19-000975 Department Of Children And Families vs. Cg Academy, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, June 4, 2019.

Summary: Petitioner proved the allegation of child abuse, but failed to prove the specific allegation that an unscreened individual cared for children. Recommendation: Revocation of License.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 19 - 0975

CG ACADEMY, INC.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

O n April 23, 2019, Admini strative Law Judge Lynne A.

Quimby - Pennock of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)

conducted a duly - noticed hearing in this case in Cocoa, Florida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Brian Christopher Meola, Esquire

Department of Child ren and Families

Suite S - 1129

400 West Robinson Street

Orlando, Florida 32801

For Respondent: Alton Terrance Edmond, Esquire

Edmond Law, LLC

Suite 107 #225

125 East Merritt Island Causeway

Merritt Island, Florida 32952

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issue s to be determined are whether Respondent

committed the violations as alleged in the Administrative

Complaint (AC) , and , if so, the appr opriate penalty .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 28, 2019, the Department of Children and Families

(DCF or Petitioner), issued an AC to CG Academy, Inc.

(hereinafter Academy or Respondent), seeking to revoke its

license and impose an administrative fine f or five Class I

violations. The alleged violations included that Respondent

allowed an unscreened individual to care for children, and that

RespondentÓs owner, operator, employee , or substitute, while

caring for children, committed an act or omission that meets the

definition of child abuse or neglect as provided in chapter 39,

Florida Statutes.

By letter dated February 7, 2019, the Academy admitted that

DCF wa s authorized by section 402.310, Florida Statutes (2018),

to sanction the Academy Ðfor violation s of child care licensing

standards and Chapter 65C - 22 Florida Administrative Code,Ñ and

that the Academy ha d a regular license issued under Ðchapter 402,

and chapter 65C - 22, Florida Administrative Code to operate a

child care facility located at 1550 King St reet , Cocoa FL 32926 -

5120.Ñ The AcademyÓs letter denied the remaining AC allegations,

and demanded an administrative hearing.

On February 21, 2019, DCF referred this matter to DOAH to

conduct an administrative hearing. The final hearing was

scheduled for and heard on April 23, 2019.

At the hearing, DCF presented the testimony of four

witnesses. DCFÓs Exhibits 1 through 10 1/ were admitted into

evidence. The evidence , from Child A.J., Child A.J. ( AK.J. ), 2/

and Child B.T. , was received through DCFÓs Exh ibits 7, 8, and 9.

The Academy presented the testimony of seven witnesses, including

Misty Williams, the mother of three Academy students. 3/ DCF

stipulated that the testimony of two other Academy employees,

Mia Thomas and Jazzmin Henderson , would be the same as other

testimony provided by the AcademyÓs employees. The Academy did

not offer any exhibits.

A court reporter was present for the hearing; however,

neither party ordered a transcript. At the end of the hearing ,

the parties were advised to file t heir proposed recommended

orders (PROs) in ten days. DCFÓs counsel requested that the

parties be allowed 20 days in which to file the PROs. The

Academy did not object, and both parties timely filed their PRO s .

Each PRO has been considered in the prepara tion of this

Recommended Order.

All statutory references are to the 2018 codification of the

Florida Statutes unless otherwise indicated.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. DCF is the state agency responsible for licensing child

care facilities and enforcing regulations to maintain the health,

safety, and sanitary conditions at those facilities operating in

the State of Florida. See §§ 402.305 - .311, Fla. Stat.; and Fla.

Admin. Code R. 65C - 22.010.

2. In order to fulfill its regulatory duty, DCF conducts

complaint and ro utine inspections.

3. The factual allegations , as stated in the A C , provide

the following:

3. a. On December 20, 2018, the Department

received an allegation that the owner/

director of the facility hit a child on the

face with a ruler and slapped him. T he

teacher also hit another child on the chest

with a ruler and that a child had slight

bruising and a round scratch under his left

eye. The Department conducted an

investigation into these allegations starting

on December 28, 2018. At the conclusion of

the investigation, the Department determined

the facility committed Class I violations of

child care facility standards for child abuse

and unscreened individuals.

i. Licensing Counselor, Tiffani Brown, along

with a Child Protective Investigator (CPI)

Ba rbara Smith commenced their investigation

on December 28, 2018, after the facility

reopened from the holidays. They met with

the owners [sic] daughter, Danita Gaines and

spoke to the owner via the phone. While at

the facility, Counselor Brown questioned

Anthony Council, who stated he does help take

care of children. Mr. Council was located in

a room with children present. Mr. Council is

not background screened and was ordered to

leave. The owner, Cloe Gaines was on

vacation and would not return until 1 /2/19.

