18-002196TTS Lake County School Board vs. Alan Rosier Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 3, 2018.

Summary: Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents engaged in Misconduct in Office; thus Petitioner did not have just cause to terminate Respondents.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 2196TTS

ALAN ROSIER,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 2309TTS

KATIE LASSEN,

Respondent.

____ ___________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A duly - noticed hearing was held on June 20, 2018, in

Tavares, Florida, before Suzanne Van Wyk, an Administrative Law

Judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire

Elizabeth A. Turner, Esquire

McLin Burnsed

1000 West Main Street

Leesburg, Florida 34748

For Respondent Katie Lassen

Lynn C. Hearn, Esqu ire

Meyer, Brook s, Demma and Blohm, P.A.

131 North Gadsden Street

Post Office Box 1547

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent Alan Rosier, pro se

128 Oak Grove Road

Winter Park, Florida 32789

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause

to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency

action letters dated April 17, 2018.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner sent each Respondent a letter dated April 17,

2018, notifyin g Respondents that Petitioner had concluded its

investigation into allegations that Respondents engaged in

misconduct and was recommending RespondentsÓ termination. The

letters advised Respondents of the grounds for termination and of

their right to an ad ministrative hearing. Respondents timely

requested hearings to contest the recommendation of termination,

and the matters were referred to the Division of Administrative

Hearings (Division) on May 7, 2018, for the assignment of an

administrative law judge .

Petitioner filed a request to consolidate the two cases,

which was granted by the undersigned on May 24, 2018. The

consolidated cases were scheduled for final hearing on June 20,

2018, and commenced as scheduled.

At the final hearing, the pa rties intr oduced Joint

Exhibits J1 through J 12 , which were admitted in evidence.

Petitioner introduced Exhibits P1 through P4, which were admitted

in evidence, and offered the testimony of Kimberly Sneed,

Katherine Falcon, and David Meyers.

Respondent, Katie Lassen (Ms. Lassen), testified on her own

behalf. Respondent, Alan Rosier (Mr. Rosier), testified on his

own behalf and offered the testimony of Dawn Boyd, Kelly Lovely,

and Ryan Hernandez. Neither Respondent introduced any exhibits.

A one - volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with the

Division on July 9, 2018. O n July 24, 2018, 1/ t he parties timely

filed Proposed Recommended Orders which have been considered by

the undersigned in preparation of this Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise noted, all referenc es to the Florida

Statutes are to the 2017 version.

FINDING S OF FACT

1 . Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the

constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and

supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX,

§ 4(b), Fla. Cons t.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is

authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school

employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat.

2 . Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary

School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for thr ee years.

During the 2016 - 20 17 and 2017 - 20 18 school years, Mr. Rosier was

the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. RosierÓs duties was to assist

teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison

with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also co nducted in -

school suspension of students.

3 . Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with

students who were on campus after school hours because they

either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or

guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student

safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student

to find a way to get the student home.

4 . Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She

taught first grade during the 2016 - 2017 and 2017 - 2018 sch ool

years. Petitioner Lassen is an Ðinclusion teacher,Ñ meaning her

classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional

Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for

services.

5 . Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE servic es for

children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her

classroom are Ðpush in, pull out,Ñ meaning an exceptional

education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in

the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom

to work with an exceptional education teacher.

6 . Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed

teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their

learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw

as a lack of needed service s for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen

applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the

transfer was denied.

7 . During the 2017 - 20 18 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven

ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral

issues. Som e of her students were violent, even trying to harm

themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were

throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children,

while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found

herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child

being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about

the treatment of their child by an ESE student.

8 . To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met

with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017 - 2018 school year -- in

March 2018 particularly -- they met roughly twice a week. The two

met once in Mr. RosierÓs office and sometimes in the portable

where Mr. Rosier conducted in - school suspension; however, they

met most frequently in Ms. LassenÓs classroom.

9 . The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after

students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. RosierÓs after -

school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the

school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own

children from school and daycare and take them to after - school

activities.

10 . During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with

Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in

her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier

had the re sponsibility to deal with parents, often conducting

parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom.

11 . Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and

occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom

and parent issues. Some times Ms. Lassen would become emotional.

Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students

needed.

12 . Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the

2017 - 2018 school year.

13 . On April 2, 2018 , Mr. Sneed entered Ms. LassenÓs

cl assroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph

Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why

Mr. Rosier was in Ms. LassenÓs classroom at that time.

14 . When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights

were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the

classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door,

which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open,

Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse

and supply bag in han d.

