17-001986RP Florida Association Of Independent Charter Schools And Aspira Raul Arnaldo Martinez Charter School And Miami Community Charter Middle School vs. Florida Department Of Education And State Of Florida Board Of Education Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Friday, July 21, 2017.

Summary: Proposed amendment to rule 6A-2.0020(4) regarding Charter school eligibility for capital outlay funding is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF

INDEPENDENT CHARTER SCHOOLS AND

ASPIRA RAUL ARNALDO MARTINEZ

CHARTER SCHOOL AND MIAMI

COMMUNITY CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL,

Petitioners,

vs. Case No. 17 - 1986RP

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

A ND STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF

EDUCATION,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

FINAL ORDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge Darren A.

Schwartz of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings

(ÐD OAHÑ) for final hearing by video teleconference on May 12,

2017, at sites in Tallahassee and Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner s : Christopher Norwood, J.D. ,

Qualified Representative

Governance Institute for

School Accountability

14844 Breckness Place , Suite 100

Miami Lakes, Florida 33016

For Respondent s : David L. Jordan, Esquire

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street , Suite 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the proposed amend ment to Florida Administrative

Code Rule 6A - 2.0020 (4) is an i nvalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority because of conflict with section

1008.34(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), or because the rule will

be arbitrary and capricious in its application and

administration.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 3, 201 6, Petitioners , Florida Association of

Independent Charter Schools, Aspira Raul Arnaldo Martinez

Charter School, and Miami Community Charter Middle School

(ÐPetitionersÑ), filed a petition challenging a proposed

amendment to rule 6A - 2.0020(4). The case wa s assigned to the

undersigned under DOAH Case No. 16 - 5765 RP . The case proceeded

to final hearing on October 28, 2016. At the hearing, the

parties presented exhibits and witnesses.

Following the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 16 - 5765RP,

Respondents , Flo rida Department of Education and State of

Florida Board of Education (Ð Respondents Ñ) , filed a Notice of

Withdrawal of Rule and Motion to Dismiss on December 7, 2016. A

telephonic hearing on the motion was held on December 9, 2016.

Because of RespondentsÓ withdrawal of the proposed rule

amendment, the controversy became moot. Accordingly, o n

December 14, 2016, the undersigned entered a Final Order of

Dismissal.

Subsequently, Respondents published a Notice of Proposed

Rule which proposed to amend rule 6A - 2 .0020(4). Petitioners

timely filed another petition at DOAH on March 31, 2017,

challeng ing t he proposed amendment to the rule . Subsequently,

the case was assigned to the undersigned under DOAH Case No. 17 -

1986RP.

On April 5, 2017, a status conference wa s held between the

undersigned, counsel for Respondents, and Petitioner s Ó

representative, Christopher Norwood, J.D. During the

conference, the parties agreed to waive the 30 - day deadline for

conducting the final hearing. On April 7, 2017, Mr. Norwood

fil ed a request to be designated as PetitionersÓ qualified

representative. On April 9, 2017, the undersigned entered an

Order granting the request. On April 10, 2017, the undersigned

entered an Order setting the case for final hearing on

May 12, 2017.

On M ay 11, 2017, the partiesÓ Joint Pre - h earing Stipulation

was filed. The stipulated facts in the joint stipulation are

incorporated in this Final Order.

The final hearing was held on May 12, 2017, as scheduled.

At the hearing, Petitioners presented the t estimony of Milagros

Fornell. Respondents presented the testimony of Adam Miller.

As stipulated by the parties, the two - volume T ranscript from the

final hearing held on October 28, 2016, was received in evidence

as Joint Exhibits 1 and 2. P etitioners Ó E xhibits 1 through 9

and RespondentsÓ Exhibits 1 through 10 were also received in

evidence.

On June 2, 2017, the one - volume Transcript from the May 12,

2017, final hearing was filed at DOAH. On June 8, 2017,

Petitioners filed a request to extend the deadli ne until

June 21, 2017, for the parties to file their proposed final

orders. On June 9, 2017, the undersigned entered an Order

granting the motion. On June 21, 2017, the parties timely filed

their proposed final orders, which have been considered in the

preparation of this Final Order.

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

Statutes are to the 2016 version.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Petitioner Florida Association of Independent Charter

Schools is a Florida non - profit corporation. The a ssociation is

substantially affected by the proposed amended rule.

2. Petitioner Aspira Raul Arnaldo Martinez Charter School

is a charter school in Miami - Dade County and is currently

serving 573 students. Its school grades over the past two

conse cutive years are: ÐDÑ for 2014 - 2015 and ÐDÑ for 2015 - 2016.

