21-002997 Nicholas Lintner | N. L. vs. Department Of Children And Families Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 7, 2021.

Summary: Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, he is rehabilitated from disqualifying offenses. It would be an abuse of discretion for Respondent to deny his request for exemption.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

** ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 21 - 2997

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN A ND

F AMILIES ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

On Nove mber 1, 2021, Hetal Desai, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of

the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), conducted the final

hearing, by Zoom teleconferencing.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: **, pro se

(Address of Record)

For Respondent: Christop her Vignieri, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

2295 Victoria Avenue

Fort Myers, Florida 33901

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE S

Whether Petitioner has shown rehabilitation from his disqualifying

offense s ; and, if so, whether the intend ed action by Respondent, Department

of Children and Families (Department or DCF), to deny his request for an

exemption from disqualification constitutes an abuse of discretion.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

The Department notified Petitioner in a letter dated A ugust 24, 2021

(Denial Letter), that it denied his request for an exemption from

disqualification from employment with children or vulnerable adults. The

Department did not identify the nature of his disqualifying offense or cite to

any specific statute or rule, but explained its decision as follows:

The department considered all the evidence about

your history presented to us. The denial of your

request for exemption is based upon the

seriousness of the offense(s), and the Department's

conclusion that you did not demonstrate

rehabilitation from the disqualifying offenses such

that you should be permitted to hold a position of a

special trust with children or vulnerable adults.

On September 8, 2021, Petitioner sent a letter to the Department

requesting an administrative hearing. On September 30, 2021, the

Department referred the matter to DOAH, where it was assigned and noticed

for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (2021). 1

On October 26, 2021, the partie s participated in a telephonic pre - hearing

conference. During this conference the parties discussed the conduct of the

hearing, burden of proof, and issues regarding witnesses and exhibits.

At the final hearing Petitioner presented his own testimony and that of

Crystal Wanke, a Family Developmental Specialist for Children's Network of

South West Florida (CNSWFL). Petitioner's Exhibit s P1 through P9 were

made part of the record. The Department presented the testimony of

Diane Harris, the Department ' s Chie f of Policy and Public Relations . The

1 Current law governs Petitioner ' s application for exemption and a ll statutory references are

to the 2021 codification of the Florida Statu t es unless otherwise indicated . See Ag. for Health

Care Admin. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. , 690 So. 2d 689, 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Department ' s Exhibits R1 through R8 and R10 through R12 were admitted

into evidence. 2

During the hearing, Petitioner indicated that based on his previous

interactions with DCF's counsel, he believed DCF's exemption fi le Ð including

the documentation he provided with his application for exemption to DCF Ð

would be provided to DOAH by the Department. 3 As such, the undersigned

advised the parties at the conclusion of the final hearing that the record in

this proceeding would remain open until November 8, 2021, to allow both

parties to provide any documentation relevant to Petitioner's application for

exemption from disqualification to the undersigned that was previously

provided to DCF or that DCF relied upon in denying the ex emption.

Petitioner mailed his additional documentation to DOAH on November 5,

2021, some of which were made part of the record as Exhibit s P1

through P9 . 4 The Department did not submit any additional documentation.

A court reporter recorded the procee dings, but n either party ordered a

transcript. On November 9, 2021, the undersigned entered an Order Closing

Record and Requesting Proposed Recommended Orders, requiring proposed

recommended orders (PROs) to be filed by November 19, 2021. Petitioner

2 On October 26, 2021, the undersigned entered an Order Granting Respondent's Motion for

Official Recognition for documents that were marked as Exhibits R4 through R12, which

consist of court records. The Depa rtment withdrew Exhibit R9 before the hearing, and it was

not made part of the record.

3 This was a reasonable assumption because DCF sent Petitioner's DCF exemption

application file to Petitioner at the same time it sent Petitioner its proposed exhibits.

4 Petitioner offered over 100 pages of documents which consisted of (1) Respondent's

Exhibits, and (2) DCF's exemption application summary and file, including the materials

Petitioner had submitted to DCF as part of his Application for Exemption. As part of this

submission , Petitioner provided documentation consisting of court records relating to his

criminal history. Many of these pages were blank or unreadable and have not been admitted

into evidence or considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

failed to file a PRO; the Department timely submitted its PRO, which ha s

been duly considered.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

P ARTIES AND P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY

1. Petitioner is a 37 - year - old male seeking approval from the Department

to serve as a foster care provider for childr en.

2. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the

employment of persons seeking to be employed, licensed, or registered in

positions having direct contact with children or vulnerable persons.

Se e § 435.02, Fla. Stat.

