16-003856PL Pam Stewart, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Barbara Warren Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, November 17, 2016.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent engaged in conduct that reduced her effectiveness, or failed to make reasonable effort to protect her students. The Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAM STEWART , AS COMMISSIONER OF

EDUCATION ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 1 6 - 3856 PL

BARBARA WARREN ,

Respondent .

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case was heard on September 16 , 201 6 , in Ta vares ,

Florida, before E. Gary Early, a designated Administrative Law

Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

For Respondent: James L. Homich, Esquire

621 East 5th Avenue

Mount Dora, Florida 32757

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether there are sufficient grounds for the imposition of

disciplinary sanctions against RespondentÓs teaching certificate

and , if so, the nature of the sanctions .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 16, 2016 , the Commissioner of Education

e xecuted an Administrative Complaint against Respondent which

alleged that , Ð[d] uring the 2013/2014 school year, Respondent

failed to maintain proper control of her classroom. As a result

of Respondent's failure, students walked in and out of her

classroom without Respondent keeping track of them and students

were in and out of their seats while in the classroom. On or

about May 16, 2014, D.L. and J.G., two male students in

Respondent's class, lit and smoked a cigar during class in the

presence of R espondent . Ñ 1/

On March 17, 2016 , Respondent timely filed an election of

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

referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an

evidentiary hearing.

The hearing was scheduled for September 16, 2016, and was

convened as scheduled.

At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

Respondent , Barbara Warren (Petitioner or Ms. Warren); Barbara

Longo, the principal of Oak Park Middle School (Oak Park) ; and

Quiana Peterson, who was, at all times relevant to this

proceeding, the Employee Relations Manager for the Lake County

School District. PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 , 17, 24, 25, 27 - 30,

35, 36(A) - (F), and 37 - 42 were received into evidence.

Pet itionerÓs Exhibit 1, the investigative summary, is almost

entirely hearsay upon hearsay and has been given little

evidentiary weight. Exhibit 37 i s a cell phone video of the

May 16, 2014 , cigar - smoking incident.

In her case - in - chief, Respondent testified on h er own

behalf and presented the testimony of Tonya Pickens, who was, at

all times relevant to this proceeding, an exceptional student

educational instructor at Oak Park. Respondent Ós Exhibit s 22

and 44 were received in evidence .

A one - volume T ranscript of the proceedings was filed on

October 17, 2016 . Both parties thereafter 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 May 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 shall be to the 2013

versions, 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 standards of teacher conduct.

§ 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat .

3 . Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 484422,

covering the areas of b iology and m athematics, which is valid

through June 30, 2017. During the 2013 - 2014 school year,

Respondent was employed as a mathematics t eacher at Oak Park.

4 . Respondent worked at O ak Park from September 25, 2013 ,

to May 20, 2014. On May 21, 2014, Respondent was removed from

her classroom as a result of the May 16, 2014 , student - smoking

incident (the ÐincidentÑ) described herein and assigned to the

school district office in a non - instructional position.

Respondent was a first - year probationary teacher at Oak Park .

Due to the incident, RespondentÓs employment with the school

district was not renewed for the following school year.

R espondent is currently employed at Emerald High School in

Greenwood County, South Carolina.

5 . Respondent ha d not been the subject of any previous

complaints or disciplinary actions during her period of

employment.

6 . The first session of the Oak Park school day, extending

from 9:04 to 9:34 a.m., is called Knights Unite ( Ð KU Ñ ). KU is

described as :

[A] 30 minute period where healthy

relationships between the students, faculty

and staff of OPMS can be built . It is a

time set aside for mentoring, engaging

students with interactive activities to

build their character, interactive

activities to review content and to give

each student of Oak Park someone they can

trust and confide in.

7 . Respondent described the KU period as one in w hich she

could help students to make up work, help them with independent

study, allow students to meet with other teachers for help or

independent study, engage in certain mandated activities, e.g.,

bullyi ng lessons, and perform student - related administrative

tasks. Fridays were typically independent study days in which

students were allowed to make up work from the week.

8 . On Friday, May 16, 2014, during the KU period, students

were involved in independent study and with filling out required

address forms . Students needing to go to the media center, the

guidance office , the main office, or to meet with other teachers

during the KU period are given passes. A llowing students to

engage in those tasks , including issuing passes for students Ðto

get assistance or additional paperwork from a different teacherÑ

was not contrary to Oak Par k policy, n or did it violate any

standard. Except for the four students involved in the

incident, there was no evidence that any student left

R espondentÓs classroom without a pa ss.

