91-004074 Seminole Community College vs. Matilda Morabito Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, July 30, 1992.

Summary: Food service program eliminated by community college resulted in loss of teaching job as respondent not qualified for open position.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-4074

)

MATILDA MORABITO, )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on

February 13-14, 1992, in Sanford, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a

designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The

parties were represented at the hearing as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. Dana Fogle

FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A.

217 East Plymouth Avenue

Post Office Box 817

DeLand, Florida 32721-0817

For Respondent: Joseph Egan, Jr.

EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A.

P.O. Box 2231

Orlando, Florida 32802

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether Respondent's employment with the

Petitioner should be terminated.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on April 9, 1991, when the Board of Trustees, Seminole

Community College met and voted to eliminate three vocational programs then

offered by the college. The programs (upholstery, culinary arts, and welding)

were taught by three instructors who had been on continuing contract with the

college. The Respondent in this case, Matilda Morabito, taught the culinary

arts course. The decision to eliminate the programs was viewed as a concurrent

determination to not renew the continuing contracts held by Respondent and the

other instructors.

Respondent timely challenged the decision to not renew her continuing

contract, and the Board of Trustees met again to reconsider the matter. At that

time, the Respondent requested a continuance so that the case could be referred

to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. By order entered

June 24, 1991, the continuance was granted, and the request for assignment of

hearing officer was issued. That request for formal proceedings was filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 28, 1992.

Initially, the case was scheduled to be heard October 16, 1991; however,

the Respondent filed a motion for continuance which was granted, and the case

was then rescheduled for February 13, 1992. At the hearing, the Petitioner

presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Joseph Williams, Jr.,

former instructor of the upholstery course; Matilda Morabito; Robert R. Reko,

former instructor of the welding class; Suzanne Tesinsky, Dean of Applied

Technologies; Margaret Culp, Dean of Student Services; Russ Calvet, Dean of

Personnel Services; and Keith Samuels, Vice President for Instructions. The

Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1-43, 45-57, and 60 were admitted into evidence.

Petitioner's exhibits 58 and 59 were proffered for the record.

The Respondent testified in her own behalf and presented the testimony of

the following witnesses: Russ Calvet, Robert Reko, and Joseph William, Jr. The

Respondent's exhibits numbered 1 through 4, 6, 8, 9, and 12 through 19 were

admitted into evidence.

The transcript of the hearing was filed on April 2, 1992. The Respondent

filed two motions for enlargement of time within which to file the proposed

recommmended orders; those requests were granted. The Respondent's corrected

brief was filed on May 29, 1992. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the

parties have been considered in the preparation of this order. Specific rulings

addressing those proposed findings of fact are included in the attached

appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence

received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made:

1. The Petitioner, Seminole Community College, is a community college

governed by a community college district board of trustees vested with the

responsibility of operating the college in accordance with applicable statutes,

rules of the State Board of Education and State Board of Community Colleges, as

well as its own rules.

2. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for

establishing and discontinuing programs and course offerings.

3. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for the

appointment, employment, and removal of personnel. Such personnel includes

course instructors employed by the college to teach specific courses or programs

offered by the school.

4. The Petitioner offers instruction in courses ranging from basic

academic subjects, which might be comparable to high school courses, to

sophisticated courses that might be comparable to four-year college courses.

Additionally, the Petitioner is the area vocational center and adult continuing

education function for Seminole County.

5. Prior to April 9, 1991, the Respondent had been a continuing contract

instructor employed by the Petitioner for several years. Respondent was

employed to teach culinary arts.

6. In the 1986 school year, the food management production and services

program (referred to culinary arts in this record) was given a formal evaluation

as it had experienced a decline in student enrollment. Goals were established

to encourage student participation the program and additional development of the

program.

7. The evaluation or program review described in paragraph 6 was performed

under the guidelines addressed in Appendix K, and resulted in the program being

placed on probation for one year with the following condition: that the

enrollment goal of an average of 16 full-time or full-time equivalent students

per term be established. The probation term ran from April 1, 1986 through,

presumably, March 30, 1987. Appendix K is a procedure utilized by the

Petitioner to evaluate and review programs or courses offered by the school.

