17-004212PL Pam Stewart, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Amanda Austin Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 30, 2018.

Summary: Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF

EDUCATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 4212PL

AMANDA AUSTIN,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2017) , a

duly - noticed final hearing was conducted in this case on

November 2, 2017, in Panama City, Florida, before Administrative

Law Judge Suzanne Van Wyk.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J . David Holder, Esquire

J. David Holder , P.A.

387 Lakeside Drive

Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435

For Respondent: Anthony D. Demma, Esquire

Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A.

131 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee, Florida 3230 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida

Statutes (2016), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A -

10.081(2)(a)1.; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STAT EMENT

On March 13, 2017, Petitioner filed an Administrative

Complaint against Respondent, alleging violations of section

1012.795(1)(j) and r ule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1. On April 10, 2017,

Respondent filed an Election of Rights form disputing the

allegations in the Administrative Complaint and requesting a

hearing. The case was referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearings (Division) on July 25, 2017, and

assigned to the undersigned.

The case was initially set for final hearing on

September 26, 2017, but w as rescheduled to November 2, 2017 , due

to the i mpacts of Hurricane Irma.

The final hearing commenced as rescheduled , and Petitioner

presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Sharon

Michalik, Bay County School District Director of Human

Resource s; Patrick Martin, Bay County School District Director

of Exceptional Student Education; Chris Beard; Sara Devito ;

Danielle Buchanan; and Russell Buchanan. Petitioner introduced

Exhibits P1 through P4, P7, and P8, which were admitted into

evidence. Petit ioner proffered P6, the deposition testimony of

a child, P.G.

Respondent introduced the testimony of Claudia Comerford,

Assistant Administrator for Waller Elementary School in Panama

City, Florida; and Tracy Whitehead, paraprofessional at Waller

Elementary . Respondent introduced Exhibits R1 through R8, which

were admitted in evidence, and offered a pair of childÓs tennis

shoes as a demonstrative exhibit.

The parties stipulated to introduction of the transcript of

the deposition testimony of Miriam Gladston e, a licensed mental

health counselor, as a late - filed exhibit.

A one - volume Transcript was filed with the Division on

November 15, 2017. Petitioner filed the transcript of

Ms. GladstoneÓs deposition on January 2, 2018. At the request

of the parties, the deadline for filing proposed recommended

orders was set for January 8, 2018.

The parties Ó timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders have

been taken into consideration in preparing this Recommended

Order.

Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Florid a

Statutes herein are to the 2015 version.

Evidentiary Ruling on Proffered Exhibit

Petitioner proffered the deposition testimony of a child,

P.G., given on June 1, 2016, in connection with a criminal case

against Respondent. Section 90.803(22), Florida St atutes,

provides an exception to the hearsay rule for former testimony

Ðgiven by the declarant . . . in a deposition taken in

compliance with law in the course of . . . another

proceeding[.]Ñ The exception is limited to cases in which Ðthe

party against w hom the testimony is now offered . . . had an

opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by

direct, cross, or redirect examination[.]Ñ £ 90.803(22), Fla.

Stat.

P.G.Ós deposition was taken in the course of a criminal

action against Respondent for child abuse. Thus, Respondent was

a party to the former proceeding.

One of the issues about which the child was examined was

whether he was ever in the closet at school; and, if so, who put

him there. Whether Respondent held the classroom closet door

closed while P.G. was inside is a material allegation in the

instant proceeding. Thus, Respondent had a similar motive to

develop the testimony now proffered against her.

Finally, the transcript shows that P.G. was questioned by a

counselor, Ms. Lucas, o n behalf of both the attorney for the

State of Florida, and Mr. Allen, RespondentÓs defense counsel.

Thus, Respondent had an opportunity to cross - examine the

declarant.

There is no evidence to support a finding that the

deposition was not taken in accorda nce with the law.

P.G.Ós deposition testimony is admissible under section

90.803(22) as an exception to the hearsay rule. This exception

applies only if the court finds that the testimony is not

inadmissible on the grounds of relevance or prejudice. The

undersigned has reviewed the deposition transcript and finds the

statements to be relevant and not inherently prejudicial.

PetitionerÓs Exhibit P6 is admitted in evidence.