3. CNSWFL works wit h DCF to evaluate, train, and support foster care

providers through the Parent Resource Information for Development and

Education (PRIDE) program. As part of its foster parent screening process,

CNSWFL submitted Petitioner's information to the Department f or a

background check .

4. The Department's screening revealed Petitioner had a criminal record ,

including arrests from 2002 to 2014. Of these arrests, the Department found

two which resulted in disqualifying offenses pursuant to section 435.04 ,

Florida St atutes .

5. In response, Petitioner filled out an Application for Exemption and

submitted relevant d ocumentation (exemption application file), includ ing a

four - p age letter dated March 25, 2021 (explanation letter) . Petitioner also

submitted a separate page for each of the offense s identified by DCF

outlining Petitioner's explanation and description of the circumstances

surrounding his arrests and criminal charges .

6. Petitioner also submitted to DCF t hree notarized letters of reference

regarding his charact er and rehabilitation. There was no evidence anyone at

DCF contacted these references.

7 . The Department staff prepared the exemption application file,

including a summary of Petitioner's exemption application and

documentation , but did not offer the file or summary into evidence. None of

the staff who conducted the background information or prepared DCF's

exemption application packet or summary testified at the hearing. According

to Petitioner, n o one from DCF interviewed him as part of the exemption

proce ss .

8 . R ather , Diane Harris, the Department's Chief of Policy and Public

Relations , testified she reviewed the summary and packet prepared by DCF

staff. She believed the only evidence Petitioner had offered toward

rehabilitation was his explanation letter and proof that he owned a business.

She did not mention the reference letters or Petitioner's additional

statements regarding each offense.

9 . Based on her review, Ms. Harris felt Petitioner had alcohol abuse issues

that he had not addressed. She also wa s concerned about inconsistencies

between his version of events and the statements in the police reports. She

admitted, however, that the documents she relied on were not offered into

evidence by the Department.

10 . Ms. Harris testified she recommended de nying Petitioner's application

for exemption from disqualification to the Secretary of the Department. The

Secretary agreed with Ms. Harris' recommendation and denied the

exemption.

11 . On April 24, 2021, the Department issued the Denial Letter to

Petitio ner.

D ISQUALIFYING O FFENSES

12 . Relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner, at age 24, had a 2007 offense

for Burglary of a Conveyance, Unarmed , in violation of section 810.02 ,

Florida Statutes (2007 o ffense). Petitioner pled guilty to the 2007 offense ,

adju dication was w ithheld , and he was placed on probation.

1 3 . The 2007 offense disqualifies Petitioner from employment or

volunteering with DCF or its vendors . § 435.04(2)(z), Fla. Stat. This would

include serving as a foster parent .

1 4 . According to Petitio ner, the 2007 offense occurred when he had become

intoxicated at a strip club while he waited for his friend to get off work. He

wanted to leave, but his friend told him he could take a nap in her truck until

she got off work. He got into the wrong truck. When he awoke he was being

pulled out of the truck by the police.

15. The Department cites an arrest affidavit to establish that Petitioner

was seen walking in the parking lot, attempting to get into parked vehicles,

and then forcibly getting into a vehi cle. See Resp. PRO, p. 5. Based on this

version of events, at the hearing Ms. Harris testified she felt Petitioner's

version of what happened was not consistent with the police's account of

events . Neither the arrest affidavit or any police report , however , was offered

into evidence. Moreover, an arresting officer's affidavit description what he or

she was told by witnesses would not be admissible to prove the truth of what

was told to him or what happened. Nonetheless, e ven if there was evidence in

the rec ord establishing these facts, they are not inconsistent with Petitioner's

explanation .

16. When he was asked on cross - examination if his version of the events

were consistent with the police report (which , again, was not entered into

evidence by the Dep artment), Petitioner admitted he was drunk at the time

and he would defer to any statements made by sober witnesses. Petitioner

took full responsibility for his action s, admitted he had previously had a bad

relationship with alcohol , and testified that he has stopped drinking.

17 . Although not mentioned at the hearing, at age 21, Petitioner was

arrested for possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13 , Florida

Statutes (2005 offense). Petitioner pled guilty to the 2005 offense with

adjudication wi thheld.

1 8 . The 2005 offense disqualifies Petitioner from employment with DCF or

its vendors or serving as a foster parent. § 435.04(2) (ss), Fla. Stat.

19 . Although not addressed in the hearing by either DCF or Petitioner,

the 2005 offense occurred on April 1, 2005, on the same date Petitioner was

pulled over in his vehicle and charged with driving under the influence (DUI).

