice of Proposed Non-Renewal of Charter School

Agreement based on allegations of malfeasance or misconduct.

At hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of

three witnesses: Jody Perry, Director of Charter Schools

Support; Paul Houchens, Director of Student Assessment and

Research; and Diane Rogers, Certification Administrator. The

School Board also offered Exhibits numbered 1 through 10, and 13

through 17 that were admitted into evidence. Parkway Academy

presented two witnesses: Dr. Christy Hovanetz, Expert in the

Area of Educational Assessment and Testing; and Dr. Clarissa

Wright, Principal and Executive Director of Parkway Academy.

Respondent offered Exhibits numbered 1 through 4, that were

admitted into evidence. The undersigned took judicial notice of

section 1002.33, Florida Statutes.

The proceeding was recorded, transcribed, and filed with

the DOAH on June 26, 2012. Both parties filed timely Proposed

Recommended Orders at DOAH, which were considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 19, 2001, the School Board approved the initial

Charter School Agreement that allowed Parkway Academy to open.

The original contract was effective for a ten-year period, which

ended on June 30, 2011. Parkway Academy was assigned school

location number 5181.

2. Parkway Academy serves students from both Broward and

Miami-Dade counties. Parkway Academy is located on Broward

College Campus and the 2011-2012 school year enrollment was

approximately 517 students.

3. Eighty-five students were in Parkway Academy's most

recent graduating class and 84 were accepted into college.

4. Charter schools are part of the public school system

and are required to follow the same precepts as a public school.

5. During the 2010-2011 school year, the school district

conducted a program review of Parkway Academy's Charter to

determine if the charter should be renewed.

6. After the first program review conducted during the

2010-2011 school year, the School Board determined that Parkway

Academy had academic performance and programmatic deficiencies.

As a result of the deficiencies, the School Board only granted

Parkway Academy a one-year renewal Charter.

7. Parkway Academy's Charter was renewed for the 2011-2012

school year, permitting the school to operate through June 30,

2012.

8. The Charter Agreement mandated that Parkway Academy

"provide educational services in accordance with the terms of

[the] charter school agreement."

9. The Charter School Agreement provided the following

contractual performance obligations in Section 2.D: "Any non-

renewal cancellation or termination of the Charter shall be

subject to Section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes, and the terms

of this Charter."

10. Section 2.D.1. of the Charter prohibited Parkway

Academy from being designated a "school in need of improvement"

for more than two years and provided the following non-renewal

provisions:

(a) a failure by the School to participate

in the state's education accountability

system created in section 1008.31 or failure

to meet requirements for student performance

stated in this Charter.

* * *

(f) receipt by the School of a state-

designated grade of "F" in any Two (2) of

Four(4) years or the School is designated as

"a school in need of improvement" for more

than Two (2) years [more than Five (5) years

of failure to make Adequate Yearly

Progress(AYP)], in accordance with the

provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001. A "school in need of improvement"

is one that has failed to make Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) for more than Five (5)

years in accordance with the provisions of

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The

equivalent of an "F" grade is defined as the

School receiving less than 395 points for

elementary and middle schools and less than

790 for high schools on the Florida Grades

issued by the Florida Department of

Education. Schools that receive a school

improvement designation of "Declining" will

also be considered the equivalent to an "F"

grade. The foregoing point designations or

school improvement ratings shall be amended

during the term of this Charter to conform

to current state law or rules;

11. Section 2.D.1.a of the Charter delineated what

constitutes "good cause" for charter termination or non-renewal

and read in pertinent part:

"Good cause" for termination or non-renewal

shall include, but not be limited to, the

following:

* * *

(2) receipt by the School of a state-

designated grade of "F" in any Two (2) of

Four (4) years or the School is designated

as "a school in need of improvement" for

more than "Two (2) years [more than Five (5)

years of failure to make Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP)], in accordance with the

provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001. A "school in need of improvement"

is one that has failed to make Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) for more than Five (5)

years in accordance with the provisions of

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The

equivalent of an "F" grade is defined as the

School receiving less than 395 points for

elementary and middle schools and less than

790 for high schools on the Florida Grades

issued by the Florida Department of

Education. Schools that receive a school

improvement designation of "Declining" will

also be considered the equivalent to an "F"

grade. The foregoing point designations or

school improvement ratings shall be amended

during the term of this Charter to conform

with the current state or rules.