Respondent is correct, however, that the transcript is

unreliable. At the time of the deposition, P.G. was a four -

year - old child with a language impairment. P.G. responded

ÐokayÑ to all the relevant questions , and had to be prompted

with ÐIs that a yes or a no?Ñ When prompted, P.G. always

responded Ðyes,Ñ the first choice given . 1/ Th e only question to

which P.G. responded ÐnoÑ on his own was when he was asked

whether a picture of the cartoon character Mickey Mouse was

Donald Duck. Furthermore, when RespondentÓs counsel instructed

Ms. Lucas to ask P.G. ÐWho put him [in the closet]?,Ñ Ms. Lucas

asked, ÐDid Ms. Mandy put you in the closet?Ñ While not

technically a leading question, the question did not offer the

child a broader universe of persons from which to choose. As

such, the undersigned finds the testimony inherently unreliable

and not probative of any material disputed fact.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Florida Education Commission is the state agency

charged with the certification and regulation of Florida

educators pursuant to the provisions o f chapter 1012 .

2. Respondent, Amand a Austin, holds State of Florida

EducatorÓs Certificate number 1263731, authorizing her to teach

Pre - Kindergarten/Primary Education.

3. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an

Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher of a pre -

kindergarten class at Waller Elementary School in the Bay County

School District (District).

4. P.G. was one of RespondentÓs ESE students during the

2015 - 2016 school year. He was four years old.

5. P.G. is language and speech impaired. He speaks only

one or two words at a time and cannot relate or explain his

experiences. When questioned, P.G. usually replies, Ðokay.Ñ

6. P.G. was credibly described as a Ðrunner,Ñ wanting to

be active in the classroom, rather than sitting with the other

children. P.G. preferred to be p laying in the classroom

Ðkitchen,Ñ reading on his own, or filling bowls with water,

rather than participating in lessons.

7. P.G. often screamed and cried during the school day,

especially when required to participate in activities he did not

wish to, suc h as sitting with the other children.

8. Whether P.G. had a habit of entering the supply closet

in his classroom was a disputed issue. 2/ The supply closet opens

inward from the classroom.

9. P.G.Ós parents, Danielle and Russell Buchanan,

frequently volu nteered in the classroom during the 2015 - 2016

school year.

10 . The Buchanans testified they never observed P.G. enter

the supply closet when they were volunteering in the classroom .

1 1 acy Whitehead was the paraprofessional in

RespondentÓs classroom f rom October 2015 through January 2016.

Ms. Whitehead was impressed with P.G.Ós ability to read a word

or two to her, even though his speech was impaired. She related

P.G.Ós fondness for books, and explained that he was apt to

scream and cry when she or R espondent had to take his book away

to get him to Ðcarpet timeÑ or other group activities.

1 2 . Ms. Whitehead testified that P.G. often entered the

supply closet on his own accord, and would retrieve a book and

sit in the closet to read the book.

1 3 . Ms. WhiteheadÓs testimony is accepted as more credible

and persuasive than the BuchananÓs. 3/ P.G. frequently entered

the supply closet during the day to look at books.

The Closet Incident

1 4 . During the 2015 - 2016 school year, RespondentÓs

classroom was locat ed across the hall from Sara Devito Ós

classroom. Ms. Devito was a speech therapist at Waller

Elementary. P.G. and three other students in P.G.Ós class

visited Ms. Devito Ós class for 30 - minute therapy sessions on

specified days each week.

1 5 . On January 26, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., Ms. Devito stepped

into RespondentÓs classroom to retrieve a student, not P.G., for

his or her speech therapy session. Ms. Devito observed P.G.

Ðhaving a tantrum,Ñ meaning he was Ðscreaming and crying , Ñ which

she described as Ðpret ty typical behavior for him.Ñ She also

observed that Respondent was holding P.G. underneath his arms.

Ms. Devito testified that P.G. had lifted his feet off the floor

so Respondent was holding P.G. to keep him from falling.

Ms. Devito described Responde ntÓs demeanor as calm and happy.

1 6 . Ms. Devito return ed to RespondentÓs classroom

30 minutes later to drop off the student she had taken for

speech therapy. Ms. Devito took only one or two steps into the

classroom from the doorway and was only in the cl assroom for

three to five seconds.

1 7 . Ms. Devito heard crying and screaming consistent with

P.G.Ós behavior. She also heard banging noises. Ms. Devito

scanned the room, but did not see P.G.

1 8 . Ms. Devito testified that she observed Respondent

standin g in front of the supply closet door with her left hand

resting on the door handle and her left leg against the closet

door.

