14-002214TTS Broward County School Board vs. Edouard Jean Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 23, 2014.

Summary: The school board failed to prove that a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his students, and hence it does not have just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 2214TTS

EDOUARD JEAN,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge John G.

Van Laningham for final hearing by video teleconference on

October 14 , 20 14 , at sites in Tallahassee and Lauderdale Lakes ,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Charles T. Whitelock , Esquire

Charles T. Whitelock , P.A.

300 Southeast Thirteenth Street , Suite E

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33 3 16

For Respondent: Robert F. McKee , Esquire

Robert F. McKee , P.A.

1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301

Post Office Box 75638

Tampa , Florida 33 6 05

STATEMENT OF THE ISSU ES

T he first issue in this case is whether , as the district

school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise

behaved inappropriately towards one of his special - needs

students ; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be

true, th e n it will be necessary to decide whether the school

board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At its regular meeting on May 6, 2014, Petitioner Broward

County School Board voted to approve the superintendent's

recommendation that Respondent Edouard Jean be immediately

suspended without pay pending termination of his employment as a

teacher. The reasons for t his action were spelled out in an

Administrative Complaint that had been issued on April 10, 2014,

in which Mr. Jean was accused of having abused, mistreated, or

otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his students

during the month of October 2013.

M r . Jean timely requested a formal administrative hearing

to cont est Petitioner's action. On May 15, 2014 , the matter was

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

further proceedings.

At the final hearing, which took place on October 14 , 20 14 ,

Petitioner called the following witnesses: Susan Bennett,

Lisa Shindore Taormina, Mary Beth Dorvick, John Joseph, Shaante

Collie, Sabine Phillips, Stuart Lenoff, Edward Costello, and

Karleen Blunt. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 8 were received

in evidence without objection . M r . Jean did not offer any

exhibits but testified on his own behalf and called Ray

Montalbano, Donna Rollins, and Shirley Ashcroft as additional

witnesses. Mr. Jean also presented the deposition testimony of

Lisa Phillips.

T he final hearing transcript was filed on October 29 , 20 14 .

Each party timely filed a Proposed Recommended Order on the

deadline , which had been extended to November 25 , 20 14, at the

parties' joint request .

Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida

Statutes refer to the 2014 Florida Statutes, except t hat all

references to statutes or rules defining disciplinable offenses

or prescribing penalties for committing such offenses are to the

versions that were in effect at the time of the alleged wrongful

acts.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Broward County School Board ("School Board"),

Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized

to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public

School System.

2. At all times relevant to this case , Respondent Edouard

Jean (" Jean ") was employed as a n Exceptional Student Education

("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position

which he had held for the preceding 16 years . During that

period , Jean taught students with disabilities , who typically

receive specially design ed instruction and related services

pursuant to individual educational plans.

3. Ahead of the 2013 - 14 school year, Jean was transferred

to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously

worked . He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to tea ch

ESE students having "varying ex ceptionalities." Jean's class

contained a mix of high - and low - functioning students, about

nine in number.

4. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE

class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year,

the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their

respective students under an arrangement that separated the

higher functioning students from the lower functioning students.

Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups ,

e xchanging one for the other at midday . In this way, each

teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of

students. For the last hour of the day, the y combined the two

groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in

Mr. Mon t alb ano's classroom, which was larger.

5. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's

assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes.

One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers ; she

alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other,

Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class , where

Jean spent an hour each afternoon . In view of the cooperative

arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the

teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classro om as

Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services

to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were

responsible .

6. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his

classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal

investigation arising from allegations that he recently had

abused one of his pupils , a 13 - year - old boy with Down Syndrome

named Z.P. , who was among the lower functioning students.

Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa

Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent

contractor for the School Board , providing services to students

at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently

has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations , which shocked and

surprised him .

7. Ms. Taormina , who that year was seeing students at

Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday , reported

having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4 , 2013, and again

on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged

events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with

Ms. Phillips in a ttendance. The alleged events of October 11,

in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalb ano's

classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were

combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the

presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a

substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be

there that day.

8. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the

Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools

Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P.

nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most

of the m (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too

intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses. 1 / All of

the adults were questioned, however, and none of them

corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly,

therefore, no criminal charges were br ought against Jean.

9. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the

School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P.

and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final

hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against J ean,

whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and

Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having

ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome

of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's

testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the

relevant historical events.

10. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, th e

undersigned f inds it especially significant that Jean's co -

workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of

time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him

engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the

roughly seven w eeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to

the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who

had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance

generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The

undersigned credits the con sistent, mutually corroborative, and

overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary

conduct.

11. Because an isolated incident, however out of

character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative

performance , t he fact that Jean was w ell regarded by the

employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the

possibility that Jean abused Z.P. , but it does diminish the

likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions.

For that reason , if Ms. Taormina claimed only to ha ve seen Jean

mistreat Z.P. once , her testimony likely would have been more

believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean

abuse Z.P. on two separate days ÏÏ on consecutive weekly visits to

the school, no less. I f Ms. Taormina is to be believed , Jean's

alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was

rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at

least something Jean was capable of repeat ing .

12. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean ,

at most , once per wee k for relatively brief period s of less than

30 minutes apiece . Withi n the context of this limited contact,

Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse

Z.P. on back - to - back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw

him every work day, ne ver noticed anything amiss. Logically,

there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this

anomalous situation.

13. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when

Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom , which w ould explain

why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student , so long as

the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11

to witness the alleged misconduct ÏÏ a lack of attentiveness that

defies reasonable expectations ÏÏ is overlooked . Given that

Ms. Taormina 's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny

percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to

abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required

Jean to act according to a plan , which beggars belief ; 2 /

otherwise, Ms. Taormina's pres ence at the very moments that all

such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence . At any

rate, w hile the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when

Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps

greater than zero percent, the undersign ed regards this

explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely.

14. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused

Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her

absence . Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever

cl aimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this

explanation requires believing that Jean 's co - workers never saw

him abusing Z.P. , or that everyone who witnessed such abuse

except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it . 3 / Yet both

situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if

Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the

room, which was most of the time , then at some point over the

course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the

paraprof essionals would have noticed something wrong 4 / ÏÏ and none

of them did, as found above . Similarly, it is difficult to

imagine ÏÏ and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of

any supporting evidence ÏÏ that another teacher or

paraprofessional, or some co mbination of these employees, would

fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to

protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that

Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means

that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms.

Taormina was not in the room.

15. In sum, i t is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused

Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence ; and yet , it is un likely

that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time

when Ms. Taormina was no t in the room (but another adult or

adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is

that Jean likely never abuse d Z.P. at all , contrary to

Ms. Taormina's allegations.

16. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the

undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately

unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to

prove its allegations a gainst Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina

was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been

consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony

vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor

at hearing suggested sincer ity . She had barely kn o w n Jean

before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds

to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false

allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the

disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specif ic

accusations in greater detail .

17. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while

Z.P. was lying on his back on t he floor, Jean spun Z.P. around,

using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's

body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. wi th a ruler to prod him

into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean

resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean

and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive"

had occurred, but she deemed Jean's condu ct "inappropriate."

18. As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in

consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the

events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards

teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and

spit on others. Z.P. , who was a big boy, could be difficult to

redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a

rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and

Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that the y enjoyed

entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around ÏÏ which is what Ms. Taormina

observed.

19. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean

playfully spinning Z.P. ÏÏ which Jean admits doing ÏÏ considered

this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive

evid ence in the record establishing an objective standard of

conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P.

in this manner . Striking Z.P. with a rule r would be another

matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however,

and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean

misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the

greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with

a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged , but rather tapped the

floor with it, as he testified .

20 . According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the

following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that,

upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers

were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the

st udent around. To Ms. Taormina , "it looked . . . like [Jean]

was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender

point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure

point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on

Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina)

saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The

undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P. 's back

and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him.

21. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers

on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking"

which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping

back and forth " ) so fast that Z.P.'s features were an

unrecognizable blur , but only for "just a few seconds . "

Somewhat i ncongruously, however, she characterized this

"mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean,

who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger.

22. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed

disturbing . Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For

example, a lthough no expert testimony was presented, the

undersigned 's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics

makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless

person so hard that his fea tures become blurry (assuming this

could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause

the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly

nodding), as Ms. Taormina described , but to rotate

uncontrollably . The undersigned finds it diff icult , too, to

imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing."

Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the

room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak

up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as sh e has

stated.

23. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical

battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls

would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even

though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean an d

Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean

inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find ,

based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently

sh oo k Z.P. as alleged . This incident, therefore, was not

prove d.

24. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to

Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he

proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of

the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P.

when someone exc laimed that he looked like a monkey. She said

that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out

the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the

floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a

broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that,

lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times

before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his

pants, Ms. Taormina stated .

25. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the

undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while

standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the

garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy

was gagging on the fruit . The evidence does not support a

finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student

did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the

offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean

struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly

denied, or that Jean pic ked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which

likely could not be accomplished , given the student 's size and

weight, and which Jean credibly denied . Z.P. did urinate on

himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the

evidence establishes that t his was not a response to stress,

fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence.

26. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination

that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged.

Determinations of Ultimate Fact

2 7 . The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish

that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in

Florida Admi nistrative Code Rule 6A - 5.056(1) . 5 /

28 . The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish

that Jean is guilty of the offen se of misconduct in office ,

which is defined in rule 6A - 5.056( 2 ). 6 /

29 . T he greater weight of the evidence fails to establish

that Jean is guilty of incompetency , which is defined in

rule 6A - 5.056(3) . 7 /

30 . It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with,

much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events

which gave rise to this proceeding . Therefore, the School Board

does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to

section 1012 .3 3(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for " being convicted or

found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of

adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude ."

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

31 . DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

t his proceeding pursuant to s ections 1012.33(6)(a)2., 120.569,

and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

32 . A district school board employee against whom a

disciplinary proceeding has been initiated must be given written

notice of the specific charges prior to the hearing. Although

the notice "need not be set forth with the technical nicety or

formal exactness required of pleadings in court," it should

"specify the [statute,] rule, [regulation, policy, or collective

bargaining provision] the [school board] alleges has been

violated and the conduct which occasioned [said] violation."

Jacker v. Sch . B d . of Dade C nty. , 426 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1983)(Jorgenson, J. concurring).

33 . Once the school board, in its notice of specific

charges, has delineated the offenses alleged to justify

termination, those are the only grounds upon wh ich dismissal may

be predicated . See Lusskin v. Ag . for Health Care Admin . , 731

So. 2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cottrill v. Dep ' t of Ins . ,

685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 19 96); Klein v. Dep ' t of

Bus . & Prof ' l Reg . , 625 So. 2d 1237, 1238 - 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993);

Delk v. Dep ' t of Prof ' l Reg . , 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA

1992); Willner v. Dep ' t of Prof ' l Reg ., B d . of Med . , 563 So. 2d

805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied , 576 So. 2d 295 ( Fla.

1991).

34 . In an administrative proceeding to suspend or dismiss

a member of the instructional staff, the school board, as the

charging party, bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance

of the evidence, each element of th e charged offense(s). See

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

DCA 1996); Sublett v. Sumter C nty . Sch . Bd. , 664 So. 2d 1178,

1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cnty . Sch . Bd. ,

629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

35 . The instructional staff member's guilt or innocence is

a question of ultimate fact to be decided in the context of each

alleged violation. McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d 387, 389

(Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d 489, 491

(Fla. 1st DC A 1995).

36 . In its Administrative Complaint, the School Board

advanced four theories for dismissing Jean : Immorality

(Count 1); Misconduct in Office (Count s 2 and 3 ); Incompetency

(Count 4); and Conviction of Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

(Count 5).

37 . Each of the School Board's charges depends on

allegation s that, in October 2013 , Jean abused, mistreated, or

otherwise behaved inappropriately towards the student referred

to as Z.P. The School Board, however, failed to prove th ese

essential allegation s by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus,

all of the charges against Jean necessarily fail, as a matter of

fact. Due to this dispositive failure of proof, it is not

necessary to render additional conclusions of law.

RECO MMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order

exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this

proceeding , reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding h im

back salary as re quired under section 1012.33(6)(a) .

DONE AND ENTERED this 2 3r d day of December , 201 4 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

___________________________________

JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSot o Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 2 3r d day of December , 20 1 4 .

ENDNOTES

1 / For the same reasons, no students testified at the final

hearing.

2 / If Jean were able to control himself sufficiently to

determine the precise times at which he would abuse Z.P., then

it is unlikely he would have abused the student in front of a

relative stranger such as Ms. Taormina. More likely, he would

have avoided committing such misconduct in the presence of a

person whom he did not know.

3 / The undersigned rejects out of hand the possibility, neither

alleged nor proved, that Jean's co - workers were themselves

systematically abusing Z.P. or other students. It is d oubtful

that a conspiracy to engage in, or cover up, such behavior could

have lasted for long without unraveling.

4 / If Jean were careless enough to allow Ms. Taormina to witness

him abuse Z.P., he likely would not have been careful enough to

avoid detec tion by the colleagues who saw much more of him than

she did.

5 / The rule defines "immorality" as "conduct that is

inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good

morals. It is conduct that brings the individual concerned or

the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and

impairs the individual's service in the community."

6 / The rule provides as follows:

(2) "Misconduct in Office" means one or

more of the following:

(a) A violation of the Code of Ethics of

the Educatio n Profession in Florida as

adopted in Rule [6A - 10.080], F.A.C.;

(b) A violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule

[6A - 10.081], F.A.C.;

(c) A violation of the adopted school board

rules;

( d) Behavior that disrupts the student's

learning environment; or

(e) Behavior that reduces the teacher's

ability or his or her colleagues' ability to

effectively perform duties.

7 / Rule 6A - 5.056(3) defines "incompetency" as "the inability,

failure or la ck of fitness to discharge the required duty as a

result of inefficiency or incapacity."

COPIES FURNISHED :

Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire

Charles T. Whitelock, P.A.

300 Southeast Thirteenth Street, Suite E

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

(eServed)

Robert F. McKee, Esquire

Robert F. McKee, P.A.

1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301

Post Office Box 75638

Tampa, Florida 33605

(eServed)

Lois S. Tepper , Interim General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building , Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent

Broward County School Board

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(eServed)

Pam Stewart

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building , Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

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.