13-003388RU Jack W. Carswell, Minor Child, Julie Carswell And Scott Carswell, Parents vs. Florida State University Schools, Inc., Florida State University Schools, Inc., Board Of Directors, And Florida State University Board Of Trustees Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Tuesday, November 26, 2013.

Summary: The Florida State University charter developmental research school is not an "agency" either on its own or as a result of its sponsorship by an agency.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JACK W. CARSWELL, MINOR CHILD ,

JULIE CARSWELL AND SCOTT

CARSWELL, PARENTS ,

Petitioner s ,

vs. Case No. 1 3 - 3388RU

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOLS, INC. ; FLORIDA STATE

UNIVERSITY SCHOOLS, INC. BOARD

OF DIRECTORS ; A ND FLORIDA STATE

UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES ,

Respondents.

/

ORDER GRANTING MOTIO NS TO DISMISS AND FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This cause has come before the undersigned on Motions to

Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Motions) filed by each of the

Respondents in this matter. Petitioners have filed responses

thereto. The motions and responses s uggest ed that the taking of

limited evidence regarding the nature of the parties and the

Code of Con duct at issue would be appropriate .

P ursuant to notice, a bifurcated evidentiary hearing was

held on November 14, 2013, in Tallahassee, Florida, before E.

Gary Early, the Administrative Law Judge assigned by the

Division of Administrative Hearings to d e termine the threshold

question of whether Respondents , Florida State University

Schools, Inc. and Florida State University Schools, Inc. Board

Of Directors (collectively ÐFSUSÑ) constitute an ÐagencyÑ as

defined in section 120.52, Florida Statutes, either on their own

or as a result of their affiliation with the FSUS sponsor,

Florida State University (ÐFSUÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner s : Mary Linville Atkins, Esquire

1545 Lee Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 3 3230

For Respondent s Florida State U niversity Schools, Inc. and

Florida State University Schools, Inc. Board o f Directors :

Jon C. Moyle, Esquire

Moyle Law Firm

118 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee , Florida 32301

For Respondent Florida State University Board o f Trustees :

Robyn Bla nk Jackson, Esquire

Associate General Counsel

Florida State University

222 South Copeland Avenue

Tallahassee, FL 32306

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case originated with the filing of a Petition

Challenging Agency Policy as Unpromulgated Rule filed on

September 9, 2013. The P etition challenged provisions of the

FSUS Student Code of Conduct as an unadopted rule. On

September 12, 2013, the matter was assigned to the undersigned.

The Motions were filed on September 24, 2013 , by FSUS , and

September 25 , 2013 , by the Florida State University Board of

Trustees ( Ð FSU Ñ ). Responses were filed on September 27, 2013 ,

to the FSUS Motion, and September 30, 2013 , to the FSU Motion.

On October 10, 2013, a Notice of Motion Hearing was entered

scheduling a hearing for October 29, 2013. Due to an illness,

the undersigned was compelled to cancel the hearing, and it was

rescheduled for November 14, 2013.

At hearing, the parties filed 21 stipulations of fact,

which have been accepted . The developmental research la boratory

school operated by FSUS and sponsored by FSU is generally known

as ÐFlorida High,Ñ the name used throughout the stipulated

facts. The stipulated facts, to the extent that they are

relevant and pertinent to the issues in this proceeding, are set

f orth herein .

The parties stipulated to the following exhibits:

Verification of Election Results and Certification of Exclusive

Bargaining Representative which verified the results of a

December 18, 2003 , election and certified United Faculty of

Florida as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of

university school professors, associate professors, assistant

professors and instructors; the FSUS 2012 - 2013 Student Code of

Conduct ; the August 22, 2000 , Charter between FSU and FSUS; and

a July 9, 2013 , letter from FSUS to Petitioners by which the

FSUS Director Ðagree[s] with Dr. EppsÓ decision to enforce

school policy ,Ñ a nd withdraw Jack CarswellÓs Ðinvitation to

attend FSUS.Ñ

Respondent, FSUS, presented the testimony of Alan Hanstein,

acting c hairperson of the FSUS Board of Directors , who was

recalled to the stand by Petitioners .

