14-002696TTS Broward County School Board vs. Robert Konnovitch Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, August 24, 2015.

Summary: Respondent's actions in using profanity, ethnic disparagement, physical force, and demeaning communications to students was misconduct in office, incompetency, and gross insubordination constituting just cause for a ten-day suspension.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 2696TTS

ROBERT KONNOVITCH,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On May 22, 2015, a hearing was held by video teleconference

at locations in Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, Florida,

before F. Scott Boyd, an Administrative Law Judge assigned by

the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Adr ian J. Alvarez, Esquire

Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P.A.

One Financial Plaza, Seventh Floor

100 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

For Respondent: Valerie Kiffin Lewis , Esquire

Valerie Kiffin Lewis, P.A.

401 Northwest Seven th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale , Florida 33311

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent committed the actions set forth in the

Amended Administrative Complaint dated July 31 , 2014, and if so,

whether these actions constitute just cause for suspension.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On May 6, 2014, the School Board of Broward County

(Petitioner) issued an Administrative Complaint against Robert

Kon novich (Respondent), a teacher at Riverglades Elementary

School (Riverglades), alleging violations of Florida

Administrative Code R ules 6A - 5.056; 6A - 10. 0 80(2) and (3); an d

6A - 10.081(3)(a), (e), and (g), and notifying Respondent that

the Superintendent of Schools would be recommending that he be

suspended for a period of ten days without pay . R espondent

filed a request for formal hearing on or about

May 30 , 2014, disputing the allegations in the Administrative

Complaint and requesting a hearing pursuant t o

section 120.57(1) , Florida Statutes . On June 10, 2014 , the

matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings

for assignment of an administrative law judge.

The case was noticed for hearing on August 11, 2014.

R espondent Robert KonnovitchÓs Motion for a More Definite

Statement was filed on June 30, 2014, and was granted. On

July 31, 2014, PetitionerÓs Amended Administrative Complaint

was filed. After four continuances, the case was heard and

completed on May 22, 2015 . At hearing, Respondent testified on

his own behalf and offered Exhibits 1 through 3 and 5 through 9,

which were admitted, with the stipulation that it is unclear who

wrote the handwritten notes on Exhibit 9. Petitioner offered

Exhibits A through K, Q1, Q2, and R, which were admitted into

evidence, with the stipulation that Exhibit J was incorrectly

dated 2012 when it should have been dated 2014. Petitioner

presented the testimony of C . B . , S . W . , J . G . , J . B . , K . B . , and

S . B . , all of whom were RespondentÓs former students at

Riverglades , as well as that of Ms. JoAnne Seltzer, the

principal of Riverglades during the alleged instances of

misconduct.

Petitioner had expected to call another student witness,

E.C., but concluded it was unnecessary. Respondent, rel ying

upon earlier assurances from Petitioner that E.C. would be

called as part of PetitionerÓs case , as indicated on

RespondentÓs witness list, had not subpoenaed E.C. Upon

learning that E.C. would not be appearing, Respondent requested

that the hearin g not be concluded, but continued on a later date

for the sole purpose of hearing E.C.Ós live testimony. This

request was granted , with continuation of the hearing set for

June 5, 2015. However, o n June 1, 2015, Respondent m o ved to

admit E.C.Ós deposition into evidence. Petitioner made no

objection to th e motion. Th e M otion was granted , and the

additional hearing date was canceled. The deposition of E.C.

was admitted as Respondent's Exhibit 10.

The two - volume Transcript of th e proceeding was filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 8 , 2015. A

Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed

Recommended Orders was filed on July 9, 2015. This Motion was

granted , and the deadline was extended to July 30 , 2015. Both

Petitioner and Respondent timely filed p roposed r ecommended

o rder s that were considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The School Board of Broward County (School Board) is

responsible for investigatin g and prosecuting allegations of

misconduct against individuals it employ s.

2 . Respondent is employed by the School Board. As a

member of the School BoardÓs instructional staff, RespondentÓs

employment is subject to s ection 1012.33, Florida Statutes

(2014), 1/ which provides that his employment will not be

suspended or terminated except for Ðjust cause.Ñ

3 . Respondent is required to abide by all Florida Statutes

which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles

of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the

Policies and Procedures of the School Board of Broward County ,

Florida.

The Incidents

4 . At all times relevant to the allegations, Respondent

was employed as a physical education ( PE ) teacher at

Riverglades.

5 . On January 10, 2014, Respondent was attempting to move

his students inside after their time on the playground. One

student, S.W., was talking loudly and frustrating RespondentÓs

efforts. In response to this, Respondent pulled down on S.W. Ós

arm or wrist and screamed ÐB e quiet ! Ñ in her ear.

6 . S.W. was not physical ly harm ed by this incident and did

not cry. However, when asked about how the incident made her

feel, she testified Ðnot good.Ñ

7 . RespondentÓs approach was unnecessary, particularly

c onsidering that Respondent is ove r six feet tall and S.W. was a

ten - year - old child at the time . Respondent could certainly

project authority and correct a studentÓs inappropriate behavior

without the need to resort to physical contact and screaming .

8 . A fter speaki ng with her teacher, S.W. filed a Bullying

Witness Statement Form . Another student, C.B. , witnessed the

incident and similarly filed a report.

9 . On January 15, 2014, Ms. JoAnne Seltzer, inte rn

principal at Riverglades, held an informal conference with

Respondent regarding the incident involving S.W.

1 0 . In the conference summary report issued on January 21,

2014, Principal Seltzer notified Respondent of her expectation

that Respondent would refrain from touching, embarrassing,

screaming at, or demeaning students in the future . This

constituted a direct order to Respondent .

1 1 . On February 12, 2014, J.G., a fifth grade student at

the time, filed an incident report after Respondent called J.G.

by the name ÐMiguel Ñ on multiple occasions. J.G. is of Hispanic

origin , and J.G. believed that Respondent called him ÐMiguelÑ in

a derogatory manner on the basis of his ethnicity. When J.G.

attempted to correct Respondent by telling him his real name ,

Respondent retorted Ðsame thing.Ñ

1 2 . Respondent contended that he called J.G. ÐMiguelÑ

because he was confusing J.G. with a second - grader who looked

similar to J.G . and whose name was i n fact Miguel. This

testimony is rejected as not credible. Respondent called J.G.

ÐMiguelÑ on a great many occasions, and was always corrected by

J.G. These instances were not mistakes . T hey occurred in the

middle of the school year , by which time Respondent should have

known J.G.Ós actual name . It is also uncontroverted that

Respondent had a class roster , which should have eliminated any

confusion. T he purported look - a - like did not testify, nor was

there any ot her corroboration of RespondentÓs cl aim.

1 3 . These incidents occurred in the presence of the entire

class, embarrassing J.G. and making him Ðmad.Ñ

1 4 . On February 25, 2014, Principal Seltzer provided

Respondent with a letter directing him to report to her office

on February 28, 2014, for a pre - disciplinary me eting regarding

his inappropriate conduct .

1 5 . Before Principal Seltzer had a n opportunity to hold

the meeting with Respondent, o n February 27, 2014 , C.B., then a n

11 - year - old student, filed an incident report claiming that

Respondent, the day prior , had told C.B. that he was a Ð loser . Ñ

At hearing, C.B. also testified that Respondent called him fat.

1 6 . S tudent witnesses , as well as Respondent , credibly

testified that the ÐloserÑ comment was in reference to C.B.

losing a game during class. Given th at context, it was not

shown that the term was used in a derogator y fashion .

1 7 . As for the ÐfatÑ comment, Respondent admitted that the

other students would joke with C.B. about C.B.Ós weight and that

Respondent would Ðlaugh with the kidsÑ but maintained he never

personally call ed C.B. any derogatory names. However, two other

students, S.W. and J.G., corroborated C.B.Ós claim that

Respondent called C.B. fat , and this testimony is credited.

18 . This incident embarrassed C.B. and made him feel

Ðbad.Ñ RespondentÓs behavior was inappropriate.

19 . After the se new allegations came to light, o n

February 27, 2014, Principal Seltzer provided Respondent with a

second letter informing him of the additional incidents that had

been brought to her attention and requesting that he report to

her office on March 4, 2014, for his second three - day pre -

disciplinary meeting.

2 0 . After the pre - disciplinary meeting, o n March 10, 2014,

Principal Seltzer recommend ed that Respondent be suspended for

five day s . Respondent acknowledged receipt of th e

r ecommendation on March 14, 2014.

2 1 . Subsequ ent to th e notice of recommendation , but before

its presentation to the School Board , the parents of students

S.B., J.B., and K.B. , requested a meeting with Principal Seltzer

regarding RespondentÓs inappropriate behavior in the presence of

their children .

2 2 . S.B ., a nine - year - old student, credibly testified that

on one occasion Respondent, while looking directly at her, said

the words Ðfuck ing bit ch . Ñ The evidence was unclear as to

whether Respondent directed those words to S.B. or was speaking

to someone else on the phone . Respondent conten ded that he does

not use profanity during class .

2 3 . J.B., a nine - year - old student, and K.B., a seven - year -

old student, both testified that they heard Respondent use the

words ÐGod damm itÑ and use pr ofanity on multiple occasions

during class. Respondent admitted that he used the words ÐGod

dangÑ during class, but denied that he ever said Ðdammit.Ñ The

childrenÓs testimony is credited.

2 4 . A conference was held on March 19, 2014 . T he

student's mother , Principal Seltzer , Mr. Duhart ( the interim

assistant principal ), and Respondent discuss ed the allegations

brought by S.B., J.B., and K.B .

2 5 . On April 14, 2014, Principal Seltzer held a pre -

disciplinary meeting with Respondent to discuss the reports of

misconduct that had surfaced after her previous recommendation

for a five - day suspension .

2 6 . On April 15, 2014, Principal Seltzer changed her

recommendation to a ten - day suspension based upon the additional

complaints . Respondent acknowledged receipt of this

recommendation on April 23, 2014 .

2 7 . Principal Seltzer testified that her ultimate

recommendation for a ten - day suspension was based on

RespondentÓs prior disciplinary history, dating back to 200 8,

and the fact that his recent misconduct had continued despite

repeated warnings.

28 . The Amended Administrative Complaint also references

reports from students that , on one occasion , Respondent

attempted to kick a student in the head. A lthough J. G.Ós ,

C.B.Ós and E.C.Ós testimony all mention this incident , the scant

details elicited at hearing failed to explain how Respondent

could attempt to kick a student in the head from a sitting

position. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that Respondent tried to kick a student in the head.

29 . At hearing, Respondent suggested that the students who

filed complaints against him had colluded in an effort to get

him fired , but this proposition is rejected .

3 0 . RespondentÓs comments and laughing with students about

C.B.Ós weight and RespondentÓs unnecessar ily physical and

aggressive discipline of S.W. failed to protect the se student s

from conditions harmful to their mental health . RespondentÓs

actions toward C.B. and his repeated addressing of student J. G .

as ÐMiguelÑ intentionally exposed these students to unnecessary

embarrassment and disparagement , and the actions toward J.G.

also constituted harassment on the basis of race and national or

ethnic origin . Respondent violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.

Respondent engaged in misconduct in office.

3 1 . Respondent used profanity and engaged in other

inappropriate communications with students J.G., C.B., S.W.,

K.B., and S.B. on several occasions. Respondent demonstrated

incompetency to discharge his required duties as a teacher as a

result of this ineffic iency.

3 2 . Respondent intentionally refused to comply with

Principal SeltzerÓs direct orders not to touch, embarrass,

demean, or scream at students. These orders were reasonable in

nature. R espondent engaged in gross insubordination.

Prior Disciplinar y Act ion

3 3 . On February 13, 2008, the executive director of the

School BoardÓs Professional Standards and Special Investigative

Unit gave Respondent a written reprimand based upon allegations

of assault and battery. The letter stated that there was

sufficient basis to establish probable cause and recommend

discipline. The letter constituted a disciplinary action taken

against Respondent in his position as an educator.

3 4 . On January 14, 2011, the intern principal of Coral

Glades High School, RespondentÓs employer at the time, held a

pre - disciplinary meeting with Respondent based on allegations

that he intentionally exposed students to unnecessary

embarrassment or disparagement. By letter dated January 21,

2011, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for this

misconduct.

3 5 . On January 26, 2012, the intern principal of Coral

Glades High School, RespondentÓs employer at the time, gave

Respondent a written reprimand after finding that Respondent had

used profanity in the presence of stud ents during a heated

argument with a colleague.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 6 . The Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in this case,

pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.33 . Pursuant

t o section 120.65(11), Petitioner has contracted with DOAH to

conduct these hearings.

3 7 . Petitioner is a duly - constituted s chool b oard charged

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

schools within the school district of Brow ard County, Florida,

under section 1001.32 , Florida Statutes .

38 . Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees

pursuant to sections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33(6)(a).

39 . RespondentÓs substantial interests a re affected by any

suspension of his emp loyment , and he has standing to contest

PetitionerÓs action. McIntyre v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 779

So. 2d 639, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

4 0 . Petitioner has the burden of proving the charges set

forth in its Amended Administrative Compla int by a preponderance

of the evidence, rather than the stricter standard of clear and

convincing evidence applicable in cases where the penalty is

loss of licensure or certification. McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty.

Sch. Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 19 96). The

preponderance of the evidence standard requires proof by "the

greater weight of the evidence" or evidence that "more likely

than not" tends to prove a certain proposition. Gross v. Lyons ,

763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000).

4 1 . Whether Res pondent committed the charged offenses is a

question of ultimate fact to be decided by the trier - of - fact in

the context of each alleged violation. McKinney v. Castor , 667

15 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson ,

653 So. 2d 489, 491 (F la. 1st DCA 1995).

4 2 . RespondentÓs employment is subject to the provisions

found in section 1012.33 . Under this section a member of the

instructional staff may only be suspended for just cause. Just

cause includes, but is not limited to, Ð misconduct in office,

incompetency . . . [and] gross insubordination Ñ as these terms

are defined by r ule of the State Board of Education.

§ § 1012.33(1)(a), (4)(c), and (6), Fla. Stat .

4 3 . Section 1001.02(1) grants the State Board of Education

authority to adopt rules pursuant to sections 120.536(1) and

120.54 to implement provisions of law conferring duties upon it.

Count I (Misconduct in Office)

4 4 . T he State Board of Education has adopted Florida

Administrative Code R ule 6A - 5.056(2) , which in relevant part

defines Ð misconduct in office Ñ as:

(2) ÐMisconduct in OfficeÑ means one or

more of the following:

(a) A violation of the Code of Ethics of

the Education 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.; . . . .

Petitioner has specifically al leged that Respondent violated

rule paragraphs (a) and (b) through his violation of rules 6A -

10.080( 2) and 6A - 10.081(3)(a), (e), and (g) .

4 5 . Rule 6A - 10.080(2) , a portion of the Code of Ethics,

reads:

(2) The educatorÓs primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the studentÓs

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will seek

to exercise the best professional judgment

and integrity.

4 6 . While r ule 6A - 5.056(2)(a) provides that a violation of

the Code of Ethics is Ðmisconduct,Ñ it has been frequently noted

that the CodeÓs precepts are "so general and so obviously

aspirational as to be of little practical use in defining

normative behavior." Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Brenes , Case

No. 06 - 1758 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 27, 2007; Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.

Apr. 25, 2007). In any event, t here was insufficien t evidence

of RespondentÓs concerns or intentions to find a violation of

these ideals.

4 7 . Rule 6A - 10.081(3)(a), (e), and (g) require s that the

educator :

(a) Shall make reasonable effort to protect

the student from conditions harmful to

learning and/or to the studentÓs mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

** *

(e) Shall not intentionally expose a

student to unnecessary embarrassment or

disparagement.

** *

(g) Shall not harass or discriminate

against any student on the basis of race,

color, religion, sex, age, national or

ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital

status, handicapping condition, sexual

orientation, or social and family background

and shall make reasonable effort to assure

that each student is protected from

harassment or discrimination.

48 . RespondentÓs interaction s with st udent s C.B. and S.W.

were violation s of r ule 6A - 10.081(3)(a). Respondent shamed C.B.

in the presence of his classma tes and used unnecessary,

physical , and aggressive discipline with S.W. It is axiomatic

that a teacher has breached his duty to protect a student from

conditions harmful to the stu dentÓs mental health when the

actions c ausing the harm are those of the ÐprotectingÑ teacher.

49 . RespondentÓs interaction with C.B. also constituted a

violation of rule 6A - 10.081(3)(e). It is clear that calling a

child ÐfatÑ in the presence of his peers exposes that child to

unnecessary emb arrassment.

5 0 . RespondentÓs interactions with st udent J.G. violated

r ule 6A - 10.081(3)(e) and (g). RespondentÓs failure to call J.G.

by his given name , and his choice to instead use what Respondent

appears to deem a racially - generic name , was intentional. T hese

incidents exposed J.G. to unnecessary embarrassment and

constituted harassment on the basis of race and national or

ethnic origin .

5 1 . Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence

that Respondent violated rule 6A - 5.056(2 ) and is guilty of

misconduct in office.

Count II Î Incompetency

5 2 . Rule 6A - 5.056(3) defines incompetency as:

(3) ÐIncompetencyÑ means the inability,

failure or lack of fitness 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. Failur e 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, s afety or

welfare of the students is diminished; or

5. Excessive absences or tardiness.

(b) ÐIncapacityÑ means one or more of the

following:

1. Lack of emotional stability;

2. Lack of adequate physical ability;

3. Lack of general educational backg round;

or

4. Lack of adequate command of his or her

area of specialization.

5 3 . The evidence in this case has not shown Respondent to

lack the capacity necessary to be a competent educator.

However, the interactions between Respondent and J.G., C.B.,

S.W., K.B., S.B., and J.B. have shown that Respondent has

communicated inappropriately with students on numerous

occasions , and th ese interactions have demonstrated

inefficiency . Petitioner proved by a p reponderance of the

evidence that Respondent violated rule 6A - 5.056(3) and lacks

competency in his position as an educator .

Count III Î Insubordination

5 4 . A n a dministrative c omplaint should "specify the rule

the agency alleges has been violated," a s well as the offending

conduct. Jacker v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 426 So. 2d 1149,

1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(Jorgenson, J., concurring). While the

Am ended Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent had

been Ð insubordinate, Ñ the actual violation defined in r ule 6A -

5.056(4) is Ðgross insubordination.Ñ

5 5 . However, a n a dministrative c omplaint is not fatal ly

deficient so long as it contains sufficient specificity to

provide a fair opportunity to prepare a defense. Davis v. Dep't

of Prof'l Reg. , 457 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

PetitionerÓs omission of the modifier ÐgrossÑ when alleging

insubordination d id not fail to notify Respondent of the charges

against him . The conduct was alleged with specificity. Ð G ross

insubordinationÑ is the only related offense in the rules cited

in the Amended Administrative C omplaint . The notice was

sufficient to alert Respondent to the actual charge and allow

him to prepare his d efense.

5 6 . Rule 6A - 5.056(4) defines gross insubordination as Ðthe

intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in

nature, and given by and with proper authority; misfeasance, or

malfeasance as to involve failure in the performance of the

required duties.Ñ

5 7 . Principal Sel t zer, as the principal of Riverglades,

was an appropriate authority to give orders to Respondent.

58 . The order given by Principal Seltzer included not

touching , embarrassing , demeaning , or screamin g at students , and

w as reasonable in nature.

59 . Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence

that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination as defined by

r ule 6A - 5.056(4) .

Penalty

6 0 . There is just cause to suspend i nstructional personnel

without pay if they have engaged in misconduct in office ,

incompetency, or gross insubordination . §§ 1012.33(4)(c) and

1012.33(6)(a), Fla. Stat.

6 1 . The School BoardÓs Employee Disciplinary Guidelines ,

found in rule 4.9, state that discipline shall be progressive in

nature. Factors considered in determ ining the appropriate

discipline include: the repetitious nature of the offense, the

length of time between the offenses, the employeeÓs employment

history, and attempts by the employee to correct the misconduct.

6 2 . Section 120.57(1)(k) provides that a r ecommended o rder

shall include a Ðrecommended disposition, or penalty, if

applicableÑ based upon the entire record.

6 3 . Based on RespondentÓs prior disciplinary history, the

systematic increase of the recommended penalty, RespondentÓs

continu ing misconduct despite repeated warnings, and

RespondentÓs failure to take corrective action, it is determined

that Principal SeltzerÓs increase in recommendation from a five -

day suspension to a ten - day suspension was sufficiently

progressive in nature as to satisfy the requirements of

rule 4.9. Accordingly, suspension without pay for a period of

ten days is appropriate.

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 finding Mr. Robert Konnovich guilty of

misconduct in office, incompetency, and insubordination; and

suspending his employment, without pay, for a period of ten

days.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24 t h day of August, 2015, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

F. SCOTT BOYD

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 24 t h day of August , 2015 .

ENDNOTE

1/ References to statutes and rules throughout this Recommended

Order are to versions in effect at the time of the conduct

described in the allegations , except as otherwise indicated.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert Runcie, Superintendent

Broward County School Board

Tenth Floor

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, F lorida 33301 - 3125

(eServed)

Pam Stewart

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Stre et

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Valerie Kiffin Lewis, Esquire

Valerie Kiffin Lewis, P.A.

401 Northwest Seven th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311

(eServed)

Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire

Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P. A.

One Financial Pla za, Seventh Floor

100 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

(eServed)

Adrian J. Alvarez, Esquire

Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P.A.

One Financial Plaza, Seventh Floor

100 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394

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.