13-001627TTS Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Francis Madassery Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, December 30, 2013.

Summary: Petitioner failed to meet its burden and show that Respondent was inefficient in communicating appropriately with and relating to the students to establish incompetency pursuant to rule 6B-5.056. Therefore, dismissal is required.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 13 - 1627TTS

)

FRANCIS MADASSERY , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted in this case on

A ugust 7, 2013 , before Administrative Law Judge June C. McKinney

of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to the

authori ty set forth in s ections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes.

APPEARA NCES

For Petitioner: Sara Marken, Esquire

Heather Ward , Esquire

School Board of Miami - Dade County

1450 Northeast 2 nd Avenue, Suite 400

Miami , Florida 3 3132

For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire

Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110

Clearwater , Florida 33 761

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to

terminate F rancis MadasseryÓs employment with the Miami - Dade

County School Board based upon the allegations made in its

Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 6, 201 3 .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated A pril 18 , 2013 , Francis Madassery

( " Respondent " or " Mad assery " ) was notified that Miami - Dade

County School Board ( " Petitioner " or " School Board " ) took action

to suspend Petitioner without pay and initiate dismissal

proceedings.

Respondent timely elected to dispute the reasons for the

termination and requested a hearing . Because he requested a

formal proceeding, the matter was referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ) . A Notice of Specific Charges

was filed on June 19, 2013 , and a final hearing was scheduled to

start June 25, 2013 . The cas e was continued and reschedule d.

On August 6, 2013, the School Board filed a Notice of

Specific C harges (revised), in which it charged Madassery with

Count I, Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies and Count

II, Incompetency Due to Inefficiency . T he matter proceeded as

re scheduled on August 7, 2013 .

At hearing, School Board presented the testimony of three

witnesses : Karen Powers (" Powers ") , p rincipal ; Deborah Johnson -

Brinson (ÐJohnson - BrinsonÑ) , assistant p rincipal ; and Launa

Fuller ( ÐFullerÑ) , mat h coach . Petitioner ' s Exhibits numbered 1

through 2 4 were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on

his own behalf and presented the testimony of Gail Ann Clotman,

Lillie Johnson, and Shenika Uptgrow (by deposition testimony) .

Respondent ' s E xhibit s 1 through 3 were admitted into evidence .

A late - filed exhibit consisting of student test data was entered

into e vidence as RespondentÓs Exhibit 4 .

The proceedings were transcribed and the parties availed

themselves of the right to submit proposed recomm ended o rders

after the filing of the T ranscript. The two - volume T ranscript

of the final hearing was filed with DOAH on October 30, 2013,

and October 31, 2013 . The undersigned granted PetitionerÓs

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed

Re commended Orders, which the parties file d by t he due date ,

November 22 , 201 3 . Both timely filed P roposed R ecommended

O rders have been considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a duly - constituted s chool bo ard charged

with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public

schools within Miami - Dade County Florida . Article IX, Florida

Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School

Board has the authority to discipline employees.

§ 10 12.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat.

2. Madassery started his employment with the School Board

in 2004 . H e was employed pursuant to a professional services

contract .

3. From 2004 - 2011, Madassery taught Exceptional Student

Education ( Ð ESE Ñ ) at Norland Elementary Sch ool ( "Nor land " ) . He

was not subject to any discipline while employed as an ESE

teacher, and his tenure in that position was successful. During

that period, he received exemplary or satisfactory evaluations.

4. In October 2011, Norland Principal, Powers , m oved

Madassery from his ESE position to a regular mathematics second -

grade education class after Norland lost an ESE teaching

position because student enrollment decline d . Throughout the

rest of the 2011 - 2012 school year, Madassery co - taught with

Shenika Uptgrow.

5. Madassery received a satisfactory performance

evaluation for the 2011 - 2012 school year.