If the proposed amended rule becomes effective and the sc hool

receives a school grade low er than ÐCÑ for 2016 - 2017, the school

will not be eligible for the 2017 - 2018 Capital Outlay

Appropriation. The school is substantially affected by the

proposed amended rule.

3. Petitioner Miami Community Charter Middle School is a

charter middle school in Miami - Dade County currently serving

283 students. It is a Title I school serving 99 percent Free

and Reduced Lunch. Its school grades over the past two

consecutive years are: ÐDÑ for 2014 - 2015 and ÐDÑ for 2015 - 2016.

If the proposed amended rule becomes effective and the school

receives a school grade lower than ÐCÑ for 2016 - 2017, the school

will not be eligible for the 2017 - 2018 Capital Outlay

Appropriation. The school is substantially affected by the

proposed amended rule.

4. Respondent State of Florida Board of Education is Ðthe

chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in

Flori da . . . [with] the authority to adopt rules pursuant to

ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of law

conferring duties upon it for the improvement of the state

system of K - 20 public education . . . .Ñ § 1001.02(1), Fla.

Stat.

5. Respond ent Florida Department of Education Ð act[s] as

an administrative and supervisory agency under the

implementation direction of the State Board of Education.Ñ §

1001.20(1) , Fla. Stat .

6. ÐThe Commissioner of Education is the chief educational

officer of the state . . . , and is responsible for giving full

assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing

compliance with the mission and goals of the K - 20 education

system except for the State University System.Ñ § 1001.10(1) ,

Fla. Stat .

7. Charte r school capital outlay funding is the stateÓs

contribution to capital funding for charter schools. A charter

schoolÓs governing body may use such funds for the following

purposes: purchase of real property, construction of school

facilities, purchase or lease of permanent or relocatable school

facilities, purchase of vehicles, renovation, repair,

maintenance of school facilities, and insurance for school

facilities. § 1013.62(3) , Fla. Stat .

8 . The charter school statute, section 1002.33, Florida

Stat u t es, specifically authorizes the State Board of Education

to adopt rules which address charter school eligibility for

capital outlay funds. ÐThe Department of Education, after

consultation with school districts and charter school directors,

shall recomme nd that the State Board of Education adopt rules to

implement specific subsections of this section.Ñ § 1002.33(28) ,

Fla. Stat . One of the specific subsections of section 1002.33

is subsection (19), entitled ÐCAPITAL OULAY FUNDING.Ñ

Subsection (19) provi des, in pertinent part : ÐCharter schools

are eligible for capital outlay funds pursuant to s. 1013.62.Ñ

9 . Each year, the Commissioner of Education is required to

allocate charter school capital outlay funds, if any are

appropriated by the Legislature, to eligible charter schools. 1/

10. One of the eligibility criteria, which is at the

center of the partiesÓ dispute, is set forth in section

1013.62(1)(a)3. , Florida Statu t es : ÐHave satisfactory student

achievement based on state accountability standard s applicable

to the charter school.Ñ

11. The 2016 Florida Legislature amended section 1013.62,

but it did not amend the statute regarding satisfactory student

achievement.

12. With regard to satisfactory student achievement,

presently effective rule 6A - 2.0020 provides:

(2) The eligibility requirement for

satisfactory student achievement under

Section 1013.62, F.S., shall be determined

in accordance with the language in the

charter contract and the charter schoolÓs

current school improvement plan if the

school has a current school improvement

plan. A charter school receiving an ÐFÑ

grade designation through the state

accountability system, as defined in Section

1008.34, F.S., shall not be eligible for

capital outlay funding for the school year

immedi ately following the designation.

13. On February 28, 2017, Respondents published a Notice

of Proposed Rule, which proposed to amend rule 6A - 2.0020.

14. On March 22, 2017, the State Board of Education

approved the proposed amendments to rul e 6A - 2.0020. As

approved, the portion of the proposed rule which addresses

satisfactory student achievement provides:

( 4) Satisfactory student achievement under

Section 1013.62(1)(a)3., F.S., shall be

determined by the schoolÓs most recent grade

designa tion or school improvement rating

from the state accountability system as

defined in Sections 1008.34 and 1008.341,

F.S. Satisfactory student achievement for a

school that does not receive a school grade

or a school improvement rating, including a

school that has not been in operation for at

least one school year, shall be based on the

student performance metrics in the charter

schoolÓs charter agreement. Allocations

shall not be distributed until such time as

school grade designations are known.

