17-006391PL Pam Stewart, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Krizia Columna Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, May 1, 2018.

Summary: Child testimony did not prove charges of improper discipline by clear and convincing evidence.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF

EDUCATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 6391PL

KRIZIA COLUMNA,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On February 21 and 22 , 2018, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

J. Lawrence Johnston of the Division of Administrative Hearings

(DOAH) conducted a disputed - fact hearing in this case at Shingle

Creek Elementary School in Orlando.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

For Respondent: Tobe M. Lev, Esquire

Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A.

231 East Colonial Drive

Orlando, Florida 32801

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether the Respondent, an elementary school teacher, should

be disciplined under sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida

Statutes (2016), 1/ for inappropriately disciplining a student in

violation of Florida Administrative Code Ru les 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1.

and 5. 2/ ; and, if so, the appropriate discipline.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 16, 2017, the Petitioner filed an Administrative

Complaint against the Respondent. The three - count Administrative

Complaint charged the Respondent wit h violating section

1012.795(1)(j) by violating rules 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1. (failure to

protect students from harmful conditions) and 5. (intentional

exposure of students to unnecessary emb arrassment or

disparagement).

The Respondent disputed the charges and requested a hearing

under section 120.57(1) , Florida Statutes . The Petitioner

forwarded the case to DOAH for assignment to an ALJ. It was

designated DOAH case 17 - 6391PL and sc heduled for hearing on

February 21, 20 18, by video teleconferencing.

On Februar y 7, the parties Ó request for an in - person hearing

at the Shingle Creek Elementary School (Shingle Creek) was

granted for the convenience of the witnesses. On February 14,

the Petitioner was granted leave to file an Amended

Administrative Complaint that c larified the factual allegations,

as follows:

3. On or about October 13, 2016, Respondent

suspected that seven year old, female

student, B.K., stole a piece of candy during

class. As B.K. stood crying in the presence

of other students, Respondent told B. K. ÐI Ó m

going to go ahead and check your desk.Ñ

Respondent then tipped B.K. Ó s desk over and

the contents, including candy, fell to the

floor. After Respondent questioned B.K.

about the candy, Respondent then turned to

her students and said Ðthere is one thing

Ms. Columna does not allow in her classroom,

she does not allow stealing.Ñ Respondent

asked the entire class Ðwhat don Ó t we do in

Ms. Columna Ó s class?Ñ The students responded

Ðwe don Ó t steal.Ñ Respondent then directed

B.K. to Ðclean up her desk. Clean up the

papers on the floor.Ñ

4. Respondent also instructed her students

to take turns hitting or slapping B.K. Ó s

hands. Several students hit B.K. Ó s hands,

causing B.K. to cry.

At the hearing, the Petitioner called 14 witnesses -- two

investigators , nine students, the parents of one of the students,

and Shingle Creek Ó s school principal. The Petitioner Ó s Exhibits

1 through 47 and 49 were received in evidence, subject to the

Respondent Ó s objections to the use of hearsay in the exhibits as

the sole su pport for findings unless the hearsay would be

admissible over objection in civil actions. § 120.57(1)(c) , Fla.

Stat . The Respondent testified and called two teachers and an

expert witness on child witness interviews. The Respondent Ó s

Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 were received in evidence.

A Transcript of the hearing was filed, and the parties filed

proposed recommended orders that have been considered.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate

1197418, covering Elementary Ed ucation, English for Speakers of

Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student

Education. The certificate i s valid through June 30, 2022.

2. The Respondent began the 2016/2017 school year teaching

second grade at Shingle Creek in Orlando, whic h is in the Orange

County Public Schools (OCPS) school district. It was her fourth

year of teaching there. Her teacher evaluations were

satisfactory . She did not use corporal punishment, and did not

yell or scream at her students . She had no disciplina ry history.

(She had one non - disciplinary directive for blurting out an

expletive in pain when she fell in class and hurt her knee.)

3. Shortly after the start of the 2016/2017 school year,

the Respondent realized she had a student, B.K., who took thin gs

that did not belong to her. B.K. was bright and popular among

the children in class, but she could not be relied on to tell the

truth. From the beginning of the school year, the Respondent had

to take steps to discipline B.K. Ó s misbehavior and try to correct

it.

4 . Soon after the start of the school year, B.K. put a

laptop computer in her back pack, instead of returning it to the

charging cart in the classroom as all the other children did when

they finished using it. At the end of the day, B.K. to ld the

Respondent that another student put the laptop in her back pack.

The other student denied it, and the Respondent was obliged to

refer the matter to the school administration. An assistant

principal investigated and interviewed B.K., who admitted t o

taking it.