6. During the Norland 2012 - 2013 school year, Madassery

expected to return to teaching ESE , but he was assigned to a

second - grade regular mathematics clas sroom . Madassery co - taught

with Johnson the same group of students in different subjec t

area s . Madass ery taught math, science, and social studies, and

Johnson taught the same students re a ding and language arts.

7. Madassery and JohnsonÓs second - grade cl ass was

challenging with approximately eight students out of the total

38 students with behavior al problems . Problem s ranged from

students unable to remain on task or complete assignments to

students who d isrupt ed the classroom.

8. E ven though Johnson ha d been teaching for seven years ,

she found it difficult to teach the second graders at times

because of the behavioral problems . Occasionally , she had to

spend part of the class period dealing with the behavioral

issues.

9. Madassery and Johnson discusse d the behavioral problems

of their students often and strategized on how to control the ir

behavior .

10. On October 15, 2012, Powers observed Respondent in his

classroom for an hour and fifteen minutes . Powers documented

her observations on the Observati ons of Standards Form - Teacher .

11. During the observation, Respondent was deficient in

the area of knowledge of learners, Performance Standard

(ÐStandardÑ ) 2 , and the area of instructional delivery and

engagement, Standard 4 . Respondent failed to meet S tandard 2

because Madassery instructed every student in the same manner as

opposed to using the different types of instruction for varying

ability levels . Respondent should have instruct ed the students

in groups based on their performance level and their baseline

scores . Mada ssery was deficient in Standard 4 because he failed

to deliver a complete Go Math 1 / lesson for the day by allowing

students to work on problems by themselves without any

instructions, not introducing the problem - solving or hot

questio ns . Powers saw Respondent walk around and work with

students individually during the observation but he did not

teach each student how to work through the problems as required .

I nstead , he wrote the correct answer s for each student.

12. On October 1 7 , 2012, Powers notified Madassery that a

support dialogue meeting was being held to discuss the

observation of October 15, 2012. During the meeting, Powers

placed Madassery on a support dialog, a 21 - day period wherein a

math coach and another second - grade t eacher were to provide

assistance to Madassery so that he could improve his

deficiencies .

13. On November 13, 2012 , Powers performed a second

classroom observation of Madassery teach ing math for an hour and

26 minutes . During the observation, Respondent was deficient in

three standards . Respondent still did not meet Standard 2

because he did not separate students into small groups for

instruction based on their specific learning needs . As in the

first observation, Madassery still walked around the room again

checking the students Ó work and wrote correct answers in the

workbooks instead of re - teaching the specific math skill to a

small group of students . Students who finished their work had

nothing to do because Respondent spent most of the 90 - minute

le sson correcting answers in the workbooks.

14. Madassery was still deficient in Standard 4 because he

presented information to his class that was unclear and not one

of the 13 Ðstudents were able to break down the number to

subtract into two numbers.Ñ Fur thermore , Respondent answered

his own questions while teaching the lesson and taught part of

the lesson at his computer with his back to the students.

15. During the second observation, Madassery was also

deficient of Standard 8 because he was unable to establish

effective classroom management. S tudents got up to use the

bathroom at will, two students fell out of their chairs,

students were arguing with each other, and one student had his

head down for approximately nine minutes . Respondent Ós only

respo nses to improper behavior were to bang on the desk and

whisper in the students Ó ears.

16. On November 1 9, 201 2 , Powers held a Conference for the

Record with Madassery regarding the November 13, 2012,

observation . Powers discussed her observations and pl aced

Respondent on a 90 - Calendar Day Performance Probation, which was

documented by an Improvement Plan (ÐIPÑ) for Respondent to

follow.

