17-001180TTS Broward County School Board vs. Diane Louise Neville Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 24, 2017.

Summary: Teacher's threats to resort to "extreme violence" constituted misconduct in office, incompetency, and violation of policies justifying School Board's suspension of Respondent without pay for 15 days.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 1180TTS

DIANE LOUISE NEVILLE,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case came before Admin istrative Law Judge Darren A.

Schwartz of the Division of Administrative Hearings for final

hearing on July 12, 2017, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Tria Lawton - Russell, Esquire

Douglas G. Griff i n, Esquire

Broward County School Board

Eleven th Floor

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

For Respondent: Robert F. McKee, Esquire

Robert F. McKee, P.A.

Suite 301

1718 East 7th Avenue

Tampa, Florida 33605

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend

RespondentÓs employment as a teacher without pay for 15 days.

PRELIMINARY STATEMEN T

By letter dated January 18, 2017, Petitioner, Broward

County School Board (ÐSchool BoardÑ), notified Respondent, Diane

Louise Neville (ÐRespondentÑ), of the School BoardÓs intent to

suspend her employment without pay . On January 18, 2017,

Respondent tim ely requested an administrative hearing. On

February 7, 2017, at i t s scheduled meeting, the School Board

took action to suspend RespondentÓs employment as a teacher

without pay for 15 days. Subsequently, the School Board

referred the matter to the Divisi on of Administrative Hearings

(ÐDOAHÑ) to assign an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the

final hearing. The final hearing was initially set for

April 27 and 28, 2017. On April 13, 2017, the School Board

filed an unopposed motion to continue the final hearing. On

April 17, 2017, the undersigned entered an Order resetting the

final hearing for July 12 and 13, 2017.

On March 3, 2017, Petitioner served its first request for

admissions (ÐRFAÑ) on Respondent Ós counsel . The RFA consists of

24 separate requ ests. After Respondent did not timely respond

to the RFA, Petitioner filed a Motion to Deem Matters Admitted

o n April 26, 2017 . RespondentÓs counsel did not timely respond

to the motion. On M ay 9, 2017, the undersigned entered an Order

granting the moti on, ruling that the matters set forth in the

RFA Ðare deemed technically admitted based on RespondentÓs

failure to timely object or otherwise respond to such requestsÑ

in accordance with the applicable Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure and case law. The Or der, however, allowed Respondent

the opportunity, pursuant to Fl orida Rule of Civil Procedure

1.370(b), to file by May 16, 2017, a motion to withdraw or amend

the technical admissions , accompanied by responses to the RFA,

unless the privilege against self - incrimination is asserted.

Respondent did not file a motion to withdraw or amend the

technical admissions.

The final hearing commenced as scheduled and concluded on

July 12 , 2017, with both parties present. At the hearing, the

School Board presented the testimony of Terry Kopelman, Golda

Hoff, Susan Rockleman, Kathleen Goldweber, Sherline Manzo,

Kalebra Jacobs - Reed, Johanna Davidson, and Susan Cooper. In

addition, the School Board presented the deposition of Tamara

Odom in lieu of her live testimony. 1/ The School BoardÓs

Exhibits 1 , 2, 6 through 9 , 11 , 12, 15 through 17, 21, 29

through 31, and 33 were received into evidence. Respondent

testified o n her own behalf and did not offer any exhibits into

evidence.

At hearing, the parties agreed to file their proposed

recommended orders within 30 days after the filing of the

final hearing transcript at DOAH. The one - volume final

hearing Transcript was filed at DOAH on August 15, 2017.

On September 13, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to

extend the de adline until October 5, 2017, for the parties to

file their proposed recommended orders. On September 14, 2017,

the undersigned entered an Order granting the motion. On

September 27, 2017, Respondent filed an unopposed motion to

extend the deadline unt il October 13, 2017, for the parties to

file their proposed recommended orders. On September 27, 2017,

the undersigned entered an Order granting the motion. The

parties timely filed their proposed recommended orders, which

were given consideration in the preparation of this Recommended

Order.

Unless otherwise indicated, all rule and statutory

references are to the versions in effect at the time of the

alleged violations.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The School Board is a duly - consti tuted school board

charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the

public schools within Broward County, Florida.

2. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board in

August 1998. Respondent is currently employed by the School

Board a s a teacher at Gulfstream Academy (K - 8), pursuant to a

Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with

section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2014). Respondent

teaches Microsoft Office applications and computer coding.

