16-003077PL Pam Stewart, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Kenneth Atkinson Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, December 7, 2016.

Summary: Petitioner proved that Respondent violated the Principals of Professional Conduct, though the violation was minor and without notice. Recommend a reprimand.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAM STEWART , AS COMMISSIONER OF

EDUCATION ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 1 6 - 3 077 PL

KENNETH ATKINSON ,

Respondent .

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case was heard on September 14 , 201 6 , by video

teleconference at locations in Tallahassee and Pensacola,

Florida, before E. Gary Early, an Administrative Law Judge

assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. David Holder, Esquire

J. David Holder, P.A.

387 Lakeside Drive

Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435

For R espondent: Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire

Levine and Stivers, LLC

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent violat ed section 1012.795 (1)(j) , Florida

Statutes , and Florida Administrative Code R ule 6A - 10.081 (3)(a) ,

as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the

appropriate penalty.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 1 2 , 2016 , the Commissioner of Education

e xecuted an Administrative Complaint against Respondent which

alleged that , Ð[ o ] n or about March 6, 2014, Respondent made an

inappropriate and upsetting comment in front of his class and

disclosed confidential medical information of T.L., a fourteen -

year - old female student. During a discussion on diabetes,

Re spondent stated to the class, ÒYour pancreas can die and you

could go into sugar shock; go into a coma and die, like (T.L.)

could, Ó or words to that effect.Ñ

On March 7, 2016 , Respondent timely filed an election of

rights by which he requested a formal hearing. The matter was

referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an

evidentiary hearing.

The hearing was scheduled for August 2, 2016. Upon motion,

and for good cause shown, the hearing was continued until

September 1 4 , 2016 .

On Sept ember 8, 2016, the parties filed their Joint

Statement of Stipulated Facts, which contained seven

stipulations of fact, each of which is adopted and incorporated

herein.

The final hearing was convened on September 14, 2016 , as

scheduled. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the

testimony of E.O., C.P., and C.B., who were students in

RespondentÓs class at the time of the alleged incident; Sharon

Patrick , who was , at the time of the alleged incident, p rincipal

of Sims Middle School ( Sims Midd le ) ; Ryan Stokes, a ssistant

p rincipal of Sims Middle; and Connie Carnley, who was , at the

time of the alleged incident, d irector of Employee Evaluations

and Compliance and Accountability for the Santa Rosa County

School District. Ms. Patrick and Mr. Stokes also testified i n

rebuttal. PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 , 9 through 11, 15 through 18,

24, 30, and 31 were received into evidence. PetitionerÓs

Exhibit 1 is a summary of stud ent interviews conducted by

Mr. Stokes . No one was in att endance other than the student

being interviewed and Mr. Stokes. The investigative summary is

almost entirely hearsay upon hearsay and has been given little

evidentiary weight , except as the information may be used for a

purpose other than proving the tru th of the matters asserted.

In h is case - in - chief, Respondent testified on h is own

behalf . Respondent Ós Exhibit s 1 and 3 were received in

evidence . 1/

At the conclusion of the dayÓs proceedings, the record was

held open to allow for the filing of the testimony of the

complaining student , T.L., and her mother, and of the responsive

testimony of Respondent.

A one - volume Transcript of the September 14, 2 016,

proceedings was filed on October 3, 2016.

The deposition testimony of T.L. and her mother was filed

on October 26, 2016. RespondentÓs deposition testimony was

filed on November 7, 2016, whereupon the record was closed. T he

deposition transcripts have been accepted in lieu of live

testimony, and have been given the evidentiary weight as if the

deponents offered their testimony at the final hearing.

The parties having requested 20 days from the date of the

last filed dep osition transcript for filing post - hearing

submittals, November 28, 2016 , was established as the date for

filing proposed recommended orders.

Both parties timely filed P roposed Recommended O rders which

have been duly considered by the undersigned in the preparation

of this Recommended Order.

The actions that form the basis for the Administrative

Complaint occurred in Ma rch 2014. This proceeding is governed

by the law in effect at the time of the commission of the acts

alleged to warrant discipline. See McCloskey v. DepÓt of Fin.

Servs. , 115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Accordingly, all

statutory and regulatory references are to the ir 2013 version,

unless otherwise specified.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state

agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or

suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to

teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and

1012.796 , Florida Statutes (2016) . § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat .

2. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged

with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints

against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificate s and

who are alleged to have violated stan dards of teacher conduct.