20. Again, in his statements submitted to DCF and at the hearing ,

Petitioner took full responsibility for all the offenses he had committed,

admitted he had an alcohol problem when he had the previous arrests, but

testified that he no longer uses drugs or alcohol.

21 . Petitioner's last disqualifying offense was 14 years ago.

O THER F ACTORS C ONSIDERED B Y DCF

22 . Ms. Harris testified her primary concern and reason for recommending

denial of the exemption was Petitioner's past drug and alcohol use.

Specifically, she cited Petitioner ' s arrests and judgments relating to theft,

DUIs, and violations of probation. Ms. Harris was especially c oncerned

Petitioner had not obtained formal treatment for alcohol abuse such as

Alcoholics Anonymous ( AA ).

23 . Petitioner acknowledged he has a history of drug and alcohol issues as

evidenced by his DUI s . 5 In his written statement provided to DCF and at t he

hearing, Petitioner admitted that he made many mistakes due to drug and

alcohol use in the past. Although he quit drinking alcohol "cold turkey" and

has not attended AA or a nother formal treatment program , he meditates

regularly. He feels no pressure to drink in social situations, and gets support

from friends and family. He convincingly testified that he quit drinking four

years ago, after becoming an uncle. He acknowledged that he had used

alcohol and drugs as a way to deal with the rejection from his family at age

16, after telling them he was homosexual. Since then, he has reconciled with

his family, and they have accepted him and his husband.

5 Although there was no testimony at the hearing about the other specific charges or dates of

arrests Ms. Harris relied upon, the evidence establishes Petitioner had a number of alcohol

related violations , including two DUIs in April and July of 20 05.

24 . The Department argues Petitioner's explanation letter is inconsistent

with his hearing testimony that h e has stopped drinking. See Resp. PRO,

p. 6, n.11. A careful reading of the letter indicates that when he married his

husband who did not drink alcohol (in October 2015) he found himself "rarely

imbibing." He later writes in his explanation letter that he does not miss

drugs and alcohol and it will never be part of his life again. This is consistent

with the timeline he presented at the hearing that he stopped drinking four

years ago after becoming an uncle ( in 2017). As such, there undersigned finds

there was no inconsistenc y casting doubt on Petitioner's testimony that he

current ly abst ains from drugs and alcohol.

25. Ms. Harris also expressed concern about Petitioner's long history of

crim inal acts dating back to 2002, including a non - disqualifying misd emeanor

offense for trespass in November 2010.

26 . Petitioner explained at the hearing that th e 2010 incident was similar

to the 2007 offense, where he was drunk and tried to get into the wrong car

while he was intoxicated.

27 . Petitioner's last non - disqu alifying offense was over 11 years ago.

O THER E VIDENCE OF R EHABILITATION O FFERED B Y P ETITIONER

28. Crystal Wanke, a Family Development Specialist for CNSWFL,

testified she has worked with Petitioner for over a year as part of the PRIDE

program related to f oster care. Ms. Wanke's job duties include screen ing and

train ing potential foster parents. She has visited Petitioner in his home and

observed him in a class setting many times . She has discussed Petitioner's

past history Ð including his drug and alcohol us e and criminal histor y Ð with

him in detail. She has also assessed his mental health to determine if he

would make a good foster parent.

29 . Based on Ms. Wanke's testimony, other than the disqualifying 2005

and 2007 offenses, Petitioner met all of DCF's req uirements for foster

parenting .

30. Ms. Wanke convincingly testified that in her professional opinion she

had "no concerns" with Petitioner becoming a foster parent. Ms. Wanke

described Petitioner as resilient, timely, attentive, and empathetic.

Regarding his past criminal history, Ms. Wanke noted that Petitioner had

never tried to hide anything, wa s honest with her about his arrests , and

provided her with all the information about those arrests including dates and

locations . Ms. Wanke felt Petitioner woul d be a good foster parent because he

had made mistakes and learned from them .

31 . Petitioner and Ms. Wanke testified Petitioner had completed the

necessary PRIDE courses for foster parent training.

32 . Petitioner also presented evidence that he is financ ially secure. He has

owned his own business, a hair salon , for the past five years and recently has

hired an employee due to an expansion of the business . He and his husband

have recently purchased a home .

33 . Petitioner also provided three notarized lette rs of recommendation to

DCF. All of the se letters reiterated Ms. Wanke's assessment of Petitioner : he

would be an excellent caregiver and foster parent. One of the letters was

written by an attorney who works with the foster care program and has

known Peti tioner since 2006. She writes that at the time they met , Petitioner

was "still finding his way in life." While acknowledging his history, she was

"confident that anything in [Petitioner's] life is in the past, never to recur

again."