3. At all times materia l to this case, RespondentÓs

employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and

the School BoardÓs policies.

4 . The conduct g iving rise to the School BoardÓs proposed

suspension of Respondent involves a series of threats by

Respondent on Ju ne 25, 201 5 , to resort to Ðextreme violence . Ñ

5. On this day, Respondent was frustrated because she

believed the School board had placed her salary at the incorrect

ÐstepÑ level and that s he was owed for certain days in 2015

while teaching at McArthur High School during the pr evious

school year .

6. Against this backdrop, a t approximately 2:15 p.m. on

Thursday, June 25, 2015, Terry Kopelman, a clerk for Talent and

Operations at the School Board, received a telephone call from

Respondent requesting to speak with the d irector, Susan

Rockelman.

7. Ms. Kopelman told Respondent that Ms. Rockelman was not

in her office and that she did not have voicemail. Ms. Kopelman

advised Respondent that if she calls again, she should speak

with Susan Cooper in the S chool BoardÓs Employee Labor Relations

Department . In response, Respondent threaten ed to resort to

Ðextreme violence . Ñ

8. Ms. Kopelman was frightened by RespondentÓs remarks , so

she placed Respondent on hold and got her supervisor, Golda

Hoff. Around this same time, Ms. Rockelman also appeared at

Ms. KopelmanÓs cubi c le.

9. Ms. Kopelman put Respondent on speakerphone, at which

time R espondent repeated her threat to resort to Ðextreme

violence.Ñ Ms. Rockelman asked Responde nt if she was

threatening her, and Respondent responded by repeating , several

times, the same threat to resort t o Ð extreme violence. Ñ

10. Ms. Rockelman viewed RespondentÓs remarks as a serious

threat towards herself and other office workers who had spoken

to Respondent.

11. That same day, Ms. Rockelman reported RespondentÓs

threats to the C hief of P olice of the School BoardÓs police

department and to the Fort Lauderdale P olice D epartment.

12. During the afternoon o f June 25, 2015, Respondent also

called the School BoardÓs Em ployee and Labor Relations

Department in an effort to speak with Ms. Cooper. Sherline

Manzo, an employee of the department answered the telephone call

from Respondent.

13. During the call, Respondent was irate and yelled at

Ms. Manzo . Respondent t old Ms. Manzo to take the following

message verbatim for Ms. Cooper : ÐI am severely disabled and

have autism and you are beyond my patience and tolerance level

and will now resort to extreme violence to elevate my

frustrations.Ñ

14. Ms. Manzo asked Res pondent if there was anything else

she could help her with, but Respondent told her no . Respondent

told Ms. Manzo to re - read the statement to make sure Ms. Cooper

received the exact message.

1 5 . Ms. Manzo viewed RespondentÓs remarks as a serious

t hreat of workplace violence, which conjured images in

Ms. ManzoÓs mind of a Ðpost office incident where one of the

employees came in . . . and started shooting their colleagues.Ñ

Ms. Manzo relayed the message to Ms. Cooper that same day.

Ms. Cooper vie wed RespondentÓs remarks as a serious threat of

violence which needed to be urgently addressed.

1 6 . On June 25, 2015, at approximately 2:35 p.m. ,

Respondent also called the Florida Education Association

(ÐFEAÑ), an organization in Tallahassee, Flori da, which

represents teachers in school districts throughout Florida.

17. Tamara Odom, a legal secretary at FEA who had spoken

to Respondent on prior occasions and was familiar with her

voice, retrieved the following voicemail message left by

Respondent o n an FEA telephone at 2:35 p.m. on June 25, 2015:

This is Diane Neville, personnel number

31013 with the School Board Broward County.

I am tired of people hanging up on me. I am

tired of being shuffled into voicemail and

no one picking up the phone. I have no more

patience. I have no more tolerance. IÓm

severely disabled. I have autism . I am now

going to resort to extreme violence. Thank

you all so much. The sooner you get back to

me the happier IÓll be. Because right now I

am at the level of act out the violence.

Thank you.

18. On her voicemail, Respondent emphasized t he point of

Ðextreme violence.Ñ 2/

19. RespondentÓs voicemail was taken seriously by Ms. Odom

as a threat. In response to the voicemail, FEA contacted law

enforce ment and RespondentÓs photograph was posted at the front

door with instructions not to let her inside. Subsequently,

Respondent showed up in Tallahassee at the FEA building , at

which time she was met by law enforcement personnel.

