14-003000TTS Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Gerry R. Latson Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, November 20, 2014.

Summary: Just cause does not exist to terminate teacher who used graphic language when responding to a student who used the same language directed at the teacher and others. Violation of school board policy warrants suspension without pay through end of 2014.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 3000TTS

GERRY R. LATSON,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was

conducted before Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy, by

video teleconference at sites in Tallahassee and Miami, Florida,

on September 11, 2014.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Cristina Rivera Correa, Esquire

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue , Suite 430

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Brandon M. Vicari, Esquire

Law Offices of Branden Vicari

29605 U.S. Highway 19 , North , Suite 110

Clearwater, Florida 33761

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate

the employment of Respondent, a Behavior Management Teacher

(BMT), due to Respondent ' s inappropriate interaction with a

student on April 16, 2014, as alleged in the Amended Notice of

Specific Charges.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 1 8 , 2014, Miami -

Dade County School Board (Petitioner or School Board ) voted to

immediately suspend the employment of Gerry Latson (Respondent)

and to initiate dismissal proceedings. On June 19, 2014,

Respondent requeste d a formal administrative hearing to contest

Petitioner ' s action. On June 24, 2014, Petitioner forwarded the

request to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) , which

scheduled and conducted the hearing.

On September 4, 2014, the parties filed a Jo int Pre - hearing

Stipulation, including a statement of agreed facts that have been

adopted and incorporated herein as necessary.

At the final hearing, which took place on September 11,

2014, Petitioner called the following witnesses: D.J., a

student; Towan da Seabrook, Special Education (SPED) Chairperson,

Office of Professional Standards; an d Deborah Phillips, Emotional

Behavioral Disorder (EBD) Clinician, Office of Professional

Standards. Petitioner ' s Exhibits 1 through 20 were admitted in

evidence. Resp ondent testified on his own behalf and offered no

exhibits.

The one - volume final hearing T ranscript was filed on

October 24 , 2014. Both parties timely filed proposed recommended

orders which were considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise noted, citations to the Florida Statutes

and Florida Administrative Code refer to the version in effect on

April 16, 2014 .

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all

free public schools within Miami - Dade County , Florida, pursuant

to article IX, section 4(b) , Florida Constitution, and

section 1001.32, Florida Statutes.

2. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as

a BMT at Allapattah M iddle School (Allapattah) , a public school

in Miami - Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by

the School Board for approximately 14 years pursuant to a

professional service contract and subject to Florida Statu t es,

the regulations issued by th e Florida State Board of Education,

the policies and procedures of the School Board , and the

provisions of the collective bargaining agreement in effect

between Miami - Dade Public Schools and United Teachers of Dade

(UTD contract).

3. During his employment with the school district,

Respondent took a break from teaching to attend divinity school.

He became a permanent teacher in 2007 and worked in Miami Senior

High School. Respondent transferred to Allapattah in 2011 at the

request of its assistant principal. During the 2011 - 2012 school

year, Respondent served as a SPED reading, language arts , and

math teacher. During the 2012 - 2013 school year, Respondent held

dual roles as the SPED Chair and a SPED teacher.

4. In November 2013, Respondent was offered and accepted

the position of BMT at Allapattah. The BMT is considered the

" f irst in line " to deal with a student who causes a disturbance

in the classroom by behavior such as cursing or fighting. If

called by a teacher to assist or a BMT observes a student acting

out in such a way as to disrupt a classroom, the BMT intervenes

to try and get both sides of the story regarding why the student

is upset and tries to redirect or modify the student ' s behavior

so that the student can remain in the classroom. If that is

unsuccessful, the BMT removes the student to a special education

classroom where the BMT uses other techniques, such as discussing

respect, to calm the student. The BMT may also recommend an in -

school or out - of - school suspension.

5. Respondent was in a graduate program for guidance

counseling when offered the BMT posit i on. He accepted the

position because he felt the BMT role would help him better

understand the student population with emotion al/behavioral

disorders (EBD s ). As the BMT, Respondent was assigned

30 students with severe behavioral issues. Respondent also

continued some duties of the SPED Chair posit i on until

February 2014.

6. Respondent received uniformly satisfactory performanc e

evaluations throughout his teaching career with Petitioner . He

was not previously counseled or disciplined for any reason .