15 . Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to

determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the

key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she

was not certain the closet door was actually locked.

16 . Th e closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the

closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the

light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed

turned the light switch on as she entered the closet.

17 . Ms. Lassen was surpr ised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if

she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen

why she had been in a dark closet.

18 . How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. SneedÓs question was a

disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, ÐMs. Sneed, you

donÓt understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the

cheek, nothing more.Ñ Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, ÐWe

were only kissing, we werenÓt doing anything, no sex or nothing.Ñ

19 . Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children.

20 . M s. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier

standing at the back of the L - shaped closet, with his back to the

door.

21 . Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was

untucked and his glasses were off.

22 . Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier . Instead she

quipped sarcastically, ÐReally, Mr. Rosier? Really?Ñ

23 . Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise

respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and

proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her a nd

asked if he could talk with her in her office.

24 . What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was

also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier

stated, ÐIÓll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching,

but nothing else.Ñ Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he

said, but admitted that he did use the word Ðkiss.Ñ He testified

that everything happened quick ly. He was embarrassed and

Ms. Sneed was angry.

25 . The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to

the Sc hool Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon.

26 . That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were

interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an

interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone

conversation with Ms. Sne ed that morning. The questio nnaire

contained the following seven questions:

1. For the record state your name.

2. What is your current position?

3. How long have you been in your current

position?

4. Yesterday, Ms. Sneed f ound you and

another teache r in a locked dark closet. Can

you explain?

5. Is this the first time you have engaged

in this activity on campus?

6. Did you share any information about this

incident with anyone else?

7. Is there anything else you would like to

say?

27 . Ms. Falc on asked the questions, and David Meyers,

Employee Relations Manager, typed RespondentsÓ answers.

Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it

to each respective Respondent to review and sign.

28 . The report states Ms. LassenÓs respo nse to Question 4

as follows:

The closet was unlocked. It is always

unlocked. I just kissed him. It didnÓt go

any further. There was no touching or

clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like

that has ever happened before. Yesterday was

more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting

ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was

standing by the door. He was standing by my

filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there

during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we

were doing in there. We told her we were

fool ing around a little bit, kissing.

29 . Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking

for clarifications or changes.

30 . Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the

interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any

form of disc ipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom

because her ESE students do not do well in her absence.

31 . At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating

anything about Ðfooling around a littleÑ with Mr. Rosier.

32 . In response to the same question, Mr. RosierÓs report

states the following:

The closet wasnÓt locked. This teacher,

Katie Lassen and I have become good friends.

Yesterday we caught ourselves being too

close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were

first in the main classroom. When we began

t o kiss we went in the closet. There was a

knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My

clothes were kind of wrangled.

33 . Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without

asking for clarifications or changes.

34 . At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier deni ed stating that he

and Ms. Lassen were Ðkissing and huggingÑ or that Ðwhen we began

to kiss we went into the closet.Ñ As to his statement that Ðwe

caught ourselves becoming too close , Ñ he testified that he meant

they had begun discussing personal issues i n addition to

Ms. LassenÓs concerns with her ESE students.

35 . Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they

were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who

was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen

was emoti onal. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her

things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to

after - school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen

broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing

the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing

Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to

get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she

left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a

hug and they e xchanged kisses on the cheek.

36 . RespondentsÓ stories at final hearing were nearly

identical, a little too well - rehearsed, and differed too much

from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident,

to be credible.

37 . Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences

drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier

was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in

the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial

respectful working relationship. Th e encounter was brief and

there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other

than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no

intention to continue anything other than a professional

relationship.

38 . This incident occurred aft er school hours, sometime

between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only

stud ents on campus were at an after - school care program in a

different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents

kissing or entering the closet together. Onl y Ms. Sneed

witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet.

39 . Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23,

2018.

Administrative Charges

40 . The school boardÓs administrative complaints suffer

from a lack of specificity. Both employees are ch arged with

Ðengaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another

school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,Ñ

in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for

Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints d o not

charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of

particular conduct which constitutes Ðsexual misconduct.Ñ 2/

Moreover, the School B oard introduced no definition of sexual

misconduct.

41 . The School Board inquired about some specific co nduct

during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents.

Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a

Ðlocked dark closet.Ñ

42 . The School B oard failed to prove that the closet was

either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet.

43 . It appears the School Board bases its charge of

Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the

Respondents had Ðengaged in this activity on campusÑ on dates

other than April 2, 2018.