§ 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat .

3 . Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 962539 ,

covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other

Languages, Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, and Reading ,

which is valid through June 30, 2017. During the 2013 - 2014

school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at

Sims Middle . He continued teaching at Sims Middle for the 2014 -

2015 school year , and currently teaches at Wood ham Middle School

in E scambia County .

4 . Among his teaching assignments, Respondent taught an

eighth - grade honors science class during the school dayÓs first

period. Among his students in that class was T.L.

5 . T.L had, in 2010 , been diagnosed with Type I diabetes.

By her eighth - grade year , T.L. was an Ðindependent diabetic,Ñ

using an insulin pump and capable of carrying her meter and

lancing device with her.

6 . On March 6, 201 4 , d uring a discussion of the

consequences of the failure of various organs, Respondent made a

comment that was substantially similar to that alleged in the

Administrative Complaint, i.e., ÐYour pancreas can die and you

could go into sugar shock; go into a coma and die, like (T.L.)

could.Ñ Respondent was standing in front of T.L.Ós desk at the

t ime. His position meant that the students were, or should have

had their attention directed to Respondent. Thus, his statement

would have been obvious.

7 . The investigation performed by Mr. Stokes indicated

that comments similar to that involving T.L . Ðare often madeÑ by

Respondent ; that T.L. likely took the statement Ðthe wrong wayÑ

due to RespondentÓs Ðdry sense of humor Ñ ; that Respondent Ðoften

makes comments trying to be funny but it usually just makes

people feel weirdÑ ; and that he has made similar comments

regarding other students in the past. The statements contained

in Mr. StokesÓ report are not accepted for the truth of the

matters asserted, but are used herein as evidence of

RespondentÓs overly loose and unsuccessfully ÐfunnyÑ teaching

style .

8 . The statements contained in Mr. StokesÓ report also

support a finding, made herein, that Respondent did not single

T.L. out for disparate treatment, but (misguidedly) used her

condition , with benign intent , to reinforce the importance of

his lesson plan. In that regard, even T.L.Ós mother, who was

aggravated by the incident, admitted that the instruction as to

what can happen when oneÓs pancreas dies Ðwould have been

appropriate in the classroom,Ñ with her concern being the

personalization of the instruction. However, she acknowledged

that RespondentÓs ÐunprofessionalÑ comments had previously been

directed to other students, and were not restricted to T.L.

9 . The evidence suggests that T.L.Ós diabetic condition

was not unknown . T.L.Ós close circle of friends knew, having

been told by T.L. C.P. testified that T.L.Ós diabetes was

fairly common knowledge. On at least one occasion prior to

RespondentÓs statement, the alarm on T.L.Ós insulin pump went

off during class. Responden t asked the class whether the sound

was a cell phone, to which T.L. replied ÐOh, that is my pump,

sorry,Ñ and turned the alarm off. T.L. carried the pump in her

pocket , and she testified that the other students Ðprobably just

thought I had something weird in my pocket, but didnÓt really

know what it was.Ñ T.L.Ós mother testified that Ð her tubing was

usually visible, depending on what she was wearing.Ñ Finally,

the topic of T.L.Ós award - winning science project was the effect

of contaminants at the site of a finger stick when testing oneÓs

blood for glucose. While there was no evidence that T.L.Ós

diabetes was the subject of a general announcement, or that it

was a topic of particular concern amongst her peers, the

preponderance of the eviden ce indicates that it was unlikely

that her condition was unknown to those in her class .

10 . The comment that forms the basis for the

A dministrative Complaint, though related to the class lesson

plan, was inappropriate and unnecessary. Despite the fact that

T.L.Ós diabetes was not unknown to her peers, RespondentÓs act

of using her as an example was embarrassing to her.

11 . RespondentÓs testimony that his use of T.L. as an

example of an unchecked diabetic reaction was purely

happenstance is not plausib le. The evidence is con vin cing that

Respondent was well aware of T.L.Ós diabetes, and used her as an

example of someone who had the condition that was the topic of

discussion. However, there was no evidence that Respondent made

the statement maliciously , or with the intent to embarrass or

humiliate T.L.

12 . Prior to the incident in question, T.L. , along with

other students , used her telephone with RespondentÓs permission

in his class after completing Florida Writes testing, and

Snapchatted a video to a friend. That became known when the

friend asked Respondent why students in her later class period

could not use their phones in similar circumstances. Respondent

verbally admonished both T.L. and her friend , with his primary

concern seeming to be that h e could get in trouble for having

allowed his first - period students to use their phones in class .