7. On April 16, 2014, Towanda Seabrook, the SPED

Chairperson , entered a seventh - grade classroom for observation

and saw two students being disruptive. N.H. was cursing the

classroom teacher , and D.J. was talking with other students.

Ms. Seabrook directed the se students to leave the classroom and

go with her to the SPED office/classroom.

8. The SPED office/classroom is in Alla pattah ' s

classroom 1165. It is a large room with several work stations

and a conference table that are used by the EBD counselors,

teachers , and the BMT. Attached and opening into the SPED

office/classroom are the offices of the SPED Chairperson and EBD

counselors.

9. After going with Ms. Seabrook to the SPED classroom,

N.H. directed his profanity and ranting at Ms. Seabrook calling

her a " m otherfucker, " " whore, " and " bitch " and repeatedly sa y i ng

" fuck you " to her. Ms. Seabrook attempted to defuse the

situation by explaining that she is a mother and asking N.H. how

would he like it if someone said these types of graphic things to

his mother.

10. Ms. Seabrook chose not to go " toe to toe " with N.H.

because she was aware that his exceptionality, EBD, causes him to

be unable to control his emotions and temper. N.H. is known to

curse and use profanity directed at teachers. Despite N.H. ' s

contin ued use of graphic language, Ms. Seabrook felt she had the

situation under control and attempted to complete some SPED

paperwork.

11. R espondent entered the classroom and heard N.H . ' s

barrage of profanity and aggression directed at Ms. Seabrook.

Respondent was familiar with N.H. due to N.H. ' s history of being

disrespectful to teachers, running out of class, name calling,

defiance , and fighting. Respondent worked with N.H. on an almost

daily basis attempting to help N.H. stay in school and modif y his

behavior to facilitate learning. Respondent described N.H. as

one of the most difficult students with whom he was assigned to

work.

12. Because the BMT is supposed to be the first line of

response to a belligerent and disruptive EBD student, Respon dent

immediately tried to diffuse the situation by reasoning with N.H.

N.H. proceeded to call Respondent (an African - American male)

" Nigger, " " Ho " (whore), " pussy, " " punk, " and repeatedly said

" fuck you. " This tirade by N.H. went on for almost 45 minutes .

During this time, N.H. and D.J. sat at the conference table in

the classroom.

13. Throughout the 2013 - 2014 school year, Respondent had

tried numerous strategies to assist N.H. in controlling his

behavior and temper at school - Î all with no success. On

April 16, 2014, after listening to N.H. verbally abuse

Ms. Seabrook and himself, Respondent decided to use an unorthodox

strategy to get N.H. to understand the gravity of his words and

to calm down.

14. Respondent asked N.H. if he knew what " fucking " mean s.

N.H. responded "a dick inside a pussy." Respondent replied, " A

dick inside a pussy? Maybe if you were fucking you wouldn ' t

behave this way, " implying that if N.H. was having sex, perhaps

he would be better able to control his emotions at school.

15. Ms. Seabrook overheard this portion of the conversation

and it made her uncomfortable so she left the room. She believed

this method used by Respondent was inappropriate and not likely

to be successful , and she intended to talk to Respondent about it

bef ore advising the principal. Notably, Ms. Seabrook did not

feel the need to intervene or immediately report the conversation

and testified that in response to N.H. ' s provocation, she may

also have said " fuck you " back to N.H.

16. This graphic discussion w as also overheard by Deborah

Phillips, an EBD counselor , who was in an adjacent office with

the door open . After N.H. called Respondent a " pussy, "

Respondent asked N.H. if he knew what one was, had ever seen one

or knew what to do with one. Ms. Phillips did not intervene or

report the conversation. According to Ms. Phillips, this

extremely graphic and profane interaction between N.H. and

Respondent was only a minute or two. Ms. Phillips testified that

she would not go toe to toe with N.H. because she be lieved it

would only elevate the behavior.

17. While Respondent and N.H. were arguing , and Respondent

asked N.H. to define the words he was using, D.J. used his cell

phone to video and audio record approximately 25 seconds of the

conversation. In the rec ording , Respondent is heard telling N.H.

to spell " Ho. " N.H. answered " hoe , " and Respondent stated, " yea

nigga - Î that ' s what I thought. " During the brief recording, D.J.

is heard laughing in the background.