34 . Another letter was written by a former DCF Child Protective

Investigator and Case Manager who regularly evaluated families for the

potential placement of children in foster homes. She has known Petitioner for

eight years and expressed her belief that he was accountable, depe ndable,

and would give any child a home of "love, peace, joy and safety above all else."

She gave her "unequivocal support" of Petitioner becoming a foster parent.

35 . Ms. Harris did not mention the letters of recommendation or

Petitioner's explanations o f each of his offenses. Instead, she believed that

Petitioner had only provided the explanation letter and proof he had owned a

business. She did not feel that these two items were enough to establish that

Petitioner had been rehabilitated. Ms. Harris did not have the benefit of the

testimony of Petitioner or Ms. Wanke , nor did she consider Petitioner's

explanations regarding each of his criminal offenses (disqualifying and

otherwise) , or the three notarized letters of recommendation which

supplement Ms. Wa nke's testimony .

U LTIMATE F INDINGS OF F ACT

3 6 . Based on the entirety of the record, Petitioner has proven by clear and

convincing evidence that he is rehabilitated from the disqualifying 2005 and

2007 offenses.

3 7 . The undersigned finds that Petitioner p resents no danger to children

or the vulnerable population served by DCF.

3 8 . Additionally, there was no evidence Ms. Harris, who made the

recommendation to deny the exemption to the final decisionmaker,

consider ed all the documentation submitted by Petiti oner .

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

39 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 435.07(3)(c), Florida

Statutes.

4 0 . To be a foster parent , Petitioner must comply with certain backgr ound

requirements, including level 2 background screenings. See § 409.175(k)

and (m), Fla. Stat. (outlining the screening process for foster parents).

4 1 . The Department is authorized to grant exemptions from

disqualification pursuant to section 435.07. P etitioner is eligible to seek an

exemption from disqualification because " at least 3 years have elapsed since

the applicant has completed or been lawfully released from confinement,

supervision, or sanction for the disqualifying felony. " § 435.07(1)(a)1., Fla.

Stat.

4 2 . As the applicant for an exemption, Petitioner bears the burden of proof

in this proceeding. More precisely, he " must demonstrate by clear and

convincing evidence that the employee should not be disqualified from

employment. " § 435.07(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

4 3 . Petitioner can meet his burden by providing evidence of the following:

1. T he circumstances surrounding the disqualifying offenses in 2005

and 2007 ;

2. T he time period that has elapsed since the incident;

3. T he nature of the harm caused to the victim;

4. H is history since the 2007 incident; and

5. A ny other evidence indicating he would not present a danger if

allowed employment.

See § 435.07(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

4 4 . An ALJ is charged with making the factual determination of whether,

based on t he evidence adduced in a de novo hearing conducted pursuant to

section 120.57(1), the applicant for exemption has shown rehabilitation.

See § 435.07(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

4 5 . Clear and convincing evidence is a heightened standard that requires

more proof than a mere preponderance of the evidence. 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 explicit and the witnes ses must be lacking in confusion

as to the facts at issue. The evidence must be of such 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. " I n re Davey , 645

So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994); Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1983).

4 6 . Based on the statutory factors noted above, Petitioner's disqualifying

events, although unfortunate, were not violent in nature nor did they invo lve

children. They occurred more than 14 years ago and t here was no evidence of

harm to any victims. If anything, the events were evidence of self - harm in the

form of alcohol and drug problems.

47. Since the 2007 offense , Petitioner has had other non - disq ualifying

offenses, the last in 2010 . These also were alcohol - related. As he credibly

testified, he has been sober for the last four years, incident free, and has come

to terms with the underlying issues for his poor prior relationship with

alcohol and dru gs. As Ms. Wanke c onvincingly testified, Petitioner would

make a great foster parent and she had no concerns that he would relapse or

return to his previous bad habits. Most importantly, she did not believe

Petitioner would present a danger to any children placed in his care. DCF did

not present any admissible evidence to refute her testimony .

4 8 . For the reasons discussed above, the evidence shows Petitioner met

his burden and proved his rehabilitation, clearly and convincingly.

4 9 . As such, where the ALJ finds that Petitioner has met h is burden of

proving rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence, the ALJ must also

determine whether the Department's intended action to deny an applicantÔs

request for exemption constitutes an abuse of discretion. See J.D. v. Dep ' t of

Child. and Fams. Servs. , 114 So. 3d 1127, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ( " [E]ven

if rehabilitation is shown, the applicant is only eligible for an exemption, not

entitled to one. " ); A.P. v. Dep ' t of Child. & Fam. Servs. , 230 So. 3d 3, 6 (Fla.