T.L. was not written up for the incident, and there was no

adverse effect on her grades.

13 . On March 5, 201 4 , Respondent received a l etter of

reprimand from Sims Middle regarding the incident of allowing

students to use telephones in class . Although the incident that

forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint occurred on

March 6, 201 4 , there is insufficient evidence to establish a

causal connection between the two. The suggestion that the

incident in question was retaliation, or was otherwise

precipitated by the Snapchat incident, is not accepted.

14 . On March 28, 201 4 , Respondent received a letter of

reprimand from Sims Midd le for the incident in question. Other

than the two reprimands described herein , both having been

issued in the span of little more than three weeks, he ha d not

been the subject of any previous disciplinary actions during h is

eleven - year period of employment with the Santa Rosa County

School District.

15 . There was no evidence that T.L.Ós mental health was

actually affected by the incident. The testimony of T.L. and

her mother is evidence that s he was, and remains, a bright,

articulate, well - adj usted , straight - A student. However, rule

6A - 10.081(3)(a) Ð does not require evidence that Respondent

actually harmed [T.L.] 's health or safety. Rather, it requires

a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to

protect the student from suc h harm. Ñ Gerard Robinson , as Comm Ór

of Educ . vs. William Randall Aydelott , Case No. 12 - 0621PL ¶ 76

( Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the

circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that

Respondent , though without specific intent or malice, failed to

m ake reasonable effort to protect T.L. from embarrassment, a

condition reasonably contemplated to be harmful to her mental

health pursuant to rule 6A - 10.081(3)(a) .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction

16 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

t he parties thereto pursuant to s ections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (2016) .

B. Standards

17 . Section 1012.795(1), which establishes the violations

t hat subject a holder of an educator certificate to disciplinary

sanctions , provides , in pertinent part, that :

(1) The Education Practices Commission may

suspend the educator certificate of any

person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3)

for up to 5 years, thereby denying that

person the right to teach or otherwise be

employed by a district school board or

public school in any capacity requiring

direct contact with students for that period

of time, after which the holder may return

to teac hing as provided in subsection (4);

may revoke the educator certificate of any

person, thereby denying that person the

right to teach or otherwise be employed by a

district school board or public school in

any capacity requiring direct contact with

student s for up to 10 years, with

reinstatement subject to the provisions of

subsection (4); may revoke permanently the

educator certificate of any person thereby

denying that person the right to teach or

otherwise be employed by a district school

board or public school in any capacity

requiring direct contact with students; may

suspend the educator certificate, upon an

order of the court or notice by the

Department of Revenue relating to the

payment of child support; or may impose any

other penalty provided by la w, if the

person:

* * *

(j) Has violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession prescribed by State Board of

Education rules.

18 . Rule 6A - 10.081( 3 )( a ) 2 / provides that:

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 studentÓs mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

C. Burden and Standard of Proof

19 . Petitioner bears the burden of proving the specific

allegations of wrongdoing that support the charges alleged in

the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence

before disciplinary action may be taken against the professional

license of a teacher . Tenbroeck v. Castor , 640 So. 2d 164, 167

(Fla. 1 st DCA 1994); § 120.57(1)(j), Fla . Stat . ; see also DepÓt

of Banking & Fin. , Div. of Sec. & Inv. Prot. v. Osborne Stern

and Co. , 670 S o. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington ,

510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Pou v. DepÓt of Ins. and Treasurer ,

707 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

20 . Clear and convincing evidence Ðrequires more proof

than a Òpreponderance of the evidenceÓ but less than Òbeyond and

to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. ÓÑ In re Graziano ,

696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). The clear and convincing

evidence level of proof

[E] ntails both a qualitative and

quantitative standard. The evidence must be

credible; the memories of the witnesses must

be clear and without confusio n; and the sum

total of the evidence must be of sufficient

weight to convince the trier of fact without

hesitancy.

C lear and convincing evidence requires

that the evidence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the

witnesses testify must be dist inctly

remembered; the testimony must be

precise and explicit and the witnesses

must be lacking in confusion as to the

facts in issue. The evidence must be

of such weight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief

or conviction, witho ut hesitancy, as to

the truth of the allegations sought to

be established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994) ( quoting, with

approval, Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA

1983) ) ; see also In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005).