( a) For the 2016 - 2017 school year, a

charter school that receives a grade

designation of ÐFÑ shall not be eligible for

capital outlay funding.

(b) Beginning in the 2017 - 2018 school year,

a charter school that receives a grade

designation of ÐFÑ or two (2) c onsecutive

grades lower than a ÐCÑ shall not be

eligible for capital outlay funding.

(c) Beginning in the 2017 - 2018 school year,

a charter school that receives a school

improvement rating of ÐUnsatisfactoryÑ shall

not be eligible for capital outlay fund ing.

15. Proposed amended rule 6A - 2.0020(4), if adopted, will

provide the standard for what constitutes failure to meet

satisfactory student achievement for purposes of receiving

capital outlay funding. A school with a grade of ÐFÑ or two (2)

con secutive grades lower than a ÐCÑ will be ineligible for

funding.

16. Proposed amended rule 6A - 2.0020(4), if adopted, will

allow a charter school with a single ÐDÑ grade to continue

receiving capital outlay funds for the next fiscal year.

17. On April 5, 2017, Respondents published a Notice of

Change for a technical change for rule 6A - 2.0020, referencing

the following rulemaking authority for the rule: sections

1001.02(1), (2)(n) ; 1002.33(19), (28) ; 1013.02(2)(a); and

1013.62(5).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

18 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the

parties to this proceeding pursuant to section 120.56, Florida

Statutes.

19. Any person who is substantially affected by a proposed

rule can petition DOAH for a final order that the propo sed rule

is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

§ 120.56(1)(a), Fla. Stat. As stipulated by the parties,

Petitioners are substantially affected and have standing to

challenge the proposed rule.

2 0 . Under section 120.52(8), a propo sed rule by an

administrative agency may be challenged as an Ðinvalid exercise

of delegated legislative authority,Ñ which is defined to mean

Ðaction which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties

delegated by the Legislature. Ñ

2 1 . Respondents have t he burden to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an

invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the

objections raised. § 120.56(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The proposed

rule is not presumed to be valid or invalid. § 120.56(2)(c),

Fla. Stat.

2 2 . Among the factors in determining whether a proposed

rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority

are: ( 1) whether t he agency has exceeded its grant of

rulemaking authority ; ( 2) whether the proposed rule e nlarges,

modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law

implemented; and ( 3) whether the proposed rule is arbitrary or

capricious (a rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic

or the necessary facts and is capricious if it is adopted

withou t thought or reason or is irrational). § 120.52(8)(b),

(c), and (e), Fla. Stat. In the instant case, Petitioners

contend the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority for these reasons.

2 3 . As to the first ground for alle ged invalidity under

section 120.52(8)(b) , Judge WetherellÓs recent analysis in

United Faculty of Fl orida v. Fl orida State B oard of Educ ation ,

157 So. 3d 514, 516 - 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) , is instructive . In

that case, Judge Wetherell stated :

A rule is invalid under section 120.52(8)(b)

if the agency Ðexceed[s] its grant of

rulemaking authority.Ñ A grant of

rulemaking authority is the Ðstatutory

language that explicitly authorizes or

requires an agency to adopt [a rule].Ñ

§ 120.52(17), Fla. Stat. Th e scope of an

agencyÓs rulemaking authority is constrained

by section 120.536(1) and the so - called

Ðflush - leftÑ paragraphÑ in section

120.52(8), which provide that an agency may

only adopt rules to Ðimplement or interpret

the specific powers and duties gra nted by

the [agencyÓs] enabling statuteÑ; that an

agency may not adopt rules to Ðimplement

statutory provisions setting forth general

legislative intent or policyÑ or simply

because the rule Ðis reasonably related to

the purpose of the enabling legislation and

is not arbitrary and capricious or is within

the agencyÓs class of powers and du ti esÑ;

and that Ð[s]tatutory language granting

rulemaking authority or generally describing

the powers and functions of an agency shall

be construed to extend no further t han

implementing or interpreting the specific

powers and duties conferred by the enabling

statute.Ñ

Section 120.536(1) and the flush - left

paragraph in section 120.52(8) require a

close examination of the statutes cited by

the agency as authority for the rule at

issue to determine whether those statutes

explicitly grant the agency authority to

adopt the rule. As this court famously

stated in Save the Manatee Club , the

question is Ðwhether the statute contains a

specific grant of legislative authority for

the rule, not whether the grant of authority

is specific enough . Either the enabling

statute authorizes the rule at issue or it

does not.Ñ

2 4 . In the instant case, the proposed rule does not exceed

the grant of rulemaking authority. The statutes cite d as

rulemaking authority for the challenged rule contain the

necessary Ðspecific grant of legislative authorityÑ for the

Respondents to adopt a rule establishing standards for

eligibility for capital outlay funding.