5 . The Respondent also found her own personal books in

B.K. Ó s back pack. B.K. falsely accused a classmate of putting

them there.

6 . On another occasion, another teacher caught B.K. with

the Respondent Ó s ÐHello KittyÑ flash drive. B.K. told the

teacher that a friend had given it to her, which was false, and

the teacher wrote a referral to administration.

7 . As a result of these incidents, the Respondent had a

conference with B.K. Ó s parents. B.K. Ó s father reported that he

had found b ooks at home that did not belong to his daughter.

B.K. admitted that she had taken them from the classroom. The

Respondent was obliged to make a classroom referral.

8 . The Respondent continued to learn of other similar

incidents. Once B.K. took two b ags of candy the Respondent used

to reward good behavior and achievement by her students. Another

teacher saw B.K. distributing the candy to classroom friends

outside the classroom and reported it to the Respondent, who

realized it was her candy that had gone missing.

9 . After the candy incident, the Respondent again met with

B.K. Ó s parents and decided to impose consequences in addition to

the classroom referral to discipline B.K. for the theft of the

candy Ï namely, she decided to withhold the prize she planned to

give students on Thursday, October 13, for good behavior during

the preceding month. (Friday, October 14, was a day off school.)

She told B.K. Ó s parents about the consequences she planned to

impose.

10 . As October 13 approached, B.K. contin ued to misbehave

by taking things that did not belong to her, including a Post - It

note dispenser and a bag of erasers. The Respondent reported to

the school guidance counselor and assistant principal that B.K. Ó s

misbehavior seemed to be escalating.

11 . During the last class period of the day on October 13,

while the class was working on a science project, the Respondent

called each student up to her desk individually to reward good

behavior with points , prizes , candy , and to identify misbehavior

to be c orrected. Under the Ðclass dojoÑ behavior system the

Respondent was using, class participation was rewarded with

points and corresponding ÐkarateÑ belts. Good behavior was

rewarded with candy. When it was B.K. Ó s turn, the Respondent

explained that she w as getting points and a belt for class

participation but was not getting candy because of her taking

things that did not belong to her, and not telling the truth.

The Respondent told B.K. that she would have a Ðclean slateÑ

going forward and would get poi nts and both prizes and candy if

she earned them with good behavior in the next month.

12 . Not long after the Respondent Ó s talk with B.K., another

student said out loud that B.K. had candy that did not belong to

her. The Respondent asked B.K. if she ha d candy, and B.K. denied

it. The Respondent then asked her students to check to see if

they had the candy they had just been given. One student, who

sat next to B.K. and had put her candy in her desk, said hers was

missing. The Respondent then asked B.K ., who still denied taking

the candy, to show her what was in her desk. B.K. just froze and

did not comply. The Respondent repeated herself. B.K. again

refused and began to get emotional. Because the desk was a

Ðjumbled messÑ of tissues, papers, food, a milk carton, pencils

and other things, and because bending down low was difficult for

the Respondent, the Respondent tipped the desk over enough for

some of items in it to begin falling out on the floor. The

missing candy was among the first several ite ms that fell out on

the floor. At this point, B.K. claimed that the student whose

candy was missing had given it to her, which the other student

denied. The Respondent then told B.K. that the Respondent was

going to have to write B.K. Ó s parents a note ab out the incident.

She also told B.K. to pick her things up off the floor and put

them back in her desk.

13 . During these proceedings, B.K. became emotional and

started crying. At one point, she kicked at her desk or chair.

The Respondent had her sit u p near the chalkboard until she

calmed down. The Respondent sat down at her desk facing B.K. and

told her she was very disappointed with her because of the talk

they just had.

14 . Although most of the students had resumed working on

their science proje cts, one child asked out loud if B.K. had

stolen the candy. The Respondent did not directly answer the

question. Instead, she said something like, ÐI Ó m not sure what

you just saw and heard, but one thing we don Ó t do in this class

is, we don Ó t steal, righ t? What don Ó t we do?Ñ Some of the

students who were listening repeated, Ðwe don Ó t steal.Ñ

15 . When things settled back down, the Respondent wrote a

note to B.K. Ó s parents notifying them about the candy incident

and telling them that B.K. Ó s behavior th at day had been Ðin the

redÑ ( i.e. , bad). B.K. went back to sitting at her desk, and the

rest of the class period was uneventful. In fact, the school

principal came to the Respondent Ó s classroom before the class

period ended to deliver notices for the st udents to take home to

their parents. Although she was not in the classroom long, she

noticed nothing unusual.