20. During the aft ernoon on June 25, 2015, Respondent also

called the Broward Teachers Union (ÐBTUÑ) in Fort Lauderdale,

Florida. BTU is a union which negotiates the teacher contract

in conjunction with the School Board and provides support and

assistance to its union memb ers.

21. Ms. Kathy Goldweber, a BTU office manager, retrieved

the following voicemail message left by Respondent on an FEA

telephone on June 25, 2015:

Hi Kathy

This is Diane Neville. I donÓt know if

you are familiar with my case. I am a

seve rely disabled teacher. I have two forms

of [ ] including Aspergers. I am now

pretty much beyond my patience and beyond my

tolerance. I have not been paid in over

seven weeks. I am going to miss my sonÓs

wedding on Saturday. I am still starving.

IÓm running on food from the food bank.

Today I ate ½ can of peas to conserve.

I have no more patience and tolerance. I am

now going to resort to extreme violence to

alleviate my frustration.

( Repeat) I am out of patience and I am out

of tolerance . I am now going to resort to

extreme violence to alleviate my

frustration.

Thank you for your help.

22. RespondentÓs conduct was inappropriate, harassing,

abusive, and intimidating.

23. Respondent could certainly have conveyed h er

frustration about her pay without the need to harass,

intimidate, and resort to threats of extreme violence.

24. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at

hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in

office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A -

5.056.

25. By her threats to resort to extreme violence,

Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A -

10.081(2)(c) by engaging in conduct which create d a hostile,

intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment , and

failing to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual

is protected from such harassment. Respondent also violated

rule 6A - 5.056(2)(e) by engaging in conduct which reduced

RespondentÓs ability or her colleaguesÓ abili ty to effectively

perform duties.

26. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at

hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of incompetence in

violation of rule 6A - 5.056(3). By her threats to resort to

extreme violence, Respondent failed to discharge her required

duties as a teacher as a result of inefficiency. Respondent was

inefficient by failing to perform duties prescribed by law and

by failing to communicate appropriately with and relate to

colleagues, administrators, or subordinates.

27. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at

hearing establishes that Respondent violated School Board Policy

No. 2410. By her threats to School Board employees to resort to

extreme violence, Respondent violated School Board Policy

No . 2410. RespondentÓs threats to employees of FEA and BTU to

resort to extreme violence are beyond the scope of the policy.

28. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at

hearing establishes that Respondent violated School Board Policy

No. 4 008(B)1. and 3. By her threats to resort to extreme

violence, Respondent failed to comply with the Principles of

Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida and

all rules and regulations prescribed by the State Board and the

School Board. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at

hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated School Board

Policy No . 4008(B)2., which pertains to certain traits to be

infused in the Ðclassroom.Ñ

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2 9 . DOAH has jurisdiction of the subject matter and

the parties to this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569

and 120.57(1) .

30 . Respondent is an instructional employee, as that term

i s defined in section 1012.01(2) . The School Board has the

authority to suspend instruction al employees pursuant to

sections 1012.33(1)(a) and 1012.33(6)(a).

31 . The School Board has the burden of proving, by

a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed

the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and

that such viol ations constitute Ðjust causeÑ for suspension.

§§ 1012.33(1)(a) and (6), Fla. Stat.; Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of

Dade Cnty. , 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

32 . The preponderance of the evidence standard requires

proof by Ðthe greater weight of the evidenceÑ or evidence that

Ðmore likely than notÑ tends to prove a certain proposition.

Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000). The

preponderance of the evidence standard is less stringent than

the standard of clear and convincing evidence applicable to loss

of a license or certification. Cisneros v. Sch. Bd. of Miami -

Dade Cnty. , 990 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

3 3 . Whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a

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

i n the context of each alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington ,

480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1985); McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d

387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

3 4 . Sections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6) provide in pertinent

part that instructional staff may be su spended during the

term of their employment contract only for Ðjust cause.Ñ

§ £ 1012.33(1)(a) and (6), Fla. Stat. ÐJust causeÑ is defined in

section 1012.33(1)(a) to include Ðmisconduct in officeÑ and

Ðincompetency.Ñ

3 5 . Section 1001.02(1), Florida Statutes, 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.