2 5 . As detailed above, the State Boar d of Education has

both the authority and duty pursuant to section 1001.02(1) to

adopt rules to implement the provisions of law conferring duties

upon it for the improvement of the state system of K - 20

education. The charter school statute, section 1002.3 3,

specifically authorizes the State Board of Education to adopt

rules which address charter school eligibility for capital

outlay funds. Section 1002.33(28) specifically provides: ÐThe

Department of Education, after consultation with school

districts an d charter school directors, shall recommend that the

State Board of Education adopt rules to implement specific

subsections of this section.Ñ One of the specific subsections

of section 1002.33 is subsection (19), entitled ÐCAPITAL OUTLAY

FUNDING.Ñ Subsec tion (19) provides, in pertinent part:

ÐCharter schools are eligible for capital outlay funds pursuant

to s. 1013.62.Ñ

2 6 . As to the second ground for alleged invalidity ,

section 120.52(8)(c) provides that a rule is an invalid exercise

of delegated legi slative authority if it Ðenlarges, modifies, or

contravenes the specific provisions of the law should be

implemented . . . .Ñ The Ðlaw implemented is the language of

the enabling statute being carried out or interpreted by an

agency through rulemaking. Ñ § 120.52(9) , Fla. Stat. ; See also

Fla. Elec . CommÓn v. Blair , 52 So. 3d 9, 13 (Fla. 1st DCA

2010)(concluding that adopting rule defining legal standard of

ÐwillfulÑ did not contravene law implemented) .

2 7 . In the instant case, Petitioners contend that the

proposed ruleÓs application of the phrase Ðsatisfactory student

achievementÑ to school grades or school improvement ratings

con flicts with, modifies, or contravenes the definition of

Ðsatisfactory student achievementÑ in section 1008.34(1)(a).

28 . Sec tion 1008.34(1)(a) defines the phrase Ðstudent

achievementÑ as a description of Ðthe level of content mastery a

student has acquired in a particular subject as measured by a

statewide, standardized assessment administered pursuant to

section 1008.22(3)(a) and (b).Ñ According to Petitioners, the

determination of whether a charter school is eligible for

capital outlay funding can be made only on the basis of how an

individual student performs on a statewide, standardized test

(i.e., a score of three or bette r as defined in section

1008.34(1)(a)).

29 . The resolution of the partiesÓ dispute centers on

statutory interpretation. Section 1013.62 specifically

addresses a charter schoolÓs eligibility for capital outlay

funding and states, in pertinent part:

1 0 1 3 .62 Charter School capital outlay

funding. - -

(1) In each year in which funds are

appropriated for charter school capital

outlay purposes, the Commissioner of

Education shall allocate the funds among

eligible charter schools as specified in

this sec tion.

(a) To be eligible for a funding

allocation, a charter school must:

* * *

3. Have satisfactory student achievement

based on state accountability standards

applicable to the charter school.

30 . Section 1013.62(1)(a)3. is clear an d unambiguous.

Levey v. Detzner , 146 So. 3d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). To

be eligible for capital outlay funding, a charter school must

have Ðsatisfactory student achievement based on state

accountability standards applicable to the charter school.Ñ

§ 1013.62(1)(a)3 . , Fla. Stat .

3 1 . The Ð state accountability standards applicable to

charter schools Ñ described in section 1013.62(1)(a)3. are

largely driven by the school grading system described in section

1008.34. 2/

32 . Chapter 1008 is entitled ÐA ssessment and

Accountability.Ñ Section 1008.34 is located within Part II of

chapter 1008, entitled ÐAccountability, K - 20.Ñ The opening

section of Part II creates the framework for the ÐFlorida K - 20

education performance accountability system.Ñ § 1008.31 , Fla.

Stat.

33 . One of the goals of the accountability system is to

answer the question of ÐHow are individual schools and

postsecondary education institutions performing their

responsibility to educate their students as measured by how

students are pe rforming and how much they are learning?Ñ

§ 1008.31(1)(a)4 . , Fla. Stat . Section 1008.31(1)(b) states the

LegislatureÓs intent that: Ð The K - 20 education performance

accountability system be established as a single, unified

accountability system with mul tiple components, including, but

not limited to, student performance in public schools and school

and district grades .Ñ § 1008.31(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis

added).