All references to Florida Statutes are to the 20 13 edition

unless otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Stipulated Facts

1. Florida High is a charter school create d pursuant to

section 1002.33(5)(a)2.

2. Florida High is a public school.

3. Pursuant to section 1002.33(5), FSU is the sponsor of

Florida High, has executed a charter agreement with FSUS, and

performs the duties listed in the charter agreement.

4 . F lorida High was originally created as a developmental

research school and receives public funding for its operations

as set forth in section 1002.32(9).

5 . Florida HighÓs student admissions are governed in part

by sections 1002.21 and 1002.33(10)(a).

6 . FSUS employees are public employees and are part of the

Florida Retirement System.

7 . The Public Employees Relations Commission has certified

a unit of FSUSÓ instructional personnel for purposes of engaging

in collective bargaining.

8 . FSUS teach ers are subject to the same instructional

certification requirements as those for all of FloridaÓs public

school teachers.

9 . In establishing Florida High as a lab charter school,

FSU and FSUS drafted a charter agreement. The charter agreement

was execu ted by both parties after holding a public hearing.

1 0 . FSUS adopted the Student Code of Conduct after holding

a public hearing.

1 1 . FSUS is subject to FloridaÓs public records laws as

set out in chapter 119.

1 2 . All meetings of FSUSÓ Board of Dire ctors, unless

otherwise exempt, are subject to the requirements of FloridaÓs

Sunshine Act and must be noticed and open to the public.

1 3 . FSUS is subject to the class size requirements of

FloridaÓs public school system.

1 4 . FSUS is required to admini ster the Florida

Comprehensive Assessment T est to all students , and the school is

included in the state grading system for public schools and

subject to specific repercussions by the Department of Education

in the event of a failing grade.

1 5 . FSUS is re quired to report student assessment data to

every parent of a student at the school, the school district,

and its Board of Directors , and must maintain a website and post

this data as well as follow the State Board of EducationÓs rules

pertaining to public notice of school performance.

1 6 . Florida HighÓs Director files an annual financial

disclosure of financial interest with the Florida Commission on

Ethics.

1 7 . FSUS has the status of a ÐLocal Education AgencyÑ

allowing it to receive federal funds.

1 8 . Jack Carswell was withdrawn from Florida High in part

due to paragraph ÐkÑ of the Student Code of Conduct entitled

ÐWithdrawal of InvitationÑ.

Additional Facts

19 . Petitioner, Jack W. Carswell , was, until the 2013 - 2014

school year, a student at FSUS, having attended since 2002.

Petitioners, Julie and Scott Carswell are Jack W. CarswellÓs

parents.

2 0 . Charter schools are public schools, and are part of

the stateÓs program of public education. Charter schools may be

sponsored by district school board s in the county over which the

district school board has jurisdiction, or by a state

university.

2 1 . Charter schools sponsored by a state university are in

a separate category known as developmental research (laboratory)

schools, or Ðlab schools.Ñ Wit h certain exceptions not

applicable here, there is a limit of one charter lab school per

state university.

2 2 . Respondent, FSUS, is a lab school created under the

authority of s ections 1002.32 and 1002.33.

2 3 . Respondent, FSU, is a state university, and is the

sponsor of FSUS.

2 4 . The alleged unadopted rule at issue in this proceeding

is found at s ection VI.K. of the Student Code of Conduct , which

p rovides that:

K. Withdrawal of Invitation/Expulsion

When a studentÓs behavior is repeatedly

inappropr iate to others or continues to

exhibit absolute disregard for the

conditions of behavior set by the school, a

meeting will be held and the Principal may

recommend to the Director expulsion or

permanent withdrawal of invitation of the

student.

The Principa l/designee may recommend to the

Director expulsion or withdrawal of

invitation any student enrolled when his or

her pre s ence has or tends to substantially

disrupt or interfere with the orderly

educational process, destroys school

property, endangers the he alth or safety of

the student or others or infringes on the

rights of others.

(1) Withdrawal of Invitation

FSUS is a school of choice that extends

invitations on an annual or longer basis.