ii. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith returned

to the facility on 1/2/19 to speak to the

owner. Ms. Cloe Gaines was interviewed, and

she stated she is a foster parent. Due to

the allegations, Ms. Cloe Gaines was handed a

restriction letter, which sh e signed and left

the facility.

iii. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith

interviewed Ms. Cloe Gaines [sic] foster

children. The first foster child, G.M. said

for punishment Ms. Cloe Gaines makes him go

to sleep. The second foster child, M.M.

continued to nod her head indicating yes when

asked if he gets spanked for punishment.

iv. Counselor Brown and CPI Smith

interviewed four other children at the

facility. The first child, A.J. stated that

Mrs. Cloe whips them with a belt or ruler on

the arms and hands. The second child, A.J.

stated that Mrs. Cloe hits people if they be

bad. The third child, O.E. said that

Mrs. Cloe hits them if they are bad with a

blue ruler that she keeps in her desk. The

last child, T.J. stated that they get hit

with a pink and pur ple ruler that is kept in

the classroom.

v. The children were taken to be interviewed

by the Child Protection Team for forensic

interviews, which were again verified.

4 . Based upon the factual allegations in paragraph 3 above ,

the A C asserts that those allegations constitute the following

Class I violations :

4. a. On January 4, 2019, Anthony Council,

is an unscreened individual who was left

alone to care for children, in violation of

Section 435.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes.

This constitutes a Class I violation of Child

Care Licensing Standard, CF - FSP Form

5316, 4 - 18, October 2017, incorporated by

reference, 65C - 22.010(1)(e)l, F.A.C.

b. The owner, operator, employee or

substitute, while caring for children,

committed an act or omission that meets the

definition of child abuse or neglect as

provided in Chapter 39, Florida Statutes in

that four children disclosed child abuse at

the hands of the owner Cloe Gaines. A.J.,

A.J., O.E., and TJ. [sic] disclosed that they

are victims of child abuse by Ms. Gain es when

she hits them with belts and rulers as a form

of discipline in violation of CCF Handbook,

Section 8.2, A. This constitutes four (4)

Class I Violations of Child Care Licensing

Standard, CF - FSP Form 5316, 47 - 02 and ll - 06,

October 2017, incorporated by reference, 65C -

22.010(1)(e) 1, FAC.

5. Respondent was licensed by DCF to operate a child care

facility located at 1550 King Street, Cocoa, Florida. During the

hearing , it was disclosed that the Academy had been closed for at

least a month.

6 . Cloe Ga ines (Ms. Gaines) is the owner/director of the

Academy. Danita Gaines, Ms. GainesÓ daughter, has worked at the

Academy since 2015 as a teacher in the t wo - year - old classroom.

Anthony Council is Ms. GainesÓ grandson and performed maintenance

several times at the Academy when asked to do so by Ms. Gaines.

Additionally, Mr. Council has a son who attended the Academy.

7 . On December 20, 2018, DCF received allegations that

Ms. Gaines had hit a child on the face with a ruler. On

December 21, 2018, DCF atte mpted to investigate the alleged child

abuse complaint. However, the Academy was closed for winter

break , and scheduled to reopen on December 28, 2018.

8 . Child Protective Investigator (CPI) Smith, a 13 - year DCF

employee, located two of the alleged victi ms of the Academy at

their respective homes on December 21, 2018.

9 . CPI Smith interviewed B.T., a four - year - old male, who

stated that he and his cousin, T.J., were arguing at the Academy.

Ms. Gaines called on them and she struck B.T. o n the face with a

ruler, which caused B.T.Ós face to bleed. B.T. stated that T.J.

raised his arm in front of his chest and T.J. was struck on his

arm. Based on B.T.Ós comments, CPI Smith requested that B.T. be

taken to the ChildrenÓs Advocacy Center of Brevard (CACB) for a

video - recorded interview.

10 . During the video - recorded interview, B.T. was

forthcoming about the injuries he sustained at the Academy. B.T.

again stated that he and T.J. were arguing and playing, and

Ms. Gaines hit him (B.T.) o n the face with a ru ler, which caused

his face to bleed. B.T. said Ms. Gaines gave him a b and - a id for

his face. Pictures taken of B.T. on December 21, 2018 , show the

injuries B.T. sustained. CPI Smith substantiated or verified the

abuse of B.T. by Ms. Gaines.