9 . Petitioner suggested that the tasks being performed (or

that were supposed to be performe d) in RespondentÓs class on

May 16, 2014, were inconsistent with PetitionerÓs written KU

guidelines. Since th e activities being performed by students,

with the exception of those related to the incident, were not

alleged as violations in the Administrative Complaint,

compliance with the KU guidelines is not at issue. Furthermore,

the evidence demonstrates that activities , such as individual

mentoring or tuto ring and individual catch - up work , are an

app ropriate use of KU period time.

10 . According to Ms. Longo, there were 18 students in

RespondentÓs KU class on May 16, 2014. At the time of the

incident, each student had a n individual desk. Currently, as

depicted in the photographs in evidence, the classroom has been

reconfigured with tables that seat multiple students.

11 . At some point during the May 16, 2014, KU period, a

group of four of Respondent Ó s less responsible students huddled

f urtively in the back of the classroom . The two male students

involved , D.L. and J.G., l it the butt of a small ÐTiparelloÑ -

style cigar, and took a few quick puffs. They had their backs

to RespondentÓs desk and ducked down to conceal their actions .

One of the two female students, J.C., in order to preserve the

foolhardy act for posterity , took a cell phone video of the

incident. The length of the video was a total of one minute and

51 seconds.

12 . The cigar appeared to have been first lit at the 0:05

mark. T he y outhful miscreants did not intend to be discovered,

as evidenced by one studentÓs hushed statement that Ð I swear to

God if you show anybody that [unintelligible] snitch .Ñ That

their actions were not obvious is supported by the lack of

attention that they drew from other more conscientious students

in the class, who did not look up or react to the act of false

bravado.

13 . At the 0: 1 7 second mark, Respondent can be seen at her

des k at the front of the room attending to H.E., another student

who was not involved in the incident. H.E. was generally

positioned between Respondent and the cigar - smoking students,

shielding Respondent from their actions. Respondent was also in

the process of taking attendance. Ms. Longo testified that it

is appropriate for Respondent to be at her desk to perform those

tasks. Although Respondent and H.E. are only glimpsed at the

0:1 7 mark, it is not reasonable to conclude that H.E. simply

vanish ed at that point, exposing the four troublemakers to

RespondentÓs view. Rather, some seconds had to have passed

before H.E. moved away.

14 . The studentÓs efforts to hide the cigar and fan away

the smoke confirm their efforts to avoid detection. Although

J.G. cough ed, his proximity to the cell phone (one or two feet)

makes it impossible to tell how notic ea ble the cough would be

from a distance. A t the 0:25 mark , D.L. eyed the recording cell

phone and thr ew down with a devil - may - care Ð whazzup, whazzup.Ñ

15 . From roughly the 0:33 mark to the 0: 44 mark, the

youthful miscreants hurr ie dly hid the evidence and assume d an

attitude of casual insouciance . The video then went black from

the 0: 43 mark to the 0: 55 mark and , although the picture

returned, the cell phone was clearly being concealed from the

0: 55 mark to the 1 :03 mark. That thirty seconds of cover and

concealment is consistent with RespondentÓs testimony that she

got up and went over to the studentsÓ desk area .

16 . The video resumed at the 1:03 mark and , after a few

furtive sweeps of the area, clearly taken from a low vantage

point, again went black from the 1:11 to the 1:18 mark.

17 . At the 1:18 mark, the video resumed and , at the 1:22

mark, J.G. is seen lighting the half - inch butt with a Bic

lighter. The behavior of J.G. and D.L. demonstrate d a continued

effort to conceal their action s .

18 . At the 1: 30 mark, the video shows that the students

ha d been Ðbusted.Ñ J.G. , in a display of feigned innocence,

loudly proclaim ed Ðwhat is that smell?Ñ By the 1:35 mark,

Respondent ha d called J . G . and the owner of the phone to her

desk , and they dutifully complied . A n unidentified student

mention ed the word Ðperfume,Ñ and either J.G. or J.C. sp oke of

ÐcologneÑ in an obvi ous effort to explain the unusual aroma in

the room. At the 1:48 mark , Respondent advised J.C. that

Respondent would need her phone for the rest of the class.

Though occurring after the 1:51 end of the video, Respondent

successfully confiscated the phone , which Ms. Longo confirmed

was the appropriate course of action .

19 . Respondent indicated that she could momentarily smell

something unusual in the room, which she attributed variously to

incense, cologne, or deodorant. D ue to the pervasive musty and

m il d ewy smell in the class caused by a water leak and

chronically wet carpeting, along with her blocked sinuses, she

could not tell what it was. As stated convincingly by

Ms. Pickens, Ð there were different types of smells in there on

one day to the next de pending on whether or not they put the fan

in the classroom to dry out the carpet.Ñ

20 . T here was no evidence that Ms. Warren could see what

was occurring while taking attendance and consulting with the

student at her desk . 2 / PetitionerÓs speculation that Respondent

could have (or should have ) seen exactly what was happening at

the back of the room was just that - speculation.