4 th DCA 2017) (noting an agency ' s decision to grant or deny an exemption is

subject to the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review).

50 . An agency abuses this discretion when the action is arbitrary, fanciful,

or unreasonable. An abuse of discret ion can be found in two circumstances:

(1) where the evidence in the record does not support the agency ' s

determination; or (2) where the agency ' s determination rests on an incorrect

conclusion of law. See Jordan v. Brown , 855 So. 2d 231, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA

2003); Corbett v. Wilson , 48 So. 3d 131, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

5 1 . T he evidence does not support the Department's position, as presented

by Ms. Harris , that Petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence of his

rehabilitation. Although it is impossibl e to ascertain what Ms. Harris

actually reviewed in making her decision because the Department did not

offer that information into evidence, it is clear from her testimony she relied

mostly on the DCF summary of the documentation provided by Petitioner.

Sh e erroneously believed Petitioner had failed to submit any supporting

documentation except his explanation letter and proof of his business. This

was simply not true. She did not consider the letters of recommendation, or

the explanations of all of the arr ests and judgements revealed by the

screening.

5 2 . Finally , the investigator who drafted the DCF summar y relied upon by

Ms. Harris did not testify at the hearing. T he information in th is summar y

had to be gathered from other sources and constituted double or triple

hearsay. Holborough v. State , 103 So. 3d 221, 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); J.B.J.

v. State , 17 So. 3d 312, 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Harris v. Game & Fresh

Water Fish Comm ' n , 495 So. 2d 806, 808 - 09 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

5 3 . Moreover, the summary relie d on does not supplement or explain other

admissible evidence . A s such, it cannot be used to establish or support any

findings of fact in this case. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat.; Carter v. State , 951

So. 2d 939, 943 - 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding a poli ce summary was

" classic hearsay " and " [did] not fit within the business or public records

exception to the hearsay rule " ); Rivera v. Bd. of Trs. of Tampa ' s Gen. Emp .

Ret. Fund , 189 So. 3d 207, 212 - 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

5 4 . Again, it is unclear what the De partment relied upon because it did

not offer its exemption application file into evidence. Nonetheless, M s. Harris'

reliance on the summary and failure to consider the other material submitted

by Petitioner was an abuse of discretion.

5 5 . In addition , Ms. Harris was concerned about offenses that occurred

prior to the 2005 offense . Section 435.07(2)(b) limits an agency's

consideration of an exemption applicant ' s criminal history to arrests and

convictions subsequent to the disqualifying offense. As such, it was an abuse

of discretion for Ms. Harris to consider any charges prior to 2005.

5 6 . In a case such as this where the facts are in dispute, " the

administrative law judge .. . has the opportunity to hear the witnesses '

testimony and evaluate their credibili ty. " Yerks v. Sch. Bd. of Broward C n t y. ,

219 So. 3d 844, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); see Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings,

LLC v. Dep ' t of Bus. & Pro . Reg. , 146 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)

(J. Wetherell concurring) ( " [I]t is solely the function of the ALJ t o assess the

persuasiveness of the evidence as a whole. " ).

5 7 . The Department did not have the benefit of Petitioner ' s unrefuted

testimony establishing clearly and convincingly the steps he has taken to

become reconciled with his family and how he stopped drinking and using

drugs. This, coupled with the testimony of a very credible witness who works

with DCF in the foster care process , establish es Petitioner has been

rehabilitated and will not pose a danger to children entrusted to his care.

5 8 . Based on th e evidence presented at the hearing, no reasonable

individual could find that Petitioner is not rehabilitated. See Garcia v. Agency

for Health Care Admin. , 2021 WL 4979084 , Case No. 4D20 - 2257 (4th DCA

October 27, 2021). For these reasons, Petitioner has me t his burden to

demonstrate h is rehabilitation from the 2005 and 2007 disqualifying offense s ,

and, under the circumstances specific to this case, if the Department were to

deny Petitioner's exemption request, its action would constitute an abuse of

discret ion.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Children and Families, enter

a final order granting Petitioner ' s request for an exemption from

disqualification from emplo yment.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 7th day of December , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

H ETAL D ESAI

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 7th day of December , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Da nielle Thompson, Agency Clerk Petitioner

Department of Children and Families (Address of Record)

2415 North Monroe Street , Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Javier Enriquez, General Counsel

Department of Children and Families

Christopher Vignieri, Esquire Office of the General Counsel

Depa rtment of Children and Families 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100

2295 Victoria Avenue Tallaha ssee, Florida 32303

Fort Myers, Florida 33901

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

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 is sue the Final Order in this

case.