The administration will decide the viability

of a particular st udentÓs invitation to

attend FSUS at the end of each school year.

Attendance and disciplinary issues will be

considered when making these determinations.

If it is decided that a particular studentÓs

invitation should be withdrawn, then the

Principal will make a written recommendation

to the Director. Parents will be formally

notified by the administration of a

withdrawal of invitation for the next school

year during the summer. Every attempt will

be made to notify parents of the withdrawal

of an invitat ion as early as possible in the

summer so that arrangements for enrolling

the student in their home school can be

made.

The Director may withdraw an invitation as

prescribed in this Code or a parent or

guardian may voluntarily withdraw the

student. Docum entation for withdrawal of

invitation is a confidential record between

the parents/guardian(s) and the school.

Such documentation shall not be included in

the studentÓs permanent record. A student

cannot avoid expulsion by withdrawing from

school.

2 5 . The only rulemaking authority granted by the

Legislature in sections 1002.32 or 1002.33 is that conferred on

the State Board of Education to adopt rules on how to form and

operate a charter school and how to enroll in a charter school

once it is created, which rules are to include a model

application form, standard charter contract, standard evaluation

instrument, and standard charter renewal contract.

§§ 1002.33(21)(b)3.b. and 1002.33(27), Fla . Stat . 1 /

2 6 . Charter school systems ( see section 1002.33 (20)(a)4.,

section 1002.33(20)(a)6., and section 1002.332) have been

designated as Ðlocal educational agenc [ies] Ñ for the limited

purpose of receiving federal funds. § 1002.33(25), Fla. Stat.

As further established in that section, however, Ð[s]uch

desig nation does not apply to other provisions unless

specifically provided in law.Ñ

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

27 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

action in accordance with s ection 120.56 (4) , F lorida Statutes.

FSUS is n ot an ÐAgencyÑ

28 . Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, defines a Ð rule Ñ

as Ð each agency statement of general applicability that

implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes

the procedure or practice requi rements of an agency. . . . Ñ

The preliminary issue to be decided is whether FSUS is an agency

as defined by c hapter 120, Florida Statutes.

29 . Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, defines an

"agency" as:

. . . the following officers or governmental

ent ities if acting pursuant to powers other

than those derived from the constitution:

(a) The Governor; each state officer and

state department, and each departmental unit

described in s ection 20.04; the Board of

Governors of the State University System;

t he Commission on Ethics; the Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission; a regional

water supply authority; a regional planning

agency; a multicounty special district, but

only if a majority of its governing board is

comprised of nonelected persons; educati onal

units; and each entity described i n chapters

163, 373, 380, and 582 and s ection 186.504.

(b) Each officer and governmental entity in

the state having statewide jurisdiction or

jurisdiction in more than one county.

(c) Each officer and governmental entity in

the state having jurisdiction in one county

or less than one county, to the extent they

are expressly made subject to this chapter

by general or special law or existing

judicial decisions.

This definition does not include a

municipality or lega l entity created solely

by a municipality; a legal entity or agency

created in whole or in part pursuant to part

II of chapter 361; a metropolitan planning

organization created pursuant to s ection

339.175; a separate legal or administrative

entity created pursuant to s ection 339.175

of which a metropolitan planning

organization is a member; an expressway

authority pursuant to chapter 348 or any

transportation authority or commission under

chapter 343 or chapter 349; or a legal or

administrative entity creat ed by an

interlocal agreement pursuant to s ection

163.01(7), unless any party to such

agreement is otherwise an agency as defined

in this subsection.

3 0 . Section 120.52(6), Florida Statutes, defines an

Ðeducational unitÑ as Ð a local school district, a c ommunity

college district, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind,

or a state university when the university is acting pursuant to

statutory authority derived from the Legislature. Ñ

3 1 . Charter schools are not included in the list of

entities that listed as an Ðagency,Ñ either generally or as an

Ðeducational unit.Ñ

3 2 . It is the view of the undersigned that had the

legislature intended the APA to apply to charter schools, having

enacted a Ðstatute [] comprehensive in its treatment of all

aspects of the creation, operation, and termination of charter

schools , Ñ ( Sch . Bd. of Palm Beach Co. v. Survivors Charter

Schools, Inc. , 3 So. 3d 1220, 1229 (Fla. 2009) ) , it would have

expressly so provided. It did not .