16 . At home after school on October 13, B.K. Ó s mother asked

her about the Respondent Ó s note. B.K. denied stealing candy.

She told her p arents that the Respondent gave all the other

children in the class candy except her and accused her of taking

a piece of candy, which she denied. B.K. then told them that the

Respondent then kicked her chair, dumped her desk on the floor,

made her clean it up and put her desk back in order, and made the

other students line up and take turns hitting her hand hard in

punishment. Her parents decided to talk to the Shingle Creek

principal about it on the next school day, which was Monday.

17 . When B.K. an d her parents arrived at school on Monday

morning, they encountered and talked to several of B.K. Ó s

classmates outside the school. At least two of the classmates

were approached by B.K., who brought them to her parents. The

evidence was unclear as to how many other classmates were

involved, or how the conversations went. The language skills of

the students in general were those of second - graders, and several

of the children were speakers of English as a second language.

B.K. Ó s parents speak English with a strong Haitian accent. For

example, the words ÐhitÑ and ÐhateÑ sound very similar, and it is

not easy to understand their spoken English. It is unclear

exactly what was said, but B.K. Ó s parents came away from the

conversations convinced that B.K. was telling the truth about

what happened in class on October 13. It is also possible that

the children Ó s memories and recollections were influenced by

these conversations.

18 . B.K. Ó s parents then went to speak to the school Ó s

principal. B.K. did not go to class but stayed with her parents

in the principal Ó s office. After talking to the family, the

principal telephoned OCPS Ó s senior manager of employee relations,

who advised her to gather witness statements.

19 . The principal and several assistants be gan taking

statements, starting with B.K. and her parents. After them, the

Respondent was called to the principal Ó s office. Following the

instructions given to all teachers by the teacher union, the

Respondent declined to give a written statement without a lawyer

or union representative present. She did have a conversation

with her principal. The principal asked her to explain the

situation with B.K. on Thursday. The Respondent told her about

the candy incident, including tipping the desk to find the c andy;

about being very disappointed with B.K.; and about writing a note

to B.K. Ó s parents. The Respondent recalls the principal asking

if anything else happened, and she answered, no. The principal

recalled the conversation a bit differently. She though t the

Respondent admitted to dumping B.K. Ó s desk over, raising her

voice, and being angry with B.K. She also remembered asking the

Respondent if any of the other students hit B.K. and the

Respondent answering that she did not see anyone hit her.

20 . Th e principal then began interviewing the Respondent Ó s

students one by one. The interviews continued the rest of the

morning and into lunch recess. Some statements were taken the

next day. It is unclear to what extent the student witnesses

discussed their statements among themselves during the day.

21 . The interviews were not video or audio - recorded. The

interviewers thought they were asking proper, open - ended

questions that did not suggest answers, but studies have shown

that interviews usually are no t as proper or open - ended as

interviewers think they are, especially when the interviewers do

not have extensive training. The training of the principal and

her assistants in interview techniques was limited. Proper

interview techniques help ensure that witness memories and

statements are authentic, accurate, and reliable. They are

especially important for child witnesses.

22 . The statements were not verbatim, or close to verbatim.

Two of the statements were written with difficulty by the second -

gra ders themselves and were not very articulate. The rest were

written by the adult interviewers and signed by the second -

graders so the process would go faster. These statements were

written in a summary or conclusory fashion, without much detail,

and were similar to one another, suggesting that they were

recording the answers to questions of particular interest to the

adult interviewers. The statement forms themselves had spaces

designated for the ÐDate of InfractionÑ and ÐLocation of

Infraction,Ñ and had signature blocks that said: ÐI swear/affirm

the above and/or attached statements are true and correct. I

understand that providing false information is punishable under

the Student Code of Conduct.Ñ It is doubtful that the second -

graders would have und erstood what that meant.

23 . Fourteen (all but one) of the statements said that the

Respondent told the students to hit or slap B.K. Ó s hand or hands.

Some added that B.K. was crying; some added that the Respondent

told them to hit hard, or harder. One statement said they did it

because B.K. took candy, one said it was because B.K. was a

thief, and one said it was because B.K. steals too much. Some of

the statements were surprising because of the capabilities of the

child supposedly giving it: one of the students was non - verbal

and would not have been comfortable speaking to a stranger;

another was autistic and unable to sequence information such as

the days of the week; and another had behavioral and emotional

issues that made him incapable of giving a statement. Some of

the second - graders added remarkable features in their statements

that were not mentioned by anyone else, or by just a few: one

said the Respondent threw B.K. down to the ground; three,

including one attributed to the child with behav ioral and

emotional issues, said that the Respondent threatened to call the

police; one said that the Respondent told B.K. to put her desk by

the wall; and one said the Respondent told the class to avoid

B.K.