3 6 . Consistent with this rulemaking authority, the State

Board of Education has defined Ðmisconduct in officeÑ in

rule 6A - 5.056(2), which provides:

(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 6 A - 10.080 , F.A.C.;

(b) A violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule

6 A - 1 0 . 081 , F.A.C.;

(c) A violation of the adopted school board

rules;

(d) Behavior that disrupts the studentÓs

learning environme nt; or

(e) Behavior that reduces the teacherÓs

ability or his or her colleaguesÓ ability to

effectively perform duties. [ 3/ ]

3 7 . Rule 6A - 10.080, titled ÐCode of Ethics of the

Education Profession in Florida,Ñ provides:

(1) The educator values t he 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 guarante e of equal

opportunity for all.

(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.

(3) Aware of the importance of maintaining

the respect and confidence of oneÓs

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.

3 8 . While rule 6A - 5.056(2)(a) provides that violation of

the Code of Ethics rule constitutes Ðmisconduct,Ñ it has been

frequently noted that the precepts set forth in the above - cited

ÐCode of EthicsÑ are Ðso general and s o obviously aspirational

as to be of little practical use in defining normative

behavior.Ñ Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Lantz , Case No. 12 - 3970 ,

2014 Fla. Div. Adm in . Hear. LEXIS 399, at *29 - 30 (Fla. DOAH July

29, 2014).

3 9 . Rule 6A - 5.056(2)(b) inco rporates by reference

rule 6A - 10.081, which is titled: ÐPrinciples of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.Ñ

Rule 6A - 10.081( 2 )( c ) provides, in pertinent part:

( c ) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the in dividual :

* * *

4. Shall not engage in harassment or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably

interferes with an individualÓs performance

of professional or work responsibilities or

with the orderly process of education or

which creates a hosti le, intimidating,

abusive, offensive, or oppressive

environment; and, further, shall make

reasonable effort to assure that each

individual is protected from such harassment

or discrimination.

40 . Consistent with its rulemaking authority, the State

Board of Education has defined ÐincompetencyÑ in rule 6A -

5.056(3), which provides, in pertinent part:

(3) ÐIncompetencyÑ means the inability,

failure or lack of fitness to discharge the

required duty as a result of inefficiency or

incapacity.

(a) ÐIn efficiencyÑ means one or more of the

following:

1. Failure to perform duties prescribed by

law;

* * *

3. Failure to communicate appropriately

with and relate to colleagues,

administrators, subordinates, or parents;

41 . School Board Po licy No. 2410 (Workp l ace Violence) is a

ÐruleÑ within the meaning of rule 6A - 5.056(2)(c). School Board

Policy No. 2410 provides, in pertinent part:

2410

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE

Identifying and preventing workplace

incidents of a ctual or threatened violence

is a priority of the School Board of Broward

County, Florida. Zero tolerance toward

workplace violence or the threat of

violence, by any of its employees,

customers, the general public, and/or anyone

who conducts business with the School

District on Schoo l Board property will be

followed. It is the intent of the School

District to provide a workplace which is

free from physical attacks, destructive

acts, verbal abuse (harassment), property

crimes, threats or any other violent acts.

Employees who violate this policy will be

subject to disciplinary action up to and

including termination of employment.

42 . School Board Policy No. 4008 is a ÐruleÑ within the

meaning of rule 6A - 5.056(2)(c). School Board Policy No. 4008

provides, in pertinent part:

B. DUTIES OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL

The members of instruct ional staff shall

perform the following functions:

1. Comply with the Code of Ethics and the

Principles of Professional Conduct of the

Education Profession in Florida.

* * *

3. Infus e in the classroom, the DistrictÓs

adopted Charter Education Traits of Respect,

Honesty, Kindness, Self - control, Tolerance,

Cooperation, Responsibility and Citizenship.

* * *

8. Conform to all rules and regulations

that may be prescribed by th e State Board

and by the School Board.