17. MadasseryÓs IP was designed to help improve his

specified deficiencies and required that he complete six

activiti es by December 19, 2012 . As of January 17, 2013,

Respondent had only shown two of the six requested activities to

Powers . On January 17, 2013, Powers issued Respondent a written

Professional Responsibilities memo . The memo dated January 17,

2013, stated :

On November 28, 2012, you were given

Improvement Plans (IP) for Performance

Standards 2, 4, and 8 with specific

activities to complete and submit by

December 19, 2012. As of this date, you

have shown two of the requested activities

to this administrator . The following is a

summary of the activities which still need

to be submitted for each performance

standard:

Performance Standard 2:

Ð Best PracticeÑ summary from

Ms. Fuller, Ms. Colbourne, and the UTD

Mentor

Performance Standard 4:

Submit a revised ma thematics lesson

plan

Summarize a ÐBest PracticeÑ after

observing Ms. Buchanan

Performance Standard 8:

Submit a parent communication log

Please be reminded that during the 90 -

Calendar Day probationary period, it is your

responsibility to submit the reque sted

activities to this administrator on time .

You are requested to submit the remaining

items by January 25, 2013 . Please see me if

you have any questions . Thank you in

advance for your cooperation.

18. Madassery submitted the remaining IP assignments that

were originally due on December 19, 2012, to Powers on

January 25, 2013.

19. The third observation of Madassery was conducted by

Assistant Principal Johnson - Brinson , on January 8, 2013 .

Johnson - Brinson obser ved Madassery teaching second - grade

mathe matics from 10:17 a.m . to 11:35 a.m . During the third

observation, Madassery did not use the Go Math 2/ curriculum .

Instead, Respondent wrote on the smartboard and lectured his

second graders throughout the math lesson without using any

manipulatives 3/ fo r the required objective of the math lesson

taught for the day . Madassery was still de ficient in S tandards

2, 4, and 8 .

20. After the January 8, 2013, observation, a post -

observation meeting was held on January 17, 2013 . Madassery was

placed on a revise d IP to help him learn techniques and improve

his deficiencies . In order to improve deficiency in Standard 2,

Madas se ry was given the following IP assignments , due on

February 16, 2013: to read an article on Identifying StudentsÓ

Learning Styles and then identify two strategies that he could

use to address the learning styles of his students . Respondent

was also required to attend a professional development session

with his union mentor regarding differentiated instruction and

summarize how he planned to implement differentiated instruction

in h is classroom after the session . In the IP for deficiency

Standard 4, Respondent was assigned to observe the math coach

teach a lesson utilizing manipulatives, te a ch a lesson as the

math coach observed , and get feed back from the math coach .

21. On February 14, 2013, Powers observed RespondentÓs

math cl ass for one hour and 25 minutes . The subject for the

lesson was the use of grams versus kilograms to weigh objects .

Mad a ssery was still deficient in Standard 2 becau se he taught

the whole group of students by asking and answering his own

questions and never separated the students into differentiated

instructional groups.

22. Mad a ssery also demonstrated he was deficient in

Standard 4 during the observation because he did not follow the

Go Math curriculum by starting the lesson by explaining the

purpose . Additionally, w hen Respondent used the smartboard ,

only two out of 17 students were paying attention . Of the

remaining students, six were talking, three were out of t heir

seats, three were on the computer, two had their heads down, and

one was playing with a toy . Respondent also failed to teach the

problem - solving portion of the Go Math lesson.

23. Madassery was deficient in Standard 5 because his

student folders we re not maintained in a way to record how each

child was performing in class . When Powers reviewed the student

folders, they were dated from August through November 2012 , even

though it was the third grading period . N one of the folders

indicated how Respo ndent was evaluating grades for the second

and third grading periods . Madassery provided Powers graded

papers with smiley faces rather than the required letter grades .

Additionally, there were two stacks of ungraded and undated math

assignments in the cl assroom.

24. Madassery also spent the majority of the 90 - minute

class trying to control his studentsÓ behavior and Madassery

failed to deal with the behavioral issues effectively .

Therefore, Respondent was deficient in Standard 8 .