1 9 . Ms. Devito concluded that P.G. was inside the closet,

screaming and crying, and that Respondent was preventing P.G.

from leavi ng the closet.

20 . Ms. Devito left RespondentÓs classroom to attend a

meeting concerning another child. After the meeting, she ate

l unch with another speech therapist , Ms. Sta fford. During lunch

Ms. Devito confided in Ms. Stafford about what she observe d in

RespondentÓs classroom. Ms. Stafford told Ms. Devito the

incident had to be reported to administration immediately.

2 1 . Ms. Devito and Ms. Stafford together reported the

incident to Assistant Principal Claudia Comerford, who in turn

brought in the P rincipal Mr. Beard. Ms. Devito gave a written

statement of the incident.

The Shoe - Taping Incident

2 2 . On January 26, 2016, P.G. was picked up from school by

his great - grandparents, Brenda Barron and Abner Garrett, as was

the routine on the days Ms. Bucha nan worked.

2 3 . After Ms. Barron and Mr. Garrett drove P.G. to their

home, they observed masking tape across the Velcro closures of

P.G.Ós shoes and wrapped around the shoes completely.

2 4 . The great - grandparents called Ms. Buchanan, who

instructed them not to remove the shoes. She stated she would

leave work directly and meet them at their home.

2 5 . The drive from Ms. BuchananÓs work to her

grandparentsÓ home is approximately 30 minutes.

2 6 . When she arrived at her grandparentsÓ home,

Ms. Buchanan too k photographs of P.G.Ós shoes on his feet, but

she did not remove the shoes.

2 7 . Instead, Ms. Buchanan called Waller Elementary and

reported to Ms. Comerford that Respondent had taped P.G.Ós shoes

to his feet and that she was bringing P.G. to the school

i mmediately to show Ms. Comerford and have pictures taken.

2 8 . Ms. Buchanan drove P.G. to the school, approximately

five minutes away, and met with Ms. Comerford, who took pictures

of the shoes and prepared a report for school administrative

purposes.

2 9 . After the pictures were taken, Ms. Buchanan finally

removed her sonÓs shoes.

30 . Ms. Buchanan testified that P.G. had red marks on his

feet where the shoes had rubbed , bruises where the shoes were

too tight , and skin missing around his toes.

Subsequent A ction Against Respondent

3 1 . Respondent was terminated from Waller Elementary ,

effective February 1, 2016.

3 2 . Respondent was also arrested and charged criminally

for one or both of the incidents. The record contains no

information on the disposition of the case.

3 3 . According to Ms. Buchanan, she and her husband have

also brought a civil action against Respondent in connection

with the incidents.

3 4 . Petitioner filed the instant Administrative Complaint

against Respondent on February 6, 2017.

Administ rative Complaint

3 5 . PetitionerÓs Administrative Complaint against

Respondent contains the following material allegations:

On or about January 26, 2016, Respondent

engaged in inappropriate behavior when she

held the door of the classroom closet closed

whi le a four - year - old student, P.G., was

inside the closet screaming.

On or about January 26, 2016, Respondent

engaged in inappropriate conduct when she

tightly taped the top of four - year - old

student P.G.Ós shoes in order to prevent

P.G. from removing the sh oes. As a result,

P.G. had red marks on his feet.

The Closet Incident

3 6 . The only witness to the closet incident is Ms. Devito .

Ms. Devito was in the classroom for only three to five seconds.

She heard screaming and crying consistent with P.G.Ós beha vior.

She did not see P.G. in the classroom when she quickly scanned

it.

3 7 . A counter with built - in cabinets both above and below

extends the length of the wall between the classroom door and

the closet door. The counter contains a sink for handwashing ,

and generally holds teaching materials and classroom supplies.

The counter ends just shortly -- approximately one foot -- before

the closet door.

3 8 . Ms. Devito testified at the final hearing that she

could see RespondentÓs feet, which were separated, Resp ondentÓs

left leg against the closet door, and RespondentÓs left hand

resting on the door handle.

3 9 . Respondent introduced photographs of the classroom

taken by the Bay County SheriffÓs Office in connection with the

criminal investigation of RespondentÓs alleged conduct. If

Ms. Devito was standing just inside the classroom door, and

Respondent was close enough to the closet door to rest her left

leg against it, Ms. Devito Ós view would have been partially

obstructed by the counter and built - in cabinets. 4/

40 . Particularly troubling is Ms. Devito Ós testimony

regarding the placement of RespondentÓs hand. Ms. Devito

testified that RespondentÓs left hand was resting on the door

handle. From the vantage point just inside the classroom,

Ms. Devito could not h ave seen RespondentÓs left hand.