21 . After J.C.Ós cell phone was confiscated by Respondent,

D.L. came up with several excuses as to why he should be allowed

to leave the classroom. His requests were denied. Thereafter,

as Respondent was calling the office to report the incident,

D.L. and J.G. , followed by the girls, J.C. and C.W. , left the

classroom without permission. Teachers are not allowed to

physically restrain students attempting to leave the classroom .

Rather, the teacher is to Ðpush the call button thatÓs in every

classroom immediately and say that so - and - so just walked out of

my class .Ñ Respondent complied with that expectation by calli ng

the office , which is an acceptable option . Since no

administrators were available, Respondent gave th e information

regarding the studentsÓ escape from the classroom to Ms. LongoÓs

secretary.

22 . It took a while for anyone to respond to RespondentÓs

call. The students returned to the classroom after about five

minutes. After the ir return, Mr. Justus , who was the schoolÓs

athletic director and ÐcoachÑ for the social studi es department,

and a membe r of Ms. LongoÓs Ðleadership team,Ñ came to the room.

Respondent wrote referrals on D.L. and J.G. , and the y left with

Mr. Justus .

23 . After the boys were taken from the classroom,

Respondent sent an email to Mr. Wade, the associate principal

and dean of discipline , and Mr. Justus to inquire about the

referral of the girls, J.C. and C.W., and to let them know that

she had J.C.Ós cell phone.

24 . Two peri o ds later, Mr. Wade came to RespondentÓs

classroom, at which time Respondent turned over J.C.Ós cell

phone to him. By that time, she had retrieved a cigar wrapper

from D.L.Ós desk, which was also turned over to Mr. Wade. 3 /

25 . Ms. Peterson concluded that Ð[n]o evidence exists to

show that Ms. Warren was ever a ware that students were actually

smoking a cigar in her class.Ñ She further testified that

Respondent ÐwasnÓt aware they were smoking. She thought

something was wrong, but that doesnÓt mean she knew that they

were smoking. That could mean that someoneÓs with something

li ke a piece of paper.Ñ

26 . On May 20, 2014, Respondent was removed from the

classroom and reassigned to the school district office.

27 . RespondentÓs inability to see exactly what was

occurring in the back of the classroom did not prevent her from

suspecting improper conduct by the students and acting on that

suspicion by appropriately requesting assistance from

administration, confiscating the cellular telephone of a

student , and investigating the matter herself to find the

wrapper.

28 . The tone of the A dministrative C omplaint gives the

impression that J.G. and D.L. put their feet up on their desks

and enjoyed a fine Cuban Presidente while under RespondentÓs

approving gaze. Nothing could be further from the truth. The

facts show that J.G. and D.L., in a manner that was as sneaky

and surreptitious as po s sible , lit the small cigar and, over the

course of approximately 28 seconds , took a few furtive puffs .

After putting it out and hiding the evidence, the miscreants

repeated the act for approximately 13 seconds before being

nabbed . The suggestion that Respondent neglected her duties,

failed to make reasonable effort to protect her student s from

conditions harmful to learning o r to their mental or physical

health or their safety , or engaged in personal conduct that

seriously reduce d her effectiveness as a teacher is simply not

supported by the facts of this case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction

29 . 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

30 . 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:

* * *

(g) Upon investigation, has been found

guilty of personal conduct that seriously

reduces that personÓs effectiveness as an

employee of the district school board.

* * *

(j) Has violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession prescribed by State Board of

Education rules.

31 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081( 3 )( a ),

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

32 . 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).

33 . 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 confusion; and the sum

total of the evidence must be of sufficient

weight to convince the trier of fac t 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 distinctly

remembered; the testimony must be

precise and explicit and the witnesses

must be lackin g 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, without 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).

34 . 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).

D. Count 1 - Section 1012.795(1)(g)

35 . Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint alleged that,

as a result of the facts alleged :

The Respondent is in violation of Section

1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes in that

Respondent has been found guilty of personal

con duct which seriously reduces

effectiveness as an employee of the s chool

b oard.

36 . Section 1012.795(1)(g) use s the term ÐguiltÑ when

describing the personal conduct that would rise to the level of

a violation. The use of the term could imply that there be a

conviction of a crime involving a sta ndard of personal conduct

in order for Respondent to have Ðbeen found guilty.Ñ However, a

long string of administrative orders, going back many years, has

applied a broader construction of the term to mean a more

general breach of standards of personal co nduct that seriously

reduce a RespondentÓs effectiveness as a teacher. See, e.g. ,

Pam Stewart, as Comm'r of Educ. v. Roy Shewchuk , Case No. 13 -

1086PL (Fla. DOAH July 17, 2013; Fla. EPC Oct. 10, 2013); John

Winn, as Comm'r of Educ. v. Richard Allen , Case No. 13 - 0140PL

(Fla. DOAH June 4, 2013; Fla. EPC Sept. 12, 2013); John L. Winn,

as Comm'r of Educ. v. Michelle OÓNeill , Case No. 08 - 1597PL (Fla.