44 . When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. LassenÓs roo m on April 2,

2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to

Ms. LassenÓs room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable

evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The

report that Mr. Rosier Ðwent to Ms. LassenÓs classroom every day

at 4:00,Ñ was hearsay to the 4th degree, 3/ without any non - hearsay

corroborating evidence.

45 . Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together

in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other

than April 2, 2018.

46 . Fina lly, it appears the School Board bases its charges,

in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosi er was not fulfilling his

after - school duties because he was spending too much time with

Ms. Lassen.

47 . To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on

the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be

found when the administration had to deal with a student who had

either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed

testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed

the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through

the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the

day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the

parking lot.

48 . Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and te stified

that , as two administrators were attending to the student, he did

not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his

appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students.

49 . Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected

ei ther his after - school or any other duties.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

50 . The Division has jurisdiction over the subject matter

and parties in this case, pursuant to section 1012.33(6) and

sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2018).

51 . Petitioner is a duly constituted School Board charged

with the duty to operate, control, and supervi s e all free public

schools within the school district of Lake County, Florida, under

section 1012.22 .

52 . Petitioner seeks to terminate RespondentsÓ employment,

and has the burden of proving the allegations set forth in its

letter of dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence, as

opposed to the more stringent standard of clear and convincing

evidence applicable to the loss of a license or certification.

Cropsey v. Sch. Bd. of Manatee Cnty. , 19 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA

2009) , rev. denied , 29 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. 2010); Cisneros v. Sch.

Bd. of Miami - Dade Cnty. , 990 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

53 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 5.056 sets forth

criteria for sus pension and dismissal of school personnel.

Subsection (2) defines Misconduct in Office in pertinent part, as

follows:

(2) ÒMisconduc t in OfficeÓ means one or more

of the following:

(b) A violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Educa tion

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6A -

10.081, F.A.C. [the Principles];

(c) A violation of the adopted school board

rules;

* * *

(e) Behavior that reduces the teacherÓs

ability or his or her colleaguesÓ ability to

effectively perform duties.

The Principles

54 . At the final hearing, Petitioner clarified that it has

charged Ms. Lassen with violations of r ule 6A - 5.056(2)(b)

and (c), a nd Mr. Rosier with violations of 6A - 5.056(2)(b), (c),

and (e).

55 . Petitioner alleges Respondents violated t he following

provisions of the Principles:

6A - 10.081(1)(b): 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

growth and will seek to exercise the best

professional judgement and integrity.

6A - 10.081(1)(c): Aware of the importance of

maintaining the respect and confidence of

oneÓs colleagues, of students, of parents,

and o f other members of the community, the

educator strives to achieve and sustain the

highest degree of ethical conduct.

56 . The Principles are divided into two sections:

subsection (1), which consists of ethical principles 4/ ; and

subsection (2), which pro vides disciplinary principles with which

educators Ðmust comply.Ñ

57 . The ethical principles in subsection (1) have been

described as Ðaspirational in nature, and in most cases [are] not

susceptible of forming a basis for suspension or dismissal.Ñ

Saras ota Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Simmons , Case No. 92 - 7278 (Fla. DOAH

Nov. 9, 1993), and Ðof little practical use in defining normative

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

(Fla. DOAH July 29, 2014); Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Weinberg ,

Cas e No. 15 - 4993 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 13, 2016; Fla. Broward Cnty.

Sch. Bd. Aug. 23, 2016). By contrast, the disciplinary

principles enumerate specific ÐdosÑ and ÐdonÓtsÑ to put a teacher

on notice concerning what conduct is forbidden. See Miami - Dade

Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Brenes , Case No. 06 - 1758, ( Fla. DOAH Feb. 27,

2007; Fla. Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. Apr. 25, 2007). ÐThus, it

true.Ñ Id. Ð Put another way, in order to punish a teacher for

misconduct in office, it is necessary but not sufficient that a

proved, whereas it is both necessary and sufficient that a

violation of a specif ic rule in [subsection (2)] be proved.Ñ

Id. ; see Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Regueira , Case No. 06 - 4752

n.4 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 11, 2007; Fla. Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.

May 25, 2007).

58 . Here, Petitioner did not allege that Respondents

violated any of the specific disciplinary principles enumerated

in subsection (2). The alleged violations of the broad

aspirational objectives of subsection (1) are insufficient to

establish a violation of the Principles.

59 . Petitioner did not prove Respondents violated the

Principles; thus Petitioner did not prove that either Respondent

violated rule 6A - 5.056(1)(b).