11 . B.T. als o told CPI Smith where Ms. Gaines kept the

ruler she used to hit him. When CPI Smith returned to the

Academy, she located the blue ruler in Ms. GainesÓ desk drawer.

1 2 . Another alleged victim, T.J., was also interviewed at

his residence on December 21, 2 018. T.J. recounted that he and

B.T. were playing and fighting when Ms. Gaines called them. T.J.

provided that Ms. Gaines hit B.T. o n the face, and that he, T.J.,

was hit on the arm with a ruler. CPI Smith was unable to

substantiate abuse of T.J. becaus e there were no physical

indicators on T.J. at the time of the interview.

1 3 . CPI Smith and Tiffani Brown, a DCF child care

regulation counselor and licensing counselor, returned to the

Academy when it reopened on December 28, 2018, to investigate the

ch ild abuse allegations. Ms. Gaines was not present, but the DCF

employees spoke with Danita Gaines, who said Ms. Gaines was on

vacation and would return on January 2, 2019. The two DCF

employees returned to the Academy in January 2019.

1 4 . When CPI Smi th returned to the Academy, she interviewed

two other alleged victims, twins A.J. and AK.J. AK.J. , the male

twin, provided that Ms. Gaines was mean, whips students on the

arms and hands, and will make them stand by the wall with their

hands raised over th eir heads. As a result of his interview at

the Academy, AK.J. was asked to go to the CACB for a video -

recorded interview.

1 5 . A.J., the female twin, stated that Ms. Gaines hit her

(A.J.) on her hands and arms with the ruler, and makes them (the

children) stand beside the wall , Ðif they be bad . Ñ CPI Smith

asked that A.J. be taken to CACB for a video - recorded interview

also.

1 6 . In AK.J. Ós video - recorded interview, he provided the

name of his favorite Academy teacher, but stated that he did not

like Ms. C loe (Ms. Gaines) because she was mean and Ðpo psÑ people

with a ruler. AK.J. said he was scared of Ms. Gaines ; the ruler

was hard ; and it hurt when he was struck.

1 7 . During A.J.Ós video - recorded interview, she recounted

that Ms. Gaines and her daughter, Ð Ms. D a nita, Ñ were mean. A.J.

also stated Ms. Gaines ÐwhoopedÑ her (A.J.) with a ruler and at

times Ms. Gaines made all the children stand at the wall with

their hands raised over their heads.

1 8 . On January 2, 2019, Counselor Brown, a DCF employee of

n ine years, observed Mr. Council walking outside the Academy with

several students following him. Mr. Council does not have the

required background screening approval to care for children in a

daycare setting , and a background screened teacher was not

pres ent when Counselor Brown first observed Mr. Council. The

background screened teacher appeared a minute or so later.

1 9 . During the hearing , Mr. Council provided that he was at

the Academy daily, either dropping off or picking up his son .

Mr. Council fu rther testified that he performed various

maintenance tasks that Ms. Gaines asked him to perform, such as

changing filters for the air - conditioning vents and policing the

playground, all while children were present.

20 . Mr. Council admitted that Ms. Ga ines had told him

(Mr. Council) to get the required background screening completed,

but he had not done so.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2 1. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and the

subject matter of this proceeding. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and

402.310, Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C - 22.010(3). This

proceeding is de novo. § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.

2 2 . This is a disciplinary procee ding against RespondentÓs

child care facility license, pursuant to section 402.310(2) .

2 3 . Petitioner, as the par ty seeking to impose discipline,

has the burden to prove the allegations in the AC by clear and

convincing evidence. See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.; Coke v.

DepÓt of Child. & Fam. Servs. , 704 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA

1998).

2 4 . Clear and convincing evide nce Ðrequires more proof than

a Òpreponderance of the evidenceÓ but less than Òbeyond and to

the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.ÓÑ In re Graziano , 696 So.

2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). As stated by the Florida Supreme Court:

Clear and convincing evidence req uires 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 pr oduces 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 D CA 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 Elect. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So. 2d 986, 989

(Fla. 1991).

2 5 . DCF is the agency charged with the re sponsibility of

licensing child care facilities i n the S tate of Florida.

§§ 402.301 - 402.319 , Fla. Stat. DCF is charged in section

402.305(1) with establish ing , by rule, licensing standards to

address the health, sanitation, safety and physical surrou ndings;

the health and nutrition; and the child development needs of all

children in child care. The relevant rules pertaining to this

proceeding are located in chapter 65C - 22.

2 6 . Section 402.310 authorizes the D CF to take disciplinary

action against th e license of a child care facility for

violations of any provision of sections 402.301 through 402.319

or the rules adopted thereunder, and authorizes the Department to

impose an administrative fine, to convert the license to

probation status, and /or deny, suspend, or revoke the license.