Ms. Devito would have had to be several steps into the classroom

and several steps to the left of the built - in counter in order

to see RespondentÓs left hand.

4 1 . Ms. Devito gave conflicting testimony on this

important al legation in her deposition. Initially, she

testified, as follows:

So when I walked in, she did have her feet

separated and her hand on the handle like

this (indicating). She wasnÓt leaning with

her shoulder, but her hip was Î her leg and

hip were resting on the door.

Just six lines later, Ms. Devito testified, as follows:

[A]nd her hand was Î I didnÓt really see her

hand, if it was grasping the handle or not,

but I did see her arm there where she would

be on the handle, and thatÓs what I saw.

4 2 . Ms. Devito Ós testimony that Respondent had her hand on

the supply closet handle is neither credible nor reliable.

4 3 . Even if Ms. Devito unequivocally testified that

RespondentÓs hand was resting on the handle, that would be

insufficient evidence to support a finding that Respondent Ðheld

the door of the classroom closet closed,Ñ as alleged in the

Administrative Complaint. 5/

4 4 . When asked during the deposition if she could see

RespondentÓs feet, Ms. Devito responded, ÐI just know they were

separated because I saw her legs separated.Ñ

4 5 . Ms. Devito would have had no view of RespondentÓs feet

from two steps inside the classroom door if Responde nt was

standing so close to the closet door to have her left leg

leaning against it . Ms. Devito Ós view of Respondent Ós feet

would have been completely obscured by the built in cabinets.

4 6 . As to the exact location of Respondent in relation to

the closet door, Ms. Devito Ós testimony was not credible and is

not accepted as reliable.

4 7 . The most Petitioner proved was t hat P.G. was crying

and screaming when Ms. Devito dropped off his classmate from

therapy, and that she did not see him in the classroom.

4 8 . Petitioner Ós evidence does not even prove P.G. was in

the closet. P.G. could have as easily been elsewhere in the

classroom and simply not spied by Ms. Devito in he r brief scan

of the classroom.

4 9 . Petitioner did not prove that Respondent held the

closet door closed while P.G. was inside, as alleged in the

Administrative Complaint.

Shoe Taping Incident

50 . The pic tures of P.G.Ós shoes taped on his feet do not

suggest they were tightly taped. The shoes are not ÐpuckeredÑ

on either side of the tape, which would indicate that the tape

was wrapped more tightly around the shoes than the shoes would

have fit without tap e.

5 1 . The undersigned had the opportunity to examine P.G.Ós

shoes at the final hearing. Again, the shoes did not Ð pucker Ñ

or Ð bulge Ñ on either side of the tape. The tape was not broken,

stretched, or even partially removed. The tape sat flatly on

the top of the Velcro strap preventing it from being pulled up

by four - year - old hands.

5 2 . Ms. Buchanan was able to remove P.G.Ós shoes without

removing the tape, breaking the tape, or even stretching it out.

If the tape were tight enough to prevent the sh oes from being

removed, it would have been ripped, broken, or at least

str etched in the process of removing the childÓs shoes .

5 3 . The shoes were not Ðtightly tapedÑ to P.G.Ós feet, as

alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

5 4 . The tape did prevent P.G . from removing his shoes.

The tape prevented P.G. from lifting the Velcro strap to loosen

and remove his shoes.

5 5 . The taping did not leave red marks on P.G.Ós feet, as

alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

5 6 . Respondent introduced two photographs of P.G.Ós feet

taken at Waller Elementary School after Ms. Buchanan removed

P.G.Ós shoes in Ms. ComerfordÓs presence. One photograph shows

P.G.Ós right foot and part of the left foot. The second

photograph shows a side view of one foot.

5 7 . The photogr aphs show light pinkish marks across the

upper part of P.G.Ós feet close to the ankles, and slight

patterned indentations on the skin. The indentations appear

consistent with impressions from the weave of a sock.

5 8 . The photographs were taken at least 5 0 minutes after

P.G. was picked up from Waller Elementary on January 26, 2016.

5 9 . There is no direct evidence establishing the specific

time of day Respondent put the tape on P.G.Ós shoes. If the

shoes had been tightly - taped to P.G.Ós feet for 50 minute s or

more, one would expect more serious consequences than light

pinkish marks and slight sock impressions.