34 . The individual student achievement levels described in

section 1008.34(1)(a) are on ly a step in the process that

results in the state accountability standards applicable to the

charter schools. The remainder of section 1008.34(2) and (3)

creates a school grading system applicable to most public and

charter schools. 3/

35 . In sum, the p roposed rule does not enlarge, modify, or

contravene the specific provisions of the law implemented in

violation of section 120.52(8)(c). PetitionersÓ claim that the

proposed rule conflicts with section 1008.34(1)(a) is also

rejected.

36 . Petitioners Ó co ntention t hat capital outlay funds

should , as a policy matter, be distributed in the same manner as

federal Title I , Title III, and special education grant funds

(i.e. , follow the individual student based on the individual

studentÓs performance on a test ) is rejected. The federal

statutes and regulatory scheme for distributing such funds are

different from the Florida scheme for distributing charter

school capital outlay funds. The distribution of capital outlay

funds , as set forth by the Florida Legislat ure , is based on the

charter schoolÓs eligibility, not an individual student Ós

eligibility based on that studentÓs performance on an individual

test. 4/

37 . PetitionersÓ contention that the proposed rule is

arbitrary or capricious is without merit. A prop osed rule is

arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts

and is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or

is irrational. § 120.52(8)(e), Fla. Stat.

38 . In the instant case, t he proposed rule is supported by

logic, th e necessary facts, it was adopted with thought and

reason, and it is rational. § 120.52(8)(e), Fl a. Sta t .

39 . The undersigned has carefully considered each of

PetitionersÓ arguments , and they are all rejected. Respondents

proved, by a preponderance of t he evidence, that the proposed

rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

authority. 5/

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is ORDERED that the Petition for Administrative

Determ ination of Invalidity of Proposed Rule Revision is

DISMISSED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of July , 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DARREN A. SCHWARTZ

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative H earings

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 21 st day of July , 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ For the 2016 - 2017 school year, the Legislature appropriated

75 million dollars for charter school capital outlay funds.

2/ The school improvement ratings described in section 1008.34

apply to alternative schools that provide dropout prevention and

academic prevention services. Section 1008.34 1 sets forth a

system for assessing school improvement ratings for such

schools.

3/ Section 1008.34(3)(b) provides that school grades are based

on 11 components: four achievement components (English lang uage

arts, mathematics, science, and social studies), four learning

gains components (English language arts and mathematics for all

eligible students, and for the eligible student in the lowest 25

percent for each subject), a middle school acceleration

com ponent, as well as components for graduation rate and high

school acceleration. Each component is worth up to 100 points

in the overall calculation, based on the percentage of students

passing the standardized assessments or making learning gains.

The po ints earned for each component are then used to determine

a school grade for each school using a method adopted by school

board rule. For 2014 - 2015, the data for the four learning gains

components was not available, so the 2014 - 2015 school grades

were bas ed upon the remaining seven components.

4/ The proposed rule will allow a charter school with a single

ÐDÑ grade to continue receiving capital outlay funds for the

next fiscal year. The school grade statute, section 1008.34(2),

provides that a ÐCÑ me ans that the school is making satisfactory

progress, and that a ÐDÑ means the school is making less than

satisfactory progress. These school grade descriptions are not

directly aligned with the capital funds eligibility requirement

that a charter school Ð have satisfactory achievement based on

state accountability standards applicable to the charter

school.Ñ However, s ection 1008.34(2) does not prevent

Respondents from adopting a standard which allows a school with

a single ÐDÑ to be eligible for capital o utlay funds.

5/ In concluding that the proposed rule is not an invalid

exercise of delegated legislative as detailed above, the

undersigned was unpersuaded by the testimony of Ms. Fornell and

more persuaded by the testimony of Mr. Miller.

COPIES F URNISHED:

David L. Jordan, Esquire

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street , Suite 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Christopher Norwood, J.D.

Governance Institute for

School Accountability

14844 Breckness Place , Suite 100

Miami Lak es, Florida 33016

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Pam Stewart , Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlin gton Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Ken Chamber, Chairman

State Board of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1520

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Judy A. Bone, Esqui re

Department of Education

325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Ernest Reddick, Chief

An y a Grosenbaugh

Department of State

R. A. Gray Building

500 South Bronough Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0250

(eSer ved)

Ken Plante, Coordinator

Joint Admin istrative Procedures

Committee

Room 680, Pepper Building

111 West Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1400

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Fina l Order is

entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida

Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

filing the original notice of administrative appeal with t he

agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within

30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of

the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law,

with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate

district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a

party resides or as otherwise provided by law.