3 3 . There appears to be a split amongst F lorida appellate

courts regarding when an entity that is n ot specifically defined

as an "agency" may nonetheless fall within the requirements of

c hapter 120.

3 4 . In Mae Volen Senior Center, Inc. v. Area Agency on

Aging , 978 So. 2d 191, 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), the Fourth

District Court of Appeal found that a rea a gencies on a ging

(AAA) , which were referred to as "boards" in s ection 20.41(7),

Florida Statutes (2007) , were agencies for the purposes of

determining whether the Division of Administrative Heari ngs had

jurisdiction to hear a bid protest involving a n AAA and a lead

agency with whom it contracted. As set forth in the opinion:

Area a gencies on a ging are organizations

designated by the Department of Elder

Affairs ("DOEA") to coordinate and

administe r DOEA programs and to provide,

through contracting agencies, services for

the elderly within a planning and service

area. . . . Area agencies may be either

public or private nonprofit entities.

Florida has eleven area agencies on aging.

The area agencies are all subject to the

public records act and the sunshine laws of

the state when considering any contracts

requiring the expenditure of public funds.

Mae Volen at 192.

3 5 . In making its determination that AAAs were ÐagenciesÑ

under chapter 120, the c ou rt held :

Because the legislature designated the area

agencies on aging as "boards" performing the

programmatic and funding requirements of the

DOEA, as well as the fact that they exercise

multi - county authority and perform

essentially government functions in

authorizing the spending of public funds and

contracting with lead agencies, we conclude

that the DOAH has authority to hear this bid

protest.

* * *

The area agencies determine the need for

elderly services in their areas, plan for

the provision of t hose services, and receive

funds from the government which they then

distribute to service providers. In all

respects they act as an arm of the state

agency. They are required to comply with

the public records act and the sunshine laws

with respect to th e contracts requiring the

expenditure of public funds, which would

include lead agency contracts. They are

required to follow state contracting

guidelines and requests for proposals.

Under these circumstances, where the

nonprofit corporation functions un der the

direction and as a public agency for the

purpose of contracting with lead agencies,

we do not deem its "private" label as

dispositive of whether it is an agency for

purposes of the APA.

Mae Volen at 194 .

3 6 . Subsequent to the Fourth District Cou rt of AppealÓs

opinion in Mae Volen , the same issue of the identity of an AAA

as an Ð agency Ñ was placed squarely before the Third District

Court of Appeal in First Quality Home Care, Inc. v. Alliance for

Aging, Inc. , 14 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2009) . In that case,

the court declined to follow Mae Volen , and conclude d that AAAs

are not ÐagenciesÑ governed by the APA . In so concluding, the

court held that:

The APA's definition of "agency" is set

forth in section 120.52(1), which is divided

into several subsections. [The AAA] does

not fall within the definition of "agency"

as provided in subsections (a), (b) or (c).

First, section 120.52(1)(a), which applies

to the Governor's exercise of executive

powers other than those derived from the

constitution is clearly inapplicable to

Alliance. Second, [the AAA] , a private,

non - profit corporation, is not one of the

entities listed in subsection (b) , i.e., a

state department/departmental unit described

in section 20.04, Florida Statutes ; an

authority; a board; a commission; a regional

planning agency; a multicounty special

district; an educational unit; or an entity

described in several listed statutes other

than chapter 430, which concerns the DOEA.

. . . Finally, [the AAA] is not a unit of

state government that has been made subject

to the APA by general or special law or

existing judicial decisions as required

under subsection (c) . . . . We, therefore,

conclude that [the AAA] is not an "agency"

as defined by section 120.52(1) .

First Quality Home Care at 1152.