8. On February 27, 1986, Respondent executed a statement wherein she

acknowledged that should her program be eliminated that her instructional

position would be terminated. Further, on March 27, 1986, the president of the

college issued a letter to Respondent advising her of the probation status of

the program. The letter further provided that should the program be terminated,

that the instructional position held by Respondent would be terminated.

9. In January, 1991, Dr. Samuels, as Vice President for Instructions,

issued a memorandum to the Deans' Council advising them of budget cuts incurred

and expected by the college. Further, the memorandum provided that it was

expected that instruction would have to absorb a major fraction of the expected

future decreased amount.

10. On January 17, 1991, the college president issued a memorandum to all

full-time college employees that addressed the cuts experienced to that date and

the expectation of cuts to be considered in the planning for the next budget

year.

11. In connection with planning for the 1991-92 budget year, Dr. Samuels

met with the deans for the areas of instruction under his supervision and

requested that they consider alternatives given budget cuts of three levels:

$200,000; $400,000; and $600,000. The goal was to prioritize spending to meet

the instructional needs of the college, and to assume potential budget "worst

case" scenarios.

12. Dean Tesinsky gave the directors of her applied technologies area the

following guidelines to prepare their proposals for services and programs: to

preserve full-time faculty positions; to preserve full-time equivalent ( FTE)

student hours; if possible, to reduce regular part-time support first; and to

eliminate unproductive programs.

13. "Unproductive programs" were defined as having low enrollment relative

to capacity and a decreasing enrollment trend. Such programs are also referred

to as "weak programs" in this record.

14. When the reviews of their programs were completed by the directors,

Dean Tesinsky then reported the findings to Dr. Samuels. Such findings

recommended the elimination of the upholstery, welding and culinary arts (on-

campus) programs at the $600,000 budget cut level. Those programs were deemed

the unproductive programs reviewed.

15. The reviews performed by the directors and Dean Tesinsky did not

follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix K.

16. Concurrent with the planning done incidental to the budget cuts

options, Dr. Samuels reviewed information regarding the course offerings and

courses or sections not available at the college but which were in great demand

by large numbers of students.

17. Courses of instruction which were identified as being in critical need

of full-time instructors were: computer assisted drafting (CAD); biology, with

laboratory experience; mathematics, foreign languages, and humanities. Further,

there were vocational programs within the applied technologies area where

additional sections and, consequently, instructors, were needed to meet student

demand for courses.

18. As a result of the foregoing, Dr. Samuels concluded that the budget

amounts needed for instructors' salaries would have to increase, not decrease.

To that end, Dr. Samuels concluded that monies captured from the elimination of

unproductive programs could be redistributed to fund sections in the high demand

areas of instruction previously identified.

19. Given the notion that they would have to eliminate Respondent's

program, Dean Tesinsky, Dr. Samuels, and Russ Calvet attempted to relocate

Respondent to another program or course of instruction. However, no course or

instructor opening was found for which they felt Respondent could qualify.

20. On March 22, 1991, the college president issued a letter to Respondent

that provided, in part, as follows:

I have been informed that it is no longer feasible to

continue the Food Service program. Therefore, in

consideration of the College's mission to meet the

educational needs of the community, the current budget

concerns for the next fiscal year, and the past,

present, and projected future enrollments of the Food

Service program, it has been determined that the

program will be discontinued at the end of this fiscal

year.

It is therefore with considerable regret that I inform

you that a recommendation shall be made to the District

Board of Trustees on April 9, that your contract with

the College be terminated as of June 30, 1991.

Your educational qualifications do not make it possible

to reassign you to another instructional program area;

however, should a position vacancy occur for which you

are qualified, you will be notified.

21. On April 1, 1991, the president forwarded a memorandum to the district

board of trustees that addressed the proposed termination of employment of the

three vocational instructors. That memorandum reiterated the information given

to the Respondent in the letter dated March 22, 1991.

22. On April 9, 1991, the board of trustees voted to terminate the full-

time, continuing contract position held by Respondent.

23. Subsequently, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to

review that decision.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings.

25. Rule 6A-14.0411, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the

provisions related to community colleges and the issuance of continuing

contracts for instructional personnel. That rule provides, in pertinent part:

(5) Should the board have to choose from among its

personnel who are on continuing contracts as to which

should be retained, among the criteria to be considered

shall be educational