25. On February 21, 2 013, a post - observation meeting was

held with Mada ssery regarding the fourth observ ation on

February 14, 2013 . Mada ssery was deficient in four areas during

the observation . Additionally, Respondent had failed to timely

turn in his IP assignments a second time . The deadline was

February 16, 2013 . Powers issued Madassery a second

professional responsibilities memo regarding following the IP

and deadlines .

26. During the meeting, Powers also provided Madassery

another revised IP with assignment s for him to complete to help

improve the four February 14, 2013, observation deficiencies and

gave a March 14, 2013 , deadline . F or deficiency of S tandard 2,

Mada sse ry was to attend a professional development workshop on

differentiated instruction and write a summa ry of how he

implements differentiated instruction in his classroom, analyze

his studentsÓ data from the winter math interim test , and writ e

a plan on how he will address his studentsÓ strengths and

weaknesses .

27. F or S tandard 4, Respondent was assigned to watch the

math coach model a math lesson and then submit an outline of a

math lesson from start to finish .

28. For S tandard 5, Respondent was assigned to communicate

with another teacher about how to organize the studentsÓ folders

and submit a summar y on how he planned to implement an

organizational plan , discuss grading papers with the math coach ,

and submit a procedure for how he planned to grade papers and

place grades in the e - gradebook .

29. The February 19, 2013 , IP also required Respondent to

r evise his discipline plan, and outline a best practice to be

utilized in his classroom based on the article, ÐThe Well -

Managed Classroom , Ñ to help improve RespondentÓs skills for

Standard 8.

30. Another evaluation was conducted by Powers o n

March 20, 2013 . During the observation, Madassery displayed the

same deficiencies as previous observation s and no improvement

had taken place despite all the assistance provided to

Mada ssery . The ob servation lasted an hour and 10 minutes .

Madassery still was deficien t in Standard 2 because even though

he separated the students into groups , the groups were not

divided according t o the student s Ó abilities . For example,

t hree students needed math remediation but Respondent placed

them at the computer to do a reading pro gram . Also , he grouped

two students together who understood the lesson and provided

them remedial assistance even though they should have received

enrichment activities.

31. Madassery was still also deficient in Standard 4

because he did not begin the lesson by explaining its purpose

and connecting it to the studentsÓ prior knowledge.

32. During the observation, Powers reviewed MadasseryÓs

student folders to see if Respondent had brought them up to date

as previously instructed . On March 20, 2013, t he student

folders still only contained papers dated from August 2012 to

November 2012 . Additionally, stacks of ungraded and undated

papers were still located on a shelf behind RespondentÓs desk.

33. Madassery also still failed to manage the studentsÓ

b ehavior effectively during the observation . For example, f our

students were continuously walking around th e classr oom, six

students were off - task, and the remaining seven students sat at

desk s without doing anything.

34. After the observation, Powers de termined that

Respondent was incapable of effectively teach ing in the

classroom and recommended that Madassery Ós employment contract

be terminated.

35. On April 17, 2013, Petitioner took action to suspend

and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respon dent for just

cause, including , but not limited to , failure to correct noted

perform ance deficiencies within the 90 - calendar - day performance

probation period and incompetency due to inefficiency .

Petitioner ultimately charged Madassery with two counts in

Notice of Specific Charges dated August 6, 2013, that included

Count I, Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies, and Count

II, Incompetency Due to Inefficiency .

CONC LUSIONS OF LAW

36. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

proceeding an d t he parties thereto pursuant to s ections 120.569

and 120.57(1 ) , Florida Statutes (2013) .

37. Section 10 12 .33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that

the teacher " may be suspended or dismissed at any time during

the term of the contract, " but only " for ju st cause as provided

in paragraph (1)(a) " of the statute.

38. The burden of proof in this proceeding is on the

School Board to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that

just cause exists to terminate the employment of Madassery .