37 . The Third District Court of Appeal discussed in detail

the elements of Mae Volen with which it disagreed. N otably, the

Third District found that the legislatureÓs identification of

the governing body of an AAA as Ðthe boardÑ in section 20.41(7),

Fl orida Statutes (2007), was not to be construed as meaning a

Ð board Ñ as defined in section 120.52(1) (b)3. , Florida Statutes

(2007).

38 . First Quality Health Care followed the reasoning of

the First District Court of Appeal in Vey v. Bradford Union

Guidan ce Clinic, Inc . , 399 So. 2d 1137, 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA

1981) , and held that:

As recognized in Vey , "a private entity

which contracted to provide services for a

state agency does not thereby become a state

agency itself." Id . (citing State Rd. Dep't

v. Cone Bros. Contracting Co . , 207 So. 2d

489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)). . . . We discern

no legislative intent to include private,

non - profit corporations such as [the AAA]

within the purview of the APA. As stated in

Florida Association of Insurance Agents , 813

So. 2d at 984 :

To conclude that the legislature

intended that the Association be

subject to the Act would, necessarily,

also require the conclusion that many

other similar entities are subject to

the Act. Had the legislature intended

such a result, given the apparently

comprehensive nature of the list set

out in section 120.52(1) , we believe it

would have said so.

First Quality Health Care at 1153 .

39 . As applied to the issue of whether a charter lab

school is an Ð agency Ñ as defined in chapter 120, the und ersigned

agrees with the reasoning expressed in First Quality Health Care

that had the Le gislature intended to subject charter school

student admission procedures to the APA , it would have included

charter schools in the pertinent statutes defining Ð agency Ñ or

Ðeducational unit.Ñ See First Quality Health Care at 1153 - 1154 .

4 0 . T he fact that the governing body and employees of a

charter school are governed by s ection 768.28 for purposes of

tort liability ( see s ection 1002.33(12)(h) ), is not dispositive.

See Rubenstein v. Sarasota C nty. Pub . Hosp . , 498 So. 2d 1012 ,

1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ( s ection 768.28 envisions Ð a much

broader definition of Ò agency Ó than does the APA . Ñ ).

4 1 . Petitioners argue that general concepts of due process

require that there be some means of challenging the decision of

FSUS to withdraw the invitation of a current student.

PetitionerÓs argument has appeal. However, in that regard,

section 1002.33(7)(d)1. provides, in pertinent part, that

Ð[e]ach charter schoolÓs governing board must appoint a

representative to facilitate parental involvement, provide

access to information, assist parents and others with questions

and concerns, and resolve disputes.Ñ That dispute resolution

process having been established by the L egislature for i nternal

charter school disputes , i t is not within the purview of the

undersigned to create additional or alternative remedies.

The FSUS Student Code of Conduct is n ot a Statement of FSU

4 2 . Even though FSUS is not an Ð agency, Ñ Petitioner s argue

that the S tudent Code of Conduct is an Ðagency statementÑ due to

its attribution to FSU through the entry of the charter

contract.

4 3 . The FSUS Student Code of Conduct is not a statement of

FSUÓs policies or procedures.

4 4 . A sponsor is prohibited from app lying its own policies

to a charter school without mutual consent. § 1002.33(5)(b)

1.d., Fl a. Stat.

4 5 . The duties of FSU as the sponsor of the FSUS charter

lab school are set forth in s ection 1002.33(5)(b) as follows:

(b) Sponsor duties. Ï

1.a. T he sponsor shall monitor and review

the charter school in its progress toward

the goals established in the charter.

b. The sponsor shall monitor the revenues

and expenditures of the charter school and

perform the duties provided in s ection

1002.345.

c. The sponsor may approve a charter for a

charter school before the applicant has

identified space, equipment, or personnel,

if the applicant indicates approval is

necessary for it to raise working funds.

d. The sponsor shall not apply its policies

to a c harter school unless mutually agreed

to by both the sponsor and the charter

school. If the sponsor subsequently amends

any agreed - upon sponsor policy, the version

of the policy in effect at the time of the

execution of the charter, or any subsequent

modif ication thereof, shall remain in effect

and the sponsor may not hold the charter

school responsible for any provision of a

newly revised policy until the revised

policy is mutually agreed upon.