DOAH June 30, 2008; Fla. EPC Oct. 15, 2008); John L. Winn, as

Comm'r of Educ. v. Daniel Ray Madril , Case No. 0 7 - 3498 PL (Fla.

DOAH Nov. 9, 2007 ; Fla. EPC Mar. 6 , 2008) ; Charlie Crist, as

Comm'r of Educ. v. Heather Cotton , Cas e No. 02 - 3942PL (Fla. DOAH

Apr. 11, 2003; Fla. EPC June 12, 2003) .

37 . The evidence in this case demonstrates that Respondent

engaged in no action that could, in any realistic manner, be

considered to have seriously reduce d her effectiveness as an

employee of the Lake County School District. To the contrary,

Respondent acted quickly, deci sively, and effectively to end the

actions of the small group of miscreants huddled in the back of

the room, furtively puffing away on a small cigar. Despite

their efforts to conceal their actions, she was a ble to put a

stop to it in little more than a mi nute, and to retrieve

evidence of the act which she dutifully turned over to the

administration.

38 . For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner failed to

prove , by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent is

guilty of personal conduct which seri ously reduces her

effectiveness as an employee of the Lake County School Board ,

and thus has not prov en that Respondent violated s ection

1012.795(1)(g) .

E. Counts 2 and 3 - Section 1012.795(1)(j) and Florida

Admi nistrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081(3 )( a )

39 . Count 2 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 2 does not constitute an independent

violation, but rather is dependent upon a corresponding

violation of the rules constituting the Principles of

Professional Conduct.

40 . Count 3 of the Administrative Complaint charge d

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

make reasonable effort to protect her student s from conditions

harmful to learning , to the ir mental or physical health , or to

their safety .

41 . As with Count 1, t he evidence in this case

demonstrates that Respondent took reasonable measures to protect

her students. In the short period of time encompassed by the

video of the incident, Respondent finished her in teraction with

the more industrious student with whom she was preoccupied for

no less than the first 17 seconds of the video, tried to bring

order to the troublemakers at the rear of the class,

unsuccessfully tried to identify the vague odor -- an odor

masked by the smell of mildew in the classroom and by her own

stuffy nose -- and finally retrieved the evidence of the

incident from a reluctant student. There is little more she

could have done to put a halt to the actions of the you ng

conspirators.

42 . The Administrative Complaint also alleged that

Respondent allowed the four daring students to escape her

classroom and roam freely through the halls. However, once the

students understood that their a ct had been discovered, and

decided to leave the classroom to conceal the deed, there was

little Respondent could do to stop them. She could not

physically restrain them, and had she done so would likely be

facing a different Administrative Complaint. Rather, she did

exactly what she was supposed to do by immediately calling the

office to report both the escape and the precipitating cause ,

and pr oviding the cell phone with its incriminating video to the

administrative staff .

43 . Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing

evidence, that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to

protect her students from conditions harmful to learn ing, to

their mental or physical health, or to their safety in violation

of r ule 6A - 10.081( 3 )( a ) , or that she violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct as set forth in s ection 1012.795(1)(j) .

RECOMMENDATION

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

of L aw reached herein , it is

RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed

in its entirety.

DONE AND ENT ERED this 17th day of November , 2016 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

E. GARY EARLY

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 Admin istrative Hearings

this 17th day of November , 2016 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ During the hearing, it was agreed that the allegation of

RespondentÓs lack of control of the classroom and of students

walking in and out of her class was related solely to the incident

that occurred on May 16, 2014. See T . 15 4:14 - 155:17.

2/ The official ÐeSemblerÑ computerized attendance program did not

reflect that Respondent had entered attendance for May 16, 2014.

However, Respondent was removed from her classroom before the end

of the day. The evidence introduced by Respondent demonstr ates that

she had, in fact, taken attendance, but had not yet ÐsubmittedÑ it.

3 / Ms. Peterson seemed to believe that the cell phone and the cigar

wrapper were retrieved by Mr. Wade, and not by Respondent , a belief

expressed in her investigative report . Her description of

RespondentÓs role in the confiscation of the cell phone and

collection of evidence does not comport with the facts.

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)

James L. Homich, Esquire

621 East 5th Avenue

Mount Dora, Florida 32757

(eServed)

Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

(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

Department of Education

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.