24 . During the morning on October 17, severa l of the

Respondent Ó s students told her that B.K. Ó s parents had talked to

them before school about the Respondent making them hit or slap

their child on the hand, and told her that B.K. no longer was in

the Respondent Ó s class.

25 . After the second - grad ers Ó statements were gathered, the

school principal presented them to the OCPS senior manager of

employee relations, who scheduled a pre - determination meeting on

October 21. His investigative report stated: 16 student

statements were obtained; 15 confirm ed being directed by the

teacher to hit B.K. on the hand; 3 confirmed the teacher telling

the students to repeat Ðdon Ó t stealÑ; 8 confirmed the teacher

yelling; 5 confirmed the teacher telling them to hit B.K. hard;

3 confirmed the teacher calling B.K. a thief; and 3 confirmed the

teacher saying she was going to call the police. The

investigative report also stated that the Respondent: admitted

getting angry and raising her voice; admitted pouring out the

contents of the student Ó s desk; admitted saying a nd having the

students repeat, Ðwhat is it we don Ó t do in class? We don Ó t

stealÑ; stated she did not recall directing the students to hit

B.K.; did not know if B.K. was hit Ðon October 17,Ñ but did know

that B.K. lies; and did not report the incident to t he school

administration on October 17.

2 6 . Based on the investigative report, OCPS terminated the

Respondent Ó s employment. The Respondent filed a grievance which

was arbitrated under the terms of the teacher union contract.

27 . When the matter was referred to the Petitioner, another

investigation was conducted. On February 17, 2017, the second -

graders were interviewed again by the Petitioner Ó s investigator.

The investigator asked the questions and wrote the answers. The

second - graders were asked to confirm that the answers were

written down correctly and signed their statements. Like the

principal and her assistants, the Petitioner Ó s investigator

believed she asked non - suggestive, open - ended questions. Like

the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner Ó s investigator

did not have extensive training in the proper techniques for

manner of interviewing children. Like the interviews conducted

by the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner Ó s

investigator did not video or audio - record her inte rviews.

2 8 . Each student interviewed by the Petitioner Ó s

investigator stated that the Respondent told the students to

ÐslapÑ B.K. Ó s on the hand as hard as they could and that slapping

B.K. made the student feel Ðsad.Ñ One said that B.K. cried. One

sai d the Respondent made the class stand in a circle and take

turns slapping B.K. on the hand.

29 . Unlike the school principal and her assistants, the

Petitioner Ó s investigator had the students describe how hard they

were supposed to hit B.K. on a scale of 1 to 5. This question

elicited several responses that they were told to hit Ðhard,Ñ one

that they were told to hit Ðas hard as we could,Ñ and one that

gave a rating of 5.

30 . In the statements gathered by the Petitioner Ó s

investigator, several of the students mentioned that the

Respondent told them to pretend B.K. was a ghost, and several

said the Respondent told them not to tell anyone about what

happened. Oddly, neither of these remarkable details was

mentioned in any of the statements taken by the principal and her

assistants.

31 . The Respondent Ó s grievance was arbitrated in May 2017.

After a three - day hearing, the termination was upheld, despite

testimony from another teacher that she overheard B.K. admit to

stealing candy and to lying to get t he Respondent in trouble

because she was tired of getting caught stealing by the

Respondent.

32 . Several of the students who gave statements testified

at both the arbitration hearing and the hearing in this case.

Several were deposed before testifying. The Petitioner in her

Proposed Recommended Order suggested that credibility issues

arising from the prior events should be ignored because they were

cured by the live testimony. That is not true. Issues remain as

to whether the students Ó live testimony was influenced by what

preceded. In addition, their testimony at the hearing was

confusing and inconsistent in many respects.

33 . Two of the students testified that the students formed

a circle around B.K., while three said they formed a line. One

sa id the line was in the shape of a C or J. One specified that

they hit B.K. Ó s hand while she was either in a corner or by a

desk where the sink was located. One said B.K. was standing in

front of another student Ó s desk. Two said B.K. was standing in

the middle of the classroom. One said B.K. Ó s hand was held out

palm down. Another said it was palm up. One said the Respondent

held B.K. Ó s hand out.

34 . The evidence, taken as a whole, is not clear and

convincing that the Respondent had her students hit or slap B.K.

as punishment for taking the candy. While several children made

statements that included some version of this alleged incident,

they all started with B.K., who was overheard saying she was

lying, and the other children Ó s statements are fraugh t with

questions that make them unreliable and insufficient to prove

those facts clearly and convincingly.