"Although this standard of proof may be met where the evidence

is in conflict, it seems to preclude evidence that is

ambiguous." Westinghouse Electric Corp., Inc. v. Shuler Bros.,

Inc. , 590 So. 2d 986, 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

21 . Sec tion 1012.795 is penal in nature and must be

strictly construed , with any ambiguity construed against

Petitioner. Penal statutes must be construed in terms of their

literal meaning, and words used by the Legislature may not be

expanded to broaden the application of such statutes. Latham v.

Fl a . CommÓ n on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997 ); see

also Beckett v. DepÓt of Fin. S ervs . , 982 So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla.

1st DCA 2008 ) ; Dyer v. DepÓt of Ins. & Treas . , 585 So. 2d 1009,

1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

22 . The allegations set forth in the Administrative

Complaint are those upon which this proceeding is predicated.

Trevisani v. DepÓt of Health , 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2005) ; s ee also Cottrill v. DepÓt of Ins. , 685 So. 2d 1371,

1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Due process prohibits the imposition

of disciplinary sanctio ns based on matters not specifically

alleged in the notice of charges. See Pilla v. Sch. Bd. of Dade

Cnty. , 655 So. 2d 1312, 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Texton v.

Hancock , 359 So. 2d 895, 897 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); see also

Sternberg v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg . , 465 So. 2d 1324, 1325 (Fla.

1st DCA 1985) ( Ð For the hearing officer and the Board to have

then found Dr. Sternberg guilty of an offense with which he was

not charged was to deny him due process. Ñ ). Thus, the scope of

this proceeding is properly restric ted to those issues of fact

and law as framed by Petitioner. M.H. v. DepÓt of Child. & Fam.

Servs. , 977 So. 2d 755, 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

D . Counts 1 and 2 - Section 1012.795(1)(j) and Rule 6A -

10.081(3 )( a )

23 . Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint charge d

Respondent with violating section 1012.795(1)(j) by having

violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the

Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education

Rules. Thus, Count 1 does not constitut e an independent

violation, but rather is dependent upon a corresponding

violation of the rules constituting the Principles of

Professional Conduct.

24 . Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint charge d

Respondent with violating rul e 6A - 10.081( 3 )( a ) by f ailing to

make reasonable effort to protect h is students from conditions

harmful to learning , to their mental or physical health , or to

their safety .

25 . T he evidence in this case demonstrates that Respondent

inadvisably used T.L. as an example in a classroom discussion of

a topic reasonably related to RespondentÓs lesson plan. As

found herein, there was no competent, substantial, or persuasive

evidence to demonstrate that the statement was the result of

malice or retribution, and no evidence th at it was made with the

intent to embarrass or humiliate T.L. Nonetheless, the

statement was careless, and unnecessarily led to T.L.Ós

embarrassment . A s such, Respondent failed to make reasonable

effort to protect T.L. from a condition reasonably contemp lated

to be harmful to her mental health in violation of rule 6A -

10.081(3)(a).

E. Penalty

26 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 6 B - 11.007(2)

establishes the range of penalties for violations of various

statutory and regulatory provisions as follows:

(2) The following disciplinary guidelines

shall apply to violations of the below

listed statutory and rule violations and to

the described actions which may be basis for

determining violations of particular

statutory or rule provisions. Each of the

follo wing disciplinary guidelines shall be

interpreted to include Ðprobation,Ñ

ÐRecovery Network Program,Ñ Ðletter of

reprimand,Ñ Ðrestrict scope of practice,Ñ

Ðfine,Ñ and Ðadministrative fees and/or

costsÑ with applicable terms thereof as

additional penalty pr ovisions. The terms

ÐsuspensionÑ and ÐrevocationÑ shall mean any

length of suspension or revocation,

including permanent revocation, permitted by

statute, and shall include a comparable

period of denial of an application for an

educatorÓs certificate.

2 7 . S ection 1012.795(1)(j) is not one of the specific

statutory provisions listed in the penalty guidelines . Rather,

it is incorporated in r ule 6B - 11.007(2) (j) , as among the

Ð [o] ther violations of Section 1012.795, F.S. ,Ñ with a guideline

penalty of Ð Probation Î Revocation or such penalty as is

required by statute .Ñ 3/

28 . R ule 6B - 11.007(2) (i)16. lists a guideline penalty of

ÐProbation Î Revocation Ñ for Ð[f] ailure to protect or supervise

students Ñ in violation of rule 6A - 10.081 (3)(a) . 4 /

29 . Rule 6B - 11.007(3) establishes aggravating and

mitigating factors to be applied to penalties calculated under

the guidelines .