18. The conversation had the desired effect. N .H. started

laughing and immediately calmed down. Respondent was able to

escort N.H. to the principal ' s office where it was decided that

N .H. would not be suspended, but rather Respondent would drive

N.H. home. During the ride home, N.H. was calm and the re were no

further incidents or inappropriate discussions.

19. The following school day, D.J. ' s mother brought the

recording to the attention of the principal who initiated an

investigation. Respondent immediately expressed remorse and

regret that he used this unconventional method of defusing N.H . ' s

anger. Respondent admitted participating in the graphic dialogue

and acknowledged that it was inappropriate.

20. As a result of the investigation, Respondent was

s uspended effective June 19 , 2014, withou t pay and recommended

for termination from employment.

Findings of Ultimate Fact

21 . As discussed in greater detail below, Petitioner proved

Respondent violated S chool Board Policy 3210 , Standards of

Ethical Conduct , but failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of

the evidence that Respondent committed any of the other charged

offenses.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

22 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and the

subject matter of these proceedings pursuant to sections 120.569

and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

23 . Because the School Board, acting through the

superintendent, seeks to terminate Respondent ' s employment, which

does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the

School Board has the burden of proving the al legations in its

Am ended Notice of Specific Charges by a preponderance of the

evidence, as opposed to the more stringent standard of clear and

convincing evidence. See McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 678

So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. ,

571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade

Cnty. , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

24 . Section 1012.33(1)(a) , Florida Statutes, includes the

following definition of just cause to terminate a teacher ' s

profession al services contract:

Just cause includes, but is not limited to,

the following instances, as defined by rule

of the State Board of Education: immorality,

misconduct in office or being convicted or

found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty

to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any

crime involving moral turpitude.

25 . The Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges the

following: Respond ent committed misconduct in office in

violation of F lorida A dministrative C ode Rule 6A - 5.056(2); a

violation of School Board Policy 3210, the Standards of Ethical

Conduct; a violation of School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of

Ethics; and a violation of Schoo l Board Policy 3212, Student

Supervision and Welfare.

2 6 . Whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a

question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact

in the context of each alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington ,

480 So. 2d 15 0, 153 (Fla. 1985); McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d

387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d

489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

2 7 . 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.

28 . Consistent with its rulemaking authority, the State

Board of Education has defined " misconduct in office " in r ule 6A -

5.056(2), which reads in pertinent part as follows:

(2 ) " Misconduct in Office " 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 6B - 1.001, F.A.C.;

(b) A violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B -

1.006, 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.

Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct

29 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B - 1.001, renumbered

without change as rule 6A - 10.080, Code of Ethics, provides:

(1) The educator values the worth and

dignity of every person, the pursuit of

truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of

knowledge, and the nurture of democratic

citizenship. Essential to the achievement of

these standards are the freedom to learn and

to teach and the guarantee of equal

op portunity for all.

(2) The educator ' s primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the student ' s

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will seek

to exercise the best professio nal judgment

and integrity.

(3) Aware of the importance of maintaining

the respect and confidence of one ' s

colleagues, of students, of parents, and of

other members of the community, the educator

strives to achieve and sustain the highest

degree of ethical conduct.

30 . Rule 6B - 1.006, renumbered without change as rule 6A -

10.081, sets forth the Principles of Professional Conduct. The

School Board alleges that Respondent violated sections (3)(a) ,

(e) , and (f) of the rule, which read as follows:

(3) Obligation to the student requires that

the individual:

(a) Shall make reasonable effort to protect

the student from conditions harmful to

learning and/or to the student ' s mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

* * *

(e) Shall not intent ionally expose student

to unnecessary embarrassment or

disparagement.

(f) Shall not intentionally violate or deny

a student ' s legal rights.

31 . The School Board also alleges that Respondent violated

rule 6A - 10.081(5)(d) which provides:

(5) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the individual:

* * *

(d) Shall not engage in harassment or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably

interferes with an individual ' s performance

of professional or work responsibilities o r

with the orderly processes of education or

which creates a hostile, intimidating,

abusive, offensive, or oppressive

environment; and, further, shall make

reasonable effort to assure that each

individual is protected from such harassment

or discrimination .

32 . As was stated in Miami - Dade C ou nty Sch ool B oar d v.