60 . Petitioner did not prove that Respondent Ós taping of

P.G.Ós shoes resulted in red marks on P.G.Ós feet , as alleged in

the Administrative Compla int .

6 1 . Petitioner introduced evidence that applying masking

tape to prevent a student from loosening the Velcro fasteners of

his shoes was not a common practice at Waller Elementary, but no

evidence that the practice is, per se, a violation of any

profe ssional standard. 6 /

62. Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing

evidence, that Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct in

connection with either incident.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

6 3 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

action in accordance with sections 120.569 and 1 20.57(1),

Florida Statutes (2017 ).

6 4 . This is a proceeding in which Petitioner seeks to

discipline Respondent's educatorÓs certification. Because

disciplinary pr oceedings are considered penal in nature,

Petitioner is required to prove the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence.

Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932

(Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 5 10 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

6 5 . As stated by the Florida Supreme Court:

Clear 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 lacking in confusion as

to the facts in issue. The evidence must be

of such a 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 Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005)(quoting Slomowitz

v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).

6 6 . The Administrative Complaint alleges the following

facts as a basis for imposing discipline:

On or about January 26, 2016, Responde nt

engaged in inappropriate behavior when she

held the door of the classroom closet closed

while a four - year - old student, P.G., was

inside the closet screaming.

On or about January 26, 2016, Respondent

engaged in inappropriate conduct when she

tightly tap ed the top of four - year - old

student P.G.Ós shoes in order to prevent

P.G. from removing the shoes. As a result,

P.G. had red marks on his feet.

6 7 . Based upon these factual allegations, Petitioner has

charged Respondent with violating section 1012.795( 1)(j) and rule

6A - 10.081(2)(a)1. Section 1012.795(1)(j) provides , in pertinent

part:

(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

pers on 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 teaching as provided in

subsection (4); may revo ke 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 for up to 10

years, with reinstatement sub ject 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 con tact 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

law, if the person:

* * *

(j) Has violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession prescribed by State Board of

Education rules.

6 8 . Rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1. provides in pertinent part:

6A - 10.081 Principles of Professional Conduct

for the Education Professional in Flori da.

(2) Florida educators shall comply with the

following disciplinary principles.

Violation of any of these principles shall

subject the individual to revocation or

suspension of the individual educatorÓs

certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

(a ) Obligation to the student requires that

the individual:

1. 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.

6 9 . Based upon the F indings of Fact herein, Petitioner

failed to prove the material allegation s of the Administrative

Complaint by clear and convincing evidence.

70 . The undersigned concludes that Respondent did not

violate either section 1012.795(1)(j) or rule 6A - 10.081(2) (a)1.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed

in its entirety, and the Education Practices Commission take no

action against RespondentÓs certificate.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE VAN WYK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahasse e, 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 30th day of January , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Except for one question to which he responded, ÐYes or no.

Yes.Ñ

2/ At all times material hereto, the supply closet did not have

an operable lock, but was kept closed and was posted with a red

Ðstop sign,Ñ to warn students it was Ðoff limits.Ñ

3/ The undersigned does not necessarily find the BuchananÓs

testi mony incredible. Ms. WhiteheadÓs testimony was more

credible than the BuchananÓs both because she had more

opportunity to observe P.G.Ós behavior in the classroom and

because P.G.Ós behavior may have been different when his parents

were present in the cla ssroom.

4/ In the photographs , a small, portable bookshelf is located at

the end of the built - in counter and oriented perpendicular

thereto. The bookshelf occupies the space between the end of

the counter and the closet door, and extends beyond the coun ter

approximately three feet. Petitioner disputed that the

bookshelf was placed in that location on the date in question,

and introduced testimony to that effect.

The undersigned makes no finding regarding the location or

position of the bookshelf in que stion on the date in question.

No such finding is necessary to support the finding that

Ms. Devito Ós view was partially obscured on the date in question

by the built - in counter and cabinets.

5/ Moreover, Ms. Devito Ós testimony that Respondent was leanin g

against the closet door, which opens inward, does not support a

finding that Respondent was holding the door closed.

6/ Moreover, mere taping of the shoes, without more, was not the

substance of the allegation as pled.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gretchen Kel ley 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

Defu niak Springs, Florida 32435

(eServed)

Anthony D. Demma, Esquire

Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A.

131 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee, Florida 3230 1

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

3 25 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

(e Served)

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 Fi nal Order in this case.