McNeil l v . Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. 678 So. 2d 476 , 477 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1996) ( " The School Board bears the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence, each element of the charged

offense which may warrant dismissal. " ) Allen v. Sch. B d . of

Dade C nty . , 571 So. 2d 568 (Fl a. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. Sch. B d .

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

Ð Preponderance of the evidence Ñ is evidence that more likely

than not tends to prove the proposition set forth by the

proponent. Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276 , 280 n.l (Fla. 2000).

39. This is a de novo proceeding for the purpose of

formulating agency action, and not to determine whether the

School Board ' s decision was correct at the time that it made the

decision. The findings of fact " shall be based exclusively on

t he evidence of record and on matters officially recognized. "

§ 120.57(1)(j) and (k), Fla. Stat.

40. In the Notice of Specific Charges, Petitioner sought

to suspend and terminate Respondent by charging Respondent with

two counts pursuant to sections 1012. 34 and 1012.33 . In its

Proposed Recommended Order , paragraph 106, the School Board

dismissed Count I, Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies .

Therefore, the undersigned will not address section 1012 .34 as a

basis for termination in this matter ; Coun t II, Incompetency Due

to Inefficiency pursuant to section 1012.33 is the only issue

for the undersigned to consider .

Section 1012.33 provides:

(1)(a) Each person employed as a member of

the instructional staff in any district

school system shall be pr operly certified

pursuant to s. 1012.56 or s. 1012.57 or

employed pursuant to s. 1012.39 and shall be

enti tled to and shall receive a written

contract as specified in this section. All

such contracts, except continuing contracts

as specified in subsection (4), shall

contain provisions for dismissal during the

term of the contract only for just cause.

Just ca use includes, but is not limited to,

the following instances, as defined by rule

of the State Board of Education:

immorality, misconduct in office,

incompetency, gross insubordination, willful

neglect of duty, or being convicted or found

guilty of, or ent ering a plea of guilty to,

regardless of adjudication of guilt, any

crime involving moral turpitude.

* * *

(4)(c) Any member of the district

administrative or supervisory staff and any

member of the instructional staff, including

any school principal, wh o is under

continuing contract may be suspended or

dismissed at any time during the school

year; however, the charges against him or

her must be based on immorality, misconduct

in office, incompetency, gross

insubordination, willful neglect of duty,

drunke nness, or being convicted or found

guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to,

regardless of adjudication of guilt, any

crime involving moral turpitude, as these

terms are defined by rule of the State Board

of Education. Whenever such charges are

made aga inst an employee of the district

school board, the district school board may

suspend such person without pay; but, if the

charges are not sustained, he or she shall

be immediately reinstated, and his or her

back salary shall be paid. In cases of

suspensio n by the district school board or

by the district school superintendent, the

district school board shall determine upon

the evidence submitted whether the charges

have been sustained and, if the charges are

sustained, shall determine either to dismiss

the employee or fix the terms under which he

or she may be reinstated. If such charges

are sustained by a majority vote of the full

membership of the district school board and

the employee is discharged, his or her

contract of employment shall be canceled.

A ny decision adverse to the employee may be

appealed by the employee pursuant to s.

120.68 , provided the ap peal is filed within

30 days after the decision of the district

school board.

41. Rule 6B - 5.056 is entitled , " Criteria for Suspension

and Dismissal , " and it provides in relevant part:

* * *

(3) ÐIncompetencyÑ means the inability,

failure or lack of fitn ess to discharge the

required duty as a result of inefficiency or

incapacity.

(a) ÐInefficiencyÑ means one or more of the

following:

1. Failure to perform duties prescribed by

law;

2. Failure to communicate appropriately

with and relate to students;

3. Failure to communicate appropriately

with and relate to colleagues,

administrators, subordinates, or parents;

4. Disorganization of his or her classroom

to such an extent that the health, safety or

welfare of the students is diminished; or

5. Excessive absences or tardiness.

42. In the instant case, the evidence demonstrates that

Respondent was unable to adequately perform as a regular second -

grade math teacher . Madas s ery was incapable of implementing the

Go Math curriculum properly , inept in instruct ional delive ry and

engagement, never became proficient in classroom management, and

did not keep proper student files, even though Petitioner had

placed him on three IPs with detailed activities to help improve

RespondentÓs deficient areas .