35 . Meanwhile, the Respondent Ó s version of what happened,

while self - serving, is more persuasive. Her refusal to give a

written statement, and he r manner of answering questions, may

have raised suspicions on the part of the school principal, and

may have contributed to a number of misunderstandings by the

principal and B.K. Ó s parents, but they do not prove that the

Respondent was lying. The Respon dent Ó s conduct that was proven

by the evidence did not rise to the level of a disciplinable

failure to make reasonable effort to protect B.K. from conditions

harmful to learning and/or to her mental and/or physical health

and/or safety, and did not intenti onally expose B.K. to

unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. What the Respondent

actually did was within the realm of making reasonable efforts to

correct B.K. Ó s problem behaviors and to teach her and her

classmates how to behave properly and accepta bly, while at the

same time trying to keep order in the classroom and continu e

delivering academic instruction.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

36 . Because the Petitioner seeks to impose license

discipline, she has the burden to prove the allegations by clear

and conv incing evidence. See Dep Ó t of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne

Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington ,

510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). This Ðentails 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 fact without hesitancy.Ñ In re Davey , 645

So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994). See also Slomowitz v. Walker , 429

So. 2d 79 7, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). ÐAlthough this standard of

proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, . . . it

seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.Ñ Westinghouse

Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA

1991).

37 . Dis ciplinary statutes and rules Ðmust be construed

strictly, in favor of the one against whom the penalty would be

imposed.Ñ Munch v. Dep Ó t of Prof Ó l Reg., Div. of Real Estate ,

592 So. 2d 1136, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Camejo v.

Dep Ó t of Bus. & Pro f Ó l Reg. , 812 So. 2d 583, 583 - 84 (Fla. 3d DCA

2002); McClung v. Crim. Just. Stds. & Training Comm Ó n , 458 So. 2d

887, 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)(Ð[W]here a statute provides for

revocation of a license the grounds must be strictly construed

because the statute is penal in nature. No conduct is to be

regarded as included within a penal statute that is not

reasonably proscribed by it; if there are any ambiguities

included, they must be construed in favor of the licensee.Ñ

(citing State v. Pattishall , 126 So. 147 (Fla. 1930)).

38 . The grounds proven in support of the Petitioner Ó s

assertion that the Respondent Ó s license should be disciplined

must be those specifically alleged in the Amended Administrative

Complaint. See e.g. , Trevisani v. Dep Ó t of Health, 908 So. 2d

1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Cottrill v. Dep Ó t of Ins. , 685 So. 2d

1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Kinney v. Dep Ó t of State , 501 So. 2d

129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Hunter v. Dep Ó t of Prof Ó l Reg. ,

458 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Due process prohibits the

Petit ioner from taking disciplinary action against a licensee

based on matters not specifically alleged in the charging

instruments, unless those matters have been tried by consent.

See Shore Vill. Prop. Owners Ó Ass Ó n, v. Dep Ó t of Envtl. Prot. ,

824 So. 2d 208, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Delk v. Dep Ó t of Prof Ó l

Reg. , 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

39 . The Petitioner charges the Respondent with being in

violation of section 1012.795(1)(j) by violating rules 6A -

10.081(2)(a)1. and 5., which are Principles of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession.

40 . Under rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1., a teacher is required to

Ðmake reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions

harmful to learning and/or to the student Ó s mental and/or

physical health and /or safety.Ñ

41 . Under rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)5., a teacher is prohibited

from intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary

embarrassment or disparagement.

42 . Under section 1012.795(1), the possible discipline for

violations includes suspension for up to five years, revocation

for up to ten years, and permanent revocation. In her proposed

recommended order, the Petitioner states that she is seeking

revocation because the alleged violations were so serious.

However, the most serious allegations were not proven by clear

and convincing evidence; and the facts proven did not constitute

violations.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission

enter a final order finding the Respondent not guilty and

dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May , 2018 , in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

S

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

Administrative Law Judge

Divi sion 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 Administrative Hearings

this 1st day of May , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Unless otherwise indicated, the Florida Statutes cited refer

to the 2016 codification, which contains the statutes that were

in effect in October 2016, when the alleged violations occurred.

2 / All rule citations are to the Florida A dministrative Code

rules that were in effect in October 2016, when the alleged

violations occurred.

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)

Eric J. Lindstrom, Esquire

Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A.

Post Office Box 2231

Orlando, Florida 32802

(eServed)

Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

(eS erved)

Tobe M. Lev, Esquire

Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A.

231 East Colonial Drive

Orlando, Florida 32801

(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.