27. The allegations of fact set forth in the AC are the

grounds upon which this proceeding is predicated. Trevisani v.

DepÓt of Health , 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see

also Cottrill v. DepÓt of Ins. , 685 So . 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1996). Thus, the scope of this proceeding is properly

restricted to those matters as framed by Petitioner in the AC .

M.H. v. DepÓt of Child. & Fam. Servs. , 977 So. 2d 755, 763 (Fla.

2d DCA 2008).

28. Additionally, because l icensing statutes are penal in

nature, they are strictly construed in favor of the licensee.

Elmariah v. DepÓt of ProfÓl Reg. , 574 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1990); Taylor v. DepÓt of ProfÓl Reg. , 534 So. 2d 782, 784

(Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Disciplinary s tatutes and rules must be

construed in terms of their literal meaning, and the language

used may not be expanded to broaden its application. Beckett v.

DepÓt of Fin. Servs. , 982 So. 2d 94, 99 - 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008);

Dyer v. DepÓt of Ins. & Treas ., 585 So . 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1991).

29. The AC is poorly drafted; however , it provides the

Academy with notice of the allegations.

30 . In paragraph 3.a., DCF alleges a child was hit on the

face with a ruler and slapped. Although the specific child w as

not identified by initials, B.T. confirmed to CPI Smith and in

B.T.Ós video - recorded interview that he was hit on the face. CPI

Smith secured photographic evidence of B.T.Ós bruise and scratch

near his eye. This alleged child abuse was proven .

31 . Also in paragraph 3.a., DCF alleges a teacher hit

Ðanother child on the chestÑ with a ruler, yet the specific child

was not identified, even by initials. None of the three children

who participated in the video - recorded interviews spoke to that

specific a lleged abuse.

32 . With regard to paragraph 3.a.i., Counselor Brown was at

the Academy on December 28, 2018 , and questioned Mr. Council.

The specific allegation in the AC was that Mr. Council was

located in a room with children present, yet no evidence wa s

presented that he was alone in a room with the children, or that

a properly screened teacher was or was not present.

33 . With regard to paragraph 3.a.ii., DCFÓs employees

interview ed Ms. Gaines and ascertained that she has foster

children. No evidence was presented to relate the foster

children to the business operation of the Academy, nor or there

allegations in the AC to that effect.

34 . In paragraph 3.a.iii., DCFÓs employees interview ed

Ms. Gaines about her foster children G.M. and M.M., and some

alleged form of discipline to those foster c hildren . Again, no

evidence was presented to relate the foster children to the

business operation of the Academy , nor are there allegations in

the AC to that effect .

35 . In paragraph 3.a.iv., four children are specifically

listed: A.J., A.J. (identified as AK. J.), O.E., and T.J. Each

child allege d some form of abuse. Neither O.E. nor T.J.

participated in the video - recorded interviews , and no evidence

was presented to substantiate the allegations .

36 . P aragra ph 3.a.v. provides , ÐThe children were taken to

be interviewed by the Child Protection Team for forensic

interviews, which were again verified.Ñ B.T., A.J. and A K . J.

participated in the video - recorded interviews, however, n ot all

the ÐchildrenÑ did so.

3 7 . ÐChild care personnelÑ include s owners, operators,

employees, and volunteers working in a child care facility.

§ 402.302(3), Fla. Stat. The statutory definition specifically

excludes persons who work in a child care facility after hours

when children are not present, and does not apply to parents of

children at the facility. The term is not limited to those with

direct contact with children. As such, even though

Mr. Council had a child at the facility, when he performed

maintenance duties at the fac ility during operating hours,

Mr. Council would fall under this definition.

3 8 . All Ðchild care personnelÑ must undergo Level II

background screening for Ðgood moral characterÑ and must be free

of pending charges, and never have been adjudicated guilty o f a

list of certain offenses. See §§ 402.305(2)(a) and 435.04(2),

Fla. Stat.

39 . Section 8.2 of the CCF Handbook provides, in pertinent

part:

Child Safety .

A. Acts or omissions that meet the

definition of child abuse or neglect provided

in Chapter 3 9, F.S., constitute a violation

of the standards i n section 402.301 - .319,

F.S., and will support imposition of a

sanction, as provided in Section 402.310,

F.S.