43. It is unf ortunate that Madassery failed to take his

probation serious ly and take advantage of all the IP activities

assigned to help improve his deficient skills . Instead, he

repeatedly failed to timely complete the IP assignments even

after he was warned by memo several times of the requirements to

complete the IPs by the deadlines.

44. However , RespondentÓs inefficiency does not fall

within the parameters of rule 6B - 5.056 . Petitioner Ós position

that there is sufficient evidence to establish just cause to

termi nate Respondent due to his incompetency because he

repeatedly failed to communicate appropriately with and relate

to his students is not persuasive . Despite the overwhelming

evidence that Madassery was not performing his job adequately,

t he record lacks e vidence of Madassery failing to communicate

with and relate to the children in his classroom . Even though

Respondent was repeatedly counseled about classroom management,

he was never counseled regarding communicating appropriately

with and relating to his students . B ehavioral problems do not

equate to communication . Furthermore, e ach of the observations

and the Observation of Standards Forms , all focus on Standards

2, 4, 5, and 8 but do not address failure to communicat e or

relate to students . Additiona lly , communication is neither

addressed in Res pondentÓs three IPs nor in the Professional

Responsibilities memos Respondent received for repeatedly not

completing his assignments timely while on probation .

Accordingly, because Petitioner has failed to mee t its burden

and show that Respondent was inefficient in communicating

appropriately with and relating to the students to establish

incompetency within the meaning for rule 6B - 5.056, as alleged,

dismissal of Count II is required.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon cons ideration of the Findings of Fact and the

C onclusions of L aw reached, it is

RECOMMENDED t hat the Miami - Dade County School Board enter a

final order that:

1. I mmediately reinstate s Respondent Francis Madassery ;

and

2 . I ssu e s Respondent back salary .

DO NE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December , 201 3 , 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

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 30th day of December , 2013 .

ENDNOTES

1 / Go Math is the curriculum the public schools in Mi ami - Dade

County use for grades K - 5. It provides the steps for each math

lesson, which includes several pages of instruction for the

teacher to follow. Each lesson starts with and essential

question that informs the students what the subject matter is

that they w ill be learning that day. Next, the teacher has to

unlock the problem, which is an activity that uses manipulatives

to help the students understand the concept being taught by

using their hands on items. After unlocking the problem, the

teacher presents the check questions, which are informal

assessments designed to give the teacher an assessment of the

studentsÓ comprehension of the lesson. Based on how many

answers a student answers correctly determines the next step.

Students who get one or both ques tions correct go to the ÐOn

Your OwnÑ section of the Go Math curriculum followed by

enrichment activities. Students who miss both questions work

with the teacher to grasp the lesson. After about 15 minutes of

differentiated instruction, all the students return to a group

and the teacher teaches the final step of Go Math, which is a

problem - solving process within the class period.

2 / MadasseryÓs testimony that he followed the Go Math curriculum

a majority of the time is rejected as not being credible.

3 / Manipulatives are hands - on objects or tools that students use

to help grasp the math concept for the lesson, such as:

counters, marbles, cubes, etc.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Mark Herdman, Esquire

Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A.

Suite 110

29605 U.S. Highw ay 19, North

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Heather L. Ward, Esquire

Miami - Dade County Public Schools

1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue

Miami, Florida 33132

Alberto M. Carvalho

Superintendent of Schools

Miami - Dade County Public Schools

155 Northeast 15th Stre et , Suite P - 102

Miami, Florida 33132

Pam Stewart

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Matthew Carson, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

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 exceptions

to this Rec ommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.