e. The sponsor shall ensure that the

charter is innovative a nd consistent with

the state education goals established by

s ection 1000.03(5).

f. The sponsor shall ensure that the

charter school participates in the stateÓs

education accountability system. If a

charter school falls short of performance

measures incl uded in the approved charter,

the sponsor shall report such shortcomings

to the Department of Education.

g. The sponsor shall not be liable for

civil damages under state law for personal

injury, property damage, or death resulting

from an act or omission of an officer,

employee, agent, or governing body of the

charter school.

h. The sponsor shall not be liable for

civil damages under state law for any

employment actions taken by an officer,

employee, agent, or governing body of the

charter school.

i. The sponsorÓs duties to monitor the

charter school shall not constitute the

basis for a private cause of action.

j. The sponsor shall not impose additional

reporting requirements on a charter school

without providing reasonable and specific

justification in writing to the charter

school.

k. The sponsor shall submit an annual

report to the Department of Education in a

web - based format to be determined by the

department.

The sponsor duties do not establish a degree of control to

ascribe the FSUS adopted Student Code of Conduct to FSU.

4 6 . While the charter between FSUS and FSU is to address a

s tudent c ode of c onduct ( see section 1002.33( 7 )( a ) 7 . ) , the

actual plan is not included therein. The only reference to the

Student Code of Conduct in the charter a greement is that related

to the dismissal of students, and provides that such dismissals

Ð shall occur in accordance with the policies and procedures

described in the [FSUS] Code of Student Conduct. Ñ Given its

limited involvement in the FSUS Student Code o f Conduct, FSU

cannot be said to have adopted the Code as its own.

47 . Petitioner argu es that a charter school code of

conduct , which is applicable only to the charter schoolÓs

students , become s a Ð rule Ñ as a result of the fact that the

charter sponsor is an Ðeducational unit.Ñ A ll charter school

sponsors, i.e. district school boards and state universities

( see section 1002.33( 5 )(a)) , are Ðeducational unitsÑ as defined

in section 120.52 . T he practical effect of PetitionerÓs

argument would be to subject all policies and decisions of

charter schools vis - à - vis their students to chapter 120

remedies. This position is simply not supported by s ections

1002.32 and 10 0 2.33 , or by c hapter 120.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing it is hereby:

ORDERED:

That the Petition Challenging Agency Policy as

Unpromulgated Rule be dismissed on the basis that FSUS is not an

agency for the purposes of c hapter 120, Florida Statutes, and

that agency status is not attributed to FSUS as a result of its

sponsorship by FSU .

DO NE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November , 2013 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

E. GARY EARLY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Fl orida 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 26th day of November , 2013 .

ENDNOTE

1 / In a somew hat curious provision, an Ðadvisory board to

provide general oversight and guidanceÑ to a charter lab school

is required to Ðadopt internal organizational procedures or

bylaws necessary for efficient operation as provided in chapter

120.Ñ Aside from the fact that the provision does not apply to

the lab school itself, the internal organizational procedures or

bylaws described appear to be outside of the scope of a ÐruleÑ

as defined in section 120.52(16) in that, as described, they

constitute Ð[i] nternal ma nagement memoranda which do not affect

either the private interests of any person or any plan or

procedure important to the public and which have no application

outside the agency issuing the memorandum. Ñ

COPIES FURNISHED :

Mary Linville Atkins, Esquir e

1545 Lee Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Matthew Joseph Carson, Esquire

Department of Education

Room 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Jon C. Moyle, Esquire

Moyle Law Firm

118 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

R obyn Blank Jackson, Esquire

Florida State University

424 Westcott Building

222 South Copeland Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk

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

Liz Cloud, Program Administrator

Administrative Code

Department of State

R. A. Gray Building, S uite 101

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Ken Plante, Coordinator

Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

Room 680, Pepper Building

111 West Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely aff ected by this Final Order is

entitled to judicial review pursuant to s ection 120.68, Florida

Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal wi th the agency clerk of

the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy,

accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District

Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of

Appeal in the appellate district where the part y resides. The

Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of

the order to be reviewed.