4 0 . ÐAbuseÑ is defined in section 39.01(2), Florida

Statutes , as:

[A] ny willful act or threate ned act that

results in any physical, mental, or sexual

abuse, injury, or harm that causes or is

likely to cause the childÓs physical, mental,

or emotional health to be significantly

impaired. Abuse of a child includes the

birth of a new child into a fami ly during the

course of an open dependency case when the

parent or caregiver has been determined to

lack the protective capacity to safely care

for the children in the home and has not

substantially complied with the case plan

towards successful reunificat ion or met the

conditions for return of the children into

the home. Abuse of a child includes acts or

omissions. Corporal discipline of a child by

a parent or legal custodian for disciplinary

purposes does not in itself constitute abuse

when it does not result in harm to the child.

4 1 . Rule 65C - 22.010 provides, in pertinent part :

Enforcement .

This rule establishes the grounds under which

the Department shall issue an administrative

fine, deny, suspend, revoke a license or

registration or place a lic ensee or

registrant on probation status as well as

uniform system of procedures to impose

disciplinary sanctions.

(1) Definitions.

* * *

(e) ÐViolationÑ means noncompliance with a

licensing standard as described in an

inspection report resul ting from an

inspection under Section 402.311, F.S., as

follows with regard to Class I, Class II, and

Class III Violations.

1. ÐClass I ViolationÑ is an incident of

noncompliance with a Class I standard as

described on CF - FSP Form 5316, October 2017.

Ch ild Care Facility Standards Classification

Summary, which is incorporated by reference.

A copy of the CF - FSP Form 5316 may be

obtained from the DepartmentÓs website at

www.myflfamilies.com/childcare or from the

following link: http://www.flrules.org/

Gat eway/reference.asp?No=Ref - 08739. However,

any violation of a Class II standard that

results in death or serious harm to a child

shall escalate to a Class I violation. The

effective date of a termination of a

providerÓs Gold Seal Quality Care designation

is the date of the DepartmentÓs written

notification to the provider. Class I

violations are the most serious in nature.

4 2 . Rule 65C - 22.010(2)(d) 4 / provides for progressive

discipline when Class I violations are found as follows:

1. Class I Violations .

a. For the first and second violation of a

Class I standard, the Department shall, upon

applying the factors in section 402.310(1),

F.S., impose a fine not less than $100 .00 nor

more than $500 .00 per day for each violation,

and may impose other discipl inary sanctions

in addition to the fine.

b. For the third and su bsequent violation of

a Class I standard, the Department shall

suspend, deny or revoke the license . The

Department, upon applying the factors in

section 402.310(1), F.S., may also impose a

f ine not less than $100.00 nor more than

$500.00 per day for each violation in

addition to any other disciplinary sanction.

43. One instance of child abuse is one to o many . In this

instance, DCF established by clear and convincing evidence that

the Acade myÓs personnel caused injuries to child ren B.T., A.J.

and AK.J. , while they were in RespondentÓ s care ; three Class I

violations .

4 4 . Petitioner met the burden of establishing that

Mr. Council was not properly screened to be performing

maintenance work wh ile children were present at the day care.

However, the AC did not allege that Mr. Council was performing

maintenance work in the presence of children . The AC alleg ed

that Mr. Council was in a classroom, alone , supervising children .

The hearing testimon y was insufficient to establish that

Mr. Council was alone supervising children in a classroom .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children

and Families, enter a final order revoking the license of

CG Academy.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LYNNE A. QUIMBY - PENNOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

T he 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 4th day of June , 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Exhibits 7 through 10 were admitted over objection.

2/ A . J . and A . J . are twins. In order to keep the two children

properly identified the male twin will be referred to as AK.J.

3/ Following the completion of Ms. Williams Ó testimony, DCF

offered an oral motion t o strike and exclude her testimony as

irrelevant and improper character testimony. The motion was

granted.

4/ In paragraph 15 (found on page 5) of PetitionerÓs PRO,

Petitioner misstates the sanctions for the Class I violations.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Lace y Kantor, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204Z

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(eServed)

T. Shane DeBoard, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

Suite 1129

400 West Robinson Street

Orlando, Flori da 32801

(eServed)

Alton Terrance Edmond, Esquire

Edmond Law, LLC

Suite 107 #225

125 East Merritt Island Causeway

Merritt Island, Florida 32952

(eServed)

Brian Christopher Meola, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

Suite S - 1129

400 West Robinso n Street

Orlando, Florida 32801

(eServed)

Chad Poppell, Secretar y

Department of Children and Families

Building 1 , Room 202

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(eServed)

Javier Enriquez, General Counsel

Department of Children and Fa milies

Building 2 , Room 204F

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(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 exc eptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.