* * *

(22) any other good cause shown, which shall

include without limitation, any material

breach or violation by the School of the

standards, requirements or procedures of

this Charter such as:

* * *

(c) the School's failure to fulfill all the

requirements for highly qualified

instructional personnel as defined by the No

Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

* * *

(t) a failure by the School to fulfill all

of the requirements for highly qualified

instructional personnel as defined by NCLB

12. Section 11.D of the Charter provided the requirements

for teacher certification and highly qualified teachers and read

in pertinent part:

All teachers employed by or under contract

to the School shall be certified and highly

qualified as required by Chapter 1012,

Florida Statutes and any other applicable

state of federal law. Criteria developed by

the School for hiring all other staff

(administrative and support staff) shall be

in accordance with their educational and/or

experiential backgrounds that correspond to

the job responsibilities they will be

expected to perform. If the School receives

Title I funds, it will employ highly

qualified staff. In compliance with those

requirements, the School's teachers shall be

certified and teaching in-field and the

School's support staff shall have attained

at least Two (2) years of college education

or have passed an equivalent exam. The

School may employ or contract with skilled

selected non-certified personnel to provide

instructional services or to assist

instructional staff members as education

paraprofessionals in the same manner as

defined in Chapter 1012 and as provided by

State Board of Education rule for charter

school Governing Boards; however, in order

to comply with NCLB requirements, all

teachers in core academic areas must be

certified/qualified based on Florida

Statutes and highly qualified as required by

NCLB. The School agrees to disclose to the

parents of its students the qualifications

of instructional personnel hired by the

School.

13. Parkway Academy's Charter Agreement for the 2011-2012

school year was signed by the parties on or about March 3, 2011,

and went into effect July 1, 2011.

14. The School District conducted its next renewal review

of Parkway Academy during the last week of October and first

week of November of 2011 to determine if the charter school

renewal should go beyond the 2011-2012 school year.

15. Diane Rogers ("Rogers"), Personnel Administrator for

the Certification Department, audited and reviewed Parkway

Academy's instructors and the courses each instructor was

teaching. On or about October 26, 2011, Rogers retrieved

teacher assignment information from the Data Warehouse 1 and

reviewed the instruction assignments and qualifications for the

2011-2012 school year to make a determination if each of Parkway

Academy's teachers were certified, teaching in field, out of

field, highly qualified, or not highly qualified for the

teaching assignments he/she had been given.

16. After completing the teacher review audit, Rogers

identified the following five faculty members who lacked

appropriate teacher certification: John Ahrens ("Ahrens"),

Valerie Cedant ("Cedant"), Jerry Goodbolt ("Goodbolt"), Talondra

Ingram ("Ingram"), and Uriel Williams ("Williams").

17. Rogers found Ahrens was teaching auto mechanics and

auto tech but did not have the required Broward certificate.

Rogers notified Parkway Academy in November 2011 that Ahrens

needed a Broward teaching certificate.

18. Rogers also found that Cedant previously had a

temporary certificate, which expired June 30, 2011, and Ingram's

temporary certificate had also expired before the 2011-2012

school year. Additionally, Goodbolt was working at the school

without ever applying for a teaching certificate.

19. While assessing the Parkway Academy, Rogers also

discovered Williams had applied for a certificate from the

Florida Department of Education ("FDOE"). FDOE determined his

status was ineligible for a Florida educator's certificate in

any area. Therefore, Rogers properly categorized Williams as

not highly qualified to teach his assignments, Physical

Education, Personal Fitness and Health Education, for the school

because Williams did not have the basic requirement, a Florida

educator's certificate.

20. Rogers also identified the following eight teachers

who did not have the required highly qualified 2 status when she

did her review: Floyd Barber ("Barber"), Cedant, Ingram,

Gleandeal Johnson ("Johnson"), Lee Kornhauser ("Kornhauser"),

Hyaptia Mata ("Mata"), Roxanna Smilovich ("Smilovich"), and

Manage Vincent ("Vincent").

21. Rogers determined that Cedant was not highly qualified

in that Cedant was precluded from the status because she did not

have a valid educator's certificate and was also teaching

improperly out of field without a valid educator's certificate.