School Board Policies

60 . Rule 6A - 5.056(1)(c) defines Misconduct in Office to

include Ð[a] violation of the adopted school board rules.Ó

61 . Petitioner al leges that Respondents violated the

following Lake County School Board policies:

6.301(2) Principles of Professional Conduct

(2): All instructional Personnel and School

Board Administrators shall adhere to the

[Principles].

6.301(3) Princip les of Profess ional Conduct

(3): All Administrative, instructional, and

non - instructional personnel shall familiarize

themselves with the Code of Ethics for Public

Officers and Employees as set forth in F.S.

112.311, et seq. All employees shall abide

by the Code at al l times, and shall be held

to the standards of the Code in all matters

related to their employment with the Lake

County School Board.

5.33 Bullying and Harassment: Expected

Behaviors: Students and employees are

expected to conform to reasonable standar ds

of socially acceptable behavior; respect the

person, property, and rights of others; obey

constituted authority; and respond to the

educational, support and administrative

staff.

6 2 . Petitioner did not pr ove Respondents violated

Policy 6.301(2) becaus e it did not prove either Respondent

violated the Principles.

6 3 . Petitioner did not introduce, or request official

recognition of, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and

Employees, or cite to any section thereof which Respondents

allegedly violated.

6 4 . Petitioner did not prove Respondents violated

Policy 6.301(3).

6 5 . Policy 5.33 is an 18 - page rule titled ÐBullying or

Harrassment,Ñ which incorporates the School BoardÓs policy

against bullying and harassment of both students and employees,

associa ted definitions, components of bullying and harassment,

and the procedures for reporting, investigating, and resolving

incidents of bullying or harassment.

66 . From this 18 - page policy, Ms. Falcon pulled out the one

sentence quoted above because it spoke to Ðsocially acceptable

behavior.Ñ Ms. Falcon admitted the incident in question had

nothing to do with either bullying or harassment.

67 . Petitioner did not prove Respondents violated

Policy 5.33.

68 . Petitioner did not prove that Respondents violated

r ule 6A - 5.056(c) because it did not prove Respondents violated

any School Board policy.

69 . Finally, Petitioner alleges Mr. Rosier violated

subsection (e) , which defines Misconduct in Office to include

Ð[b]ehavior that reduces the teacherÓs ability or his her

colleaguesÓ ability to effectively perform duties.Ñ

70 . Petitioner introduced no evidence bearing on

Mr. RosierÓs ability to perform his duties before or after the

incident in question. None of his colleagues were called on to

testify about his abili ties, or impairment of their own

abilities, following the incident.

71 . Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent Rosier

violated rule 6A - 5.056(1)(e).

72 . Petitioner failed to prove either Respondent engaged in

Misconduct in Office, as defined in rule 6 A - 5.056, Criteria for

Suspension and Dismissal.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a

final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie

Lassen a nd Alan Rosier , and award back pay and benefits

retroactive to April 23, 2018 .

DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE VAN WYK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Ad ministrative 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 3rd day of August , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ The parties requested, and were granted, 15 days from the

date the Transcript was filed to file their Proposed Recommended

Orders. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28 -

106.216(2), the parties waived the requirement for the

unders igned to issue this Recommended Order within 30 days after

receiving the Transcript.

2/ Absent a motion for more definite statement , or a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the hearing

proceeded on an administrative complaint alleg ing essentially

that Respondents somewhere, at some time, engaged in something

called Ðsexual misconduct.Ñ

3/ Allegedly, the custodian who cleans Ms. LassenÓs classroom,

Ms. Delgado, told the head custod ian, Mr. Ellicott, who told

Mr. Mabry, who told Ms . Sneed.

4/ The three broad principles of subsection (1) were formerly

codified in rule 6A - 10.080 as the Code of Ethics of the Education

Profession in Florida, which was repealed on March 23, 2016.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire

McLin B urnsed

1000 West Main Street

Leesburg, Florida 34748

(eServed)

Alan Rosier

128 Oak Grove Road

Winter Park, Florida 32789

(eServed)

Katie Lassen

4748 Barbados Loop

Clermont, Florida 34711

Lynn C. Hearn, Esquire

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

13 1 North Gadsden Street

Post Office Box 1547

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

(eServed)

Elizabeth A. Turner, Esquire

McLin Burnsed

1000 West Main Street

Leesburg, Florida 34748

(eServed)

Diane Kornegay, Superintendent

Lake County School Board

201 West Burleig h Boulevard

Tavares, Florida 32778 - 2496

Pam Stewart

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Educatio n

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

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.