Brenes , Case No. 06 - 1758, 2007 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 122 ,

*42 - 43 n.12 . (Fla. DOAH Feb. 27, 2007; Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.

Apr. 25, 2007):

Rule [6B -

violation of both the Ethics Code and the

Principles of Professional Education be

shown, not merely a violation of one or the

other. The precepts set forth in the Ethics

Code, however, are so general and so

obvi ously aspirational as to be of little

practical use in defining normative behavior.

It is one thing to say, for example, that

teachers must " strive for professional

growth. " See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B -

1.001(2). It is quite another to define the

behavior which constitutes such striving in a

way that puts teachers on notice concerning

what conduct is forbidden. The Principles of

Professional Conduct accomplish the latter

goal, enumerating specific " dos " and

" don ' ts. " Thus, it is concluded that while

any violation of one of the Principles would

also be a violation of the Code of Ethics,

the converse is not true. Put another way,

in order to punish a teacher for misconduct

in office, it is necessary but not sufficient

that a violation of a broad ideal articulated

in the Ethics Code be proved, whereas it is

both necessary and sufficient that a

violation of a specif ic rule in the

Principles of Professional Conduct be proved.

It is the necessary and sufficient condition

to which the text refers.

33 . While it is undisputed that Respondent did not exercise

his " best professional judgment " during the incident in quest ion,

his actions did not violate the Principles of Professional

Conduct.

34 . Contrary to P etitioner ' s assertion, R espondent did not

fail " to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning

and/or to the student ' s mental and/or physical health and/ or

safety. " By the time R espondent interacted with N.H. and D.J.,

both students had already been removed from the classroom

learning environment due to their own misconduct. Petitioner

presented no evidence to suggest that the brief, albeit profane

and g raphic , language used by Respondent, in any way jeopardized

either students ' mental or physical health or safety. Rather,

the credible evidence, including the short video clip, shows that

both students were already familiar with the terminology and

thought the exchange was humorous.

35 . Similarly, Respondent ' s actions did not intentionally

expose a student to " unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. "

Respondent merely parroted back N.H . ' s own graphic language in an

effort to d e fuse N.H. ' s appar ent anger. No evidence was

presented that either student was unnecessarily embarrassed or

consider ed themselves somehow " disparaged " by the comments of

Respondent . A lthough the comment of R espondent regarding N .H . ' s

in a bility to spell the slang term for " whore " could be construed

as an attempt to belittle the student, no evidence was presented

to suggest that the student considered it as such.

36 . Nor did Respondent ' s conduct intentionally violate or

deny the students legal rights or constitute " harassme nt or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes " with the

" orderly process of education or which created a hostile,

intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment. "

37 . The use of the word " nigger " is highly inflammatory in

any environment and not appropriate under any circumstances in a

school setting. As discussed in Motley vac t o r Supply Co. ,

32 F. Supp . 2d 1026 , 1057, n.13 . (S.D. Ind. 1998) , " P erhaps no

single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment

and create an abusive working environment th an the use of an

unambiguously racial epithet such as ' nigger ' by a supervisor in

the presence of his subordinates. " The same is true in an

educational setting between a teache r and a student.

38. However, one utterance , standing alone, is

insufficient to create a " hostile environment, " particularly when

the student was the first to use the epithet. The evaluation of

" hostile environment " claims requires an appraisal of the

t otality of the circumstances. This examination includes

" consideration of the frequency of the discriminatory conduct;

its severity; whether it is physically threatening or

humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it

unreasonably interferes with . . . performance. " Harris v.

Forklift Systems Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 23, 126 L. Ed . 2d 296, 114

S. Ct. 367 (1993).

39. In the instant case, the evidence reflected a one - time

inappropriate interaction between R espondent and a student in the

presence of another student. It was in no way physically

threatening or humiliating. The student, an African - American

male, was the first to use the racial epithet directed towards

the teacher, also an African - American male. While highly

inappropriate, in co ntext , this dialogue between R espondent and

the student does not rise to the level of creating an actionable

hostile environment or constitute unlawful discrimination on the

basis of race in violation of rule 6A - 10.081(5)(d).

School Board Rules

40. The obligati ons of the teacher towards a student

contained in School B oard P olicy 3210.01 , Code of E thics, mirror

the language of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A - 10.081. For the reasons

discussed above, Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a

preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated School

Board Policy 3210.01.