4 3 . Turning to the present case, the School Board proved

by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of

misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A - 5.056(2). As

detailed above, the School B oard proved by a preponderance of

the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office,

in that s he engaged in conduct which created a hostile,

intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment, and

failed to m ake reasonable effort to a ssure that each individual

is protected from such harassment. Respondent also engaged in

conduct which reduced RespondentÓs ability or her colleaguesÓ

ability to effectively perform duties. 4/

4 4 . The School Board proved by a preponderance of the

ev idence that Respondent is guilty of incompetence in violation

of rule 6A - 5.056(3). As detailed above, Respondent was

inefficient by failing to perform duties prescribed by law, and

by failing to communicate appropriately with and relate to

colleagues, adm inistrators, or subordinates .

4 5 . The School Board prove d by a preponderance of the

evidence that Respondent violated School Board Policy Nos. 2410

and 4008(B)1. and 3 . 5/ The School Board failed to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that Resp ondent violated School

Board Policy No. 4008(B)2.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

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

upholding the 15 - day suspension of Respondent without pay.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October , 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DARREN A. SCHWARTZ

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Par kway

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 24th day of October , 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ The parties stipulated at the final hearing that Ms. Odom was

unavailable for the final hearing, and therefore, her deposition

could be received into evidence and considered by the

undersigned in lieu of her live testimony.

2/ See School BoardÓs Exhibit 1, deposition of Tamara Odom,

Exhibit 2 to the deposition.

3/ In Knight v. Winn , 910 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005),

the court upheld an Administrative Law Judge Ós finding of a

teacherÓs reduced effectiveness warranting termination and

revocation of her certificate based on, among other th ings, the

teacherÓs threatening resignation letter stating that the

conditions Ðalmost define going postal.Ñ

4/ RespondentÓs contention that the School Board failed to

sufficiently plead the charge of Ðmisconduct in officeÑ is

without merit. The Admini strative Complaint alleges that

RespondentÓs threats to resort to Ðextreme violenceÑ constitute s

Ðmisconduct in office,Ñ in violation of Ðone or more of Rules

6A - 5.0 56(2)(a) through (e) of the Fl orida Admin istrative Code ,

which defines Òmisconduct.ÓÑ Admi n . Comp l. , par. 26.

RespondentÓs reliance on Manatee C oun ty Sch ool B oard . v.

Youmans , Case No. 11 - 1078 , 2011 Fla. Div. Adm in . Hear. LEXIS 232

(Fla. DOAH Aug . 22, 2011), is misplaced. In that case, the

Administrative Complaint contained no citation to any rule

provision. Rather, the Administrative Complaint in Youmans

merely alleged a charge that Respondent engaged in Ðmisconduct

in office.Ñ

The undersigned also rejects RespondentÓs contention that

RespondentÓs threats to resort to extreme violen ce could not

constitute misconduct in office because, when viewed in their

proper context, the comments were not meant to be taken

literally. The persuasive and credible testimony of

Ms. Kopelman, Ms. Hoff, Ms. Rockleman, Ms. Manzo, Ms. Jacobs -

Reed, and Ms. Odom leads the undersigned to conclude otherwise.

The undersigned was unpersuaded by RespondentÓs testimony at

hearing and her testimony is not credited. Even if Respondent

did not intend to act upon her threats, however, the fact that

she made the t hreats in the manner that she did constitutes

misconduct in office.

5/ The undersigned rejects Resp ondentÓs contention that Policy

No. 2410 does not apply because none of RespondentÓs conduct

occurred Ðon school board property.Ñ Contrary to Respond entÓs

assertion, the policy is not limited to conduct that occurs only

Ðon school property.Ñ Rather, the policy broadly provides

Ð[z]ero tolerance towards workplace violence, or the threat of

violence, by any of its employees, customers, the general

publi c, and/or anyone who conducts business with the school

district on school board property.Ñ It is sufficient t hat

RespondentÓs threats of resorting to extreme violence were made

by her, as an employee of the School Board, to other School

Board employees . The undersigned agrees with RespondentÓs

contention that RespondentÓs calls to FEA and BTU are beyond the

scope of the policy.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tria Lawton - Russell, Esquire

Douglas G. Griffin, Esquire

Broward County School Board

Eleven th Floor

600 Southeast Third Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(eServed)

Robert F. McKee, Esquire

Katherine A. Heffner, Esquire

Robert F. McKee, P.A.

Suite 301

1718 East 7th Avenue

Tampa, Florida 33605

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Robert Runcie, Superintendent

Broward County School Board

Tenth Floor

600 S outheast Third Avenue F lorida

Fort Lauderdale, F lorida 33301 - 3125

Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit writte n 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.