30 . The facts of this case demonstrate that there are no

aggravating factors. The following mitigating factors exist:

Rule 6 B - 11.007(3) ( a) - The severity of the

offense, being an uncalculated but careless

error, was very mild;

Rule 6B - 11.007(3)(b) - There was no danger

to the public;

Rule 6B - 11.007(3) ( c) - There were no

repetitions;

Rule 6B - 11.007(3) ( e) - Respondent has neve r

before been subject to discipline by the

Commission;

Rule 6B - 11.007(3) ( f) - Respondent is in his

12th year of teaching;

Rule 6B - 11.007(3) ( g) and (r) - Given the

lack of any effect on T.L.Ós academic

advancement, and her continued progress as

an Ðexcellent student,Ñ there was no actual

damage, physical or otherwise, caused by the

violation , and no actual mental harm .

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the F indings of F act and C onclusions

of L aw reached herein , it is RECOMMENDED that the Education

Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent

violated rule 6A - 10.081(3)( a ). It is further recommended that

Respondent be issued a reprimand.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December , 2016 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

E. GARY EARLY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, F lorida 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 7th day of December, 2016 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ RespondentÓs Exhibit 4 was identified (T r . 125: 14 - 22) but was

not moved into evidence. Thus, it is not part of the record of

this proceeding.

2/ The gravamen of this case is almost entirely depend e nt upon the

embarrassment experienced by T.L. as a result of RespondentÓs

careless use of her condition as an example. Why Petitioner did

not allege a violation of rule 6A - 10.0 81( 3 )(e), which makes it a

violation to Ð intentionally expose a student to unnecessary

embarrassment or disparagement , Ñ was not explained. Nonetheless,

that provision was not pled and cannot form the basis of either a

violation or a penalty in this case.

3/ It should be noted that numerous serious infractions have the

same penalty guideline range of ÐProbation - RevocationÑ as does the

generic ÐotherÑ category , including: obtaining or attempting to

obtain a Florida educatorÓs certificate by fraudulent means; being

incompetent to teach or to perform duties as an educator; b eing

guilty of gross immoralit y or an act involving moral turpitude;

engaging in personal conduct which seriously reduces effectiveness

as a district school board employee; misappropriation of money;

using a position for personal gain; s exual misconduct; a lcohol or

drug - related offense s; p ossession of controlled substances;

i mproperly assisting a student with standardized testing; engaging

in inappropriate electronic communications, transmissions, or

downloads involving gambling; and failing to report child abuse.

Each of these listed infractions is far more serious than the minor

incident in this case, one taken with no intent to embarrass or

humiliate the student.

In addition to the foregoing, other far more serious

infractions than the one proven here include a reprimand within the

recommended penalty , including: committing criminal misdemeanors;

misuse of corporal punishment; harassment or discrimination of

students on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, origin,

political beliefs, handicap, sexual orientation, or family status;

harassment or discrimination which interferes with an individualÓs

performance or work; and improperly assisting a student with

testing.

In short, the effort to establish a Ðcatch - allÑ category for

all unlisted violations , with a penalty range of ÐProbation -

Revocation , Ñ has in this case resulted in a guideline that is

disproportionate to the nature and severity of the offense.

4 / Rule 6A - 10.081 was transferred from Florida Administrative Code

R ule 6B - 1 .006 on January 11, 2013. As will be discu ssed herein ,

the penalty guidelines rule continues to cite to rule 6B - 1.006 in

setting penalty ranges. R ule 6A - 10.081(3)(a) is substantively

identical to the last iteration of rule 6B - 1.006(3)(a). Since the

facts alleged and the text of the rule allegedly violated were

clear for Count 2 , and since there is no evidence that Respondent

was misled or harmed by the citation in the penalty guidelines to a

rule that is no longer in effect as numbered, the penalty guideline

in rule 6B - 11.007(2) (i)16. sha ll be applied to the violation of

rule 6A - 10.081(3)(a).

COPIES FURNISHED :

Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 316

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

J. David Holder, Esquire

J. David Holder, P.A.

387 Lakeside Drive

Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435

(eServed)

Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire

Levine and Stivers, LLC

245 East Virginia Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief

Bureau of Professional

Practices Services

D epartment of E ducation

Turlington Building, Suite 224 - E

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.