22. Rogers determined that Barber was not highly qualified

to teach his assignment, Literature and Arts, since his FDOE

certification was in Business Education. Therefore, he was

improperly teaching out of field at Parkway Academy.

23. Rogers also found in her review that Johnson had a

FDOE certificate in Business Education 6 through 12 but she was

assigned to teach Journalism, which requires FDOE certification

either in English 6 through 12, Journalism, or English 5 through

9. Therefore, Johnson was not highly qualified to teach

Journalism because she was teaching out of field improperly, and

she had not met the requirements.

24. Rogers also discovered during her audit that

Kornhauser was FDOE certified in Math 5 through 9, which allows

him to teach middle school grade level math but he was assigned

to teach Business Math and Math for College Readiness, which

requires a Mathematics 6 through 12 certification. Therefore,

Rogers determined that Kornhauser was not highly qualified to

teach his assigned courses and was improperly teaching out of

field.

25. Rogers' review of Mata found that she was FDOE

certified in Biology 6 through 12, but she was assigned to teach

Earth Space Science, Chemistry, and Physics, all three of which

required certifications other than Biology. Rogers determined

Mata was not highly qualified to teach the three courses and was

improperly teaching out of field.

26. Upon review, Rogers found that Smilovich's FDOE

certification was in Biology 6 through 12, but she was assigned

to teach Earth Space Science, which requires certification in

Chemistry, Physics, Earth Space Science, or General Science 5

through 9. Rogers' audit also determined that Smilovich was not

highly qualified for her assigned class, and she was improperly

teaching Earth Space Science out of field.

27. Rogers' review also found Vincent was FDOE certified

in Biology 6 through 12, but Vincent was teaching Chemistry,

which requires a certification in Chemistry 6 through 12.

Rogers determined that Vincent was not highly qualified for the

teaching assignment and was improperly teaching Chemistry out of

field.

28. Parkway Academy employed and had the following

instructors teaching out of field for the 2011-2012 school year

without the proper credential for the core course of instruction

they were assigned: Cedant, Ingram, Johnson, Kornhauser, Mata,

Smilovich, Vincent, and Williams.

29. Seventeen out of the 52 classes at Parkway Academy

were being taught out of field.

30. After discovering the teachers who were teaching out

of their fields during her audit, Rogers also checked to

determine if Parkway Academy had complied with the requirement

to notify the parents that their children had teachers providing

instruction out of field. Rogers found that Parkway Academy had

only notified parents partially regarding Vincent and Mata. She

concluded that the newsletter notification was incomplete for

Mata because it listed only one of her areas being out of field,

and it failed to notify the parents about the other instructors

teaching out of field.

31. Rogers concluded her audit by determining that Parkway

Academy did not comply with the Charter School Agreement and

laws because the school failed to employ teachers who all had

valid teaching certificates, failed to have all of its teachers

teaching in the appropriate field, failed to correctly designate

teachers who were highly qualified to teach core curriculum

subject areas, and failed to correctly notify parents that their

children were being taught by teachers who were out of field.

32. Rogers emailed Parkway Academy on or about December 1,

2011, and requested updated information on the status of each

deficiency regarding the instructors that lacked the proper

certification and/or qualifications that she had discovered

during her review.

33. Parkway Academy provided Rogers an email update the

next day on each teacher Rogers had listed in the email of

December 1, 2011, that was not in compliance, but Parkway

Academy never provided Rogers any replacement teachers' names or

certifications to verify compliance as she requested.

34. During December 2011, Parkway Academy took the

following measures to correct some of the teacher certification

and qualification deficiencies. Parkway Academy replaced

Cedant, Ingram, and Smilovich with certified, highly qualified

teachers. Also, Parkway Academy changed Barber, Johnson, and

Kornhauser's core course codes to courses they were certified to

teach.

35. Parkway also obtained out of field agreements with

Mata and Vincent to teach courses they were not certified to

teach while each worked on certification in the area they were

teaching.

36. The School Board's Testing and Assessment Department

also reviewed Parkway Academy's Charter. Among other things,

the Department looked at Parkway Academy's Adequate Yearly

Progress ("AYP"), the measure of school performance used to

comply with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ("NCLB").

37. The Testing and Assessment Department found that

Parkway Academy did not meet AYP for the latest school year

2010-2011, which was reported after the signing of the renewal

Charter School Agreement in March 2011.

38. Additionally, the Department determined that the

failure to meet the requirements for student performance for the

2010-2011 school year meant Parkway Academy had failed to make

AYP for the following eight consecutive years: 2003-2004, 2004-

2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and

2010-2011.

39. Parkway Academy's failure to meet the AYP for eight

consecutive years earned the school the status of a "school in

need of improvement" for more than two years.

40. Parkway Academy failed to operate in compliance with

the Charter School Agreement.

41. The Certification Department's audit review report

which showed a failure to use instructors that had the proper

certification and/or qualifications for a substantial part of

the year, combined with the Testing and Assessment Department's

review results that concluded the Respondent was a "school in

need of improvement" for more than two years due to failing to

make AYP for eight consecutive years, caused a recommendation to

be made to the School Board to non-renew Parkway Academy's

Charter.

42. On March 20, 2012, the School Board voted not to renew

Parkway Academy's Charter. A Proposed Non-Renewal of its

Charter notice was sent to Parkway Academy. On April 4, 2012,

the School Board received Parkway's letter dated April 2, 2012,

requesting a hearing upon the proposed Charter non-renewal,

which was forwarded to the DOAH.

43. The day of the formal hearing, Ahrens obtained a

vocational certificate, which qualified him to teach auto

mechanics and auto tech. Kornhauser neither had applied for nor

obtained mathematics certification for grades 6 though 12. 3

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

44. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the

parties thereto pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(b)(2), Florida

Statutes.

45. Section 1002.33(7)(b)1, provides in pertinent part:

A charter may be renewed provided that a

program review demonstrates that the

criteria in [the Charter] has been

successfully accomplished and that none of

the grounds for nonrenewal established by

paragraph (8)(a) has been documented.

46. Section 1002.33(8)(a), delineates the causes for

nonrenewal or termination of a charter and provides in pertinent

part:

(a) The sponsor may choose not to renew or

may terminate the charter for any of the

following grounds:

1. Failure to participated in the state's

education accountability system created in

s. 1008.31, as required in this section, or

failure to meet the requirements for student

performance stated in the charter.

2. Failure to meet generally accepted

standards of fiscal management.

3. Violation of law.

4. Other good cause shown.

47. In this matter, the School Board seeks to non-renew

Parkway Academy's Charter based on specific allegations.

Accordingly, the School Board has the burden of proving the

allegations charged in the Notice of Proposed Non-Renewal of

Charter School Agreement against Parkway Academy by the

preponderance of the evidence. M.H. v Dep't of Child. & Fam.

Servs ., 977 So. 2d. 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2nd. Dist. 2008). 48. The School Board has sustained its burden in this

matter. The Charter School Agreement at issue was signed on or

about March 3, 2011, for the 2011-2012 school year. Afterwards,

Parkway Academy received another report of failing AYP for the

2010-2011 year, which resulted in Parkway Academy attaining the

status of a "school in need of improvement" for more than two

years due to its documented eight consecutive years failing to

make AYP. Under such circumstances, Parkway Academy's failure

to meet the requirements for student performance stated in the

school's charter including the status of a "school in need of

improvement" establishes good cause for non-renewal pursuant to

section 2.D.1.a(2) and the non-renewal provision of section

2.D.1.f of the Charter School Agreement.

49. Parkway Academy signed the Charter School Agreement on

or about March 3, 2011, knowing the 2010-2011 AYP would soon be

issued. The school was aware of the six previous years of

failure to meet the AYP when it signed the new charter, which

specified non-renewal in section 2.D.1.f if the school was not

able to comply with the contract. Parkway Academy signed the

Charter School Agreement at its own peril. Therefore, the

school's contention in its Proposed Recommended Order that the

School Board entered into the agreement in bad faith is not

persuasive. Additionally, the assertion that AYP should not be

considered in this matter and is no longer evaluated is rejected

by the undersigned.

50. Section 1002.33(12)(f), addresses the matter of

teacher certification and states in pertinent part as follows:

(f) Teachers employed by or under contract

to a charter school shall be certified as

required by chapter 1012. A charter school

governing board may employ or contract with

skilled selected noncertified personnel to

provide instructional services or to assist

instructional staff members as education

paraprofessionals in the same manner as

defined in chapter 1012, and as provided by

State Board of Education rule for charter

school governing boards. A charter school

may not knowingly employ an individual to

provide instructional services or to serve

as an education paraprofessional if the

individual’s certification or licensure as

an educator is suspended or revoked by this

or any other state. A charter school may

not knowingly employ an individual who has

resigned from a school district in lieu of

disciplinary action with respect to child

welfare or safety, or who has been dismissed

for just cause by any school district with

respect to child welfare or safety. The

qualifications of teachers shall be

disclosed to parents.

51. Parkway Academy started the 2011-2012 school year in a

probationary status with only a one-year renewal Charter because

of previous educational and organizational performance

deficiencies. The record is clear that during the year, the

students at Parkway Academy did not receive the instruction from

credentialed and qualified teachers as the school was obligated

to provide and to which they were entitled. The record evidence

indisputably shows that Parkway Academy signed the Charter

Agreement for the 2011-2012 school year and then employed five

non-certified teachers who were either not eligible for an

educator's certificate or had an expired, invalid, or no

certificate. Additionally, Parkway Academy employed eight

instructors during the school year that were teaching out of

field; the school failed to notify the parents that their

children had teachers who are teaching seventeen of the courses

out of field. The school employed nine teachers who were not

highly qualified for their positions for a substantial portion

of the school year.

52. Even though Parkway Academy remedied the majority of

improper teacher certifications and qualifications in December

2011, the remedy does not satisfy the statutory and Charter

Agreement obligations Parkway Academy had to employ certified,

highly qualified teachers and assign them core courses to teach

in their field. Additionally, the uncertified, ineligible

teachers never should have been employed. Therefore, good cause

exists to demonstrate Parkway Academy failed to comply with the

Charter Agreement during the term of the contract by not meeting

sections 2.D.1.A(22)(c),(t) and 11.D, and the school violated

section 1002.33(12)(f), during a substantial portion of the

school year by not having certified and qualified teachers,

teaching in the proper fields.

53. The arguments asserted by Parkway Academy are

unpersuasive because the school failed to comply with the

Charter Agreement and the statutory requirements for teacher

certification and qualifications. Any contention by the school

that teachers Williams and Cedant were teaching as substitutes

is rejected in that a substitute teacher is prohibited from

teaching over 30 days consecutively without being fully

certified as any other teacher.

54. It is concluded that the School Board met its burden

and demonstrated good cause for non-renewal of Parkway Academy's

Charter due to its status as a "school in need of improvement"

for more than two years and the school's failure to have

certified, qualified instructors, teaching in the proper field

for a substantial portion of the year. Also, Parkway Academy

failed to notify the parents of the instructors teaching out of

field. Therefore, Parkway Academy's Charter should not be

renewed by the School Board.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board,

enter a final order declining to renew the Charter School

Agreement for Automotive Technical Charter High School of South

Florida Inc., upon both the statutory and contractual grounds of

(1) failure to meet the requirements for student performance

stated in Parkway Academy's Charter including the school's

status as a "school in need of improvement" for more than two

years; (2) failure to use instructors having proper

certification and/or qualifications; (3) failure to have

teachers teaching in their fields; and (4) failure for Parkway

Academy to disclose the out of field qualifications to the

students' parents.

DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2012, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JUNE C. McKINNEY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 10th day of August, 2012.

ENDNOTES

1 The Data Warehouse is the retrieval system for electronic

data. Charter school provide information in TERMS, and

electronic storage system. TERMS transmits the information to

the Data Warehouse for the School Board's use.

2 Highly Qualified is a teacher that holds the appropriate

certification for the core subject assigned to teach for the

particular grade level, which might include passing an

appropriate exam or other means of demonstrating subject area

expertise.

3 Rogers' testimony is held to be more credible as to

Kornhausers' Mathematics 6 through 12 certification status the

day of the hearing.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Robert Runcie, Superintendent

Broward County School Board

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125

Gerard Robinson, Commissioner

Department of Education

Suite 1514

Turlington Building

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel

Department of Education

Suite 1244

Turlington Building

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire

Office of the General Counsel

11th Floor

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

[e-mail]

Matthew J. Carson, Esquire

Rumberger, Kirk, and Caldwell, P.A.

Suite 702

215 South Monroe Street

Post Office Box 10507

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

[e-mail]

Daniel J. Woodring, Esquire

The Woodring Law Firm

Suite 1-C

203 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

[e-mail]

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.