41. Among other things, School Board Policy 3210(A)(21) ,

Standards of Ethical Conduct, provides that teachers shall " not

use abusive and/or profane language or display unseemly conduct

in the workplace. " It is undisputed that Respondent used the

profane words " fuck, " " ho, " " nigga , " and " pussy. " Accordingly,

Pe titioner proved Respondent ' s violation of School Board

P olicy 3210. However, placing this infraction in context, this

de minimis rule violation does not rise to the level of

" misconduct in office " sufficient to support a determination of

" just cause " for termination. See Abrams v. Seminole Cnt y. Sch.

Bd. , 73 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)(excessive use of profanity

in educational setting on one occasion was not sufficient to

impair the teacher ' s effectiveness in the school system such that

dismissal was appropriate or warranted).

42. Although the evidence presented was insufficient to

constitute " just cause " for termination, R espondent ' s rule

violation should not go unpunished. The safety of the students

and the integrity of the educational setting are paramount.

Precedent exists for imposing discipline short of termination on

school system personnel for rule violations that do not rise to

the level of misconduct. See Broward Cnty . Sch . Bd . v . Alfonso

Joseph , Case No. 13 - 0490TTS ( Fla. DOAH July 8, 2013; Broward

C n ty . Sch . Bd . Aug . 6, 2013 ) (teacher ' s use of profanity resulted

in suspension without pay rather than termination for rule

violation that did not rise to level of " just cause " ).

43. Here, in using profanity and graphic language directed

towards the student, Respondent admittedly failed to exercise his

best pr ofessional judgment. However, R espondent had not

previously engaged in such conduct and his earnest remorse

indicates he is unlikely to again engage in similar conduct. 1/

Respondent ' s conduct did not inflict harm or physical damage on

the students , and he did not derive any pecuniary or other self -

gain from his conduct. R espondent has been employed by

P etitioner as a teacher for 14 years without any prior discipline

and re ceived uniformly satisfactory evaluations.

44. Under these circumstances, t he undersigned recommends

that R espondent be suspended without pay through the end of the

first semester of the 2014 - 2015 school year. This penalty takes

into account that R espond ent ' s conduct , in using profanity and a

racial epithet directed towards the student , was inappropriate

under any circumstances - - even the extremely challenging ones

under which he found himself that day -- but also places the

conduct in perspective in relatio n to R espondent ' s excellent,

otherwise incident - free teaching career and record of dedication

to improving himself in the profession.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that P etitioner, Miami - Dade County School

B oard, enter a final order: (1) finding that just cause does not

exist to terminate R espondent ' s employment; and (2) imposing

punishment consisting of suspension without pay from employment

through the end of the first semester of the 2014 - 2015 school

year for violation of School Board P olicy 3210 that does not

amount to misconduct in office.

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November , 201 4 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

MARY LI CREASY

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 20th day of November , 201 4 .

ENDNOTE

1/ A downward adjustment in penalty based upon a wrongdoer ' s

remorse is appropriate. See Raymond Baker v. Dep ' t of Child . &

Fam . Servs. , Case No. 97 - 4495 ( Fla. DOAH Feb . 4, 1998; D CF

Mar . 16, 1998 ) (DCF adopted the ALJ ' s R ecommended O rder in toto

granting an exemption from disqualification for employment in a

position of special trust - based in part due to petitioner ' s

remorse regarding the misdemeanor battery incident that gave rise

to his disqualification); Eric J. Smith, as Comm ' r of Educ . v.

Leonard Wayne Budd , Case No. 11 - 2245PL ( Fla. DOAH Oct . 17, 2011;

D OE Jan . 23, 2012 ) (Educator ' s certificate should not be

disciplined for turning over a student ' s desk to awaken student.

Teacher imm ediately and repeatedly expressed remorse for his

actions , and this was an isolated incident).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Cristina Rivera Correa, Esquire

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue , Suite 430

Miami, Florida 33132

(eServed)

Branden M. Vicari, Esquire

Law Offices of Branden Vicari

29605 U.S. Highway 19 , North , Suite 110

Clearwater, Florida 33761

(eServed)

Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

T allahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Alberto M. Carvalho , Superintendent

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912

Miami, Florida 33132

(eServed)

Pam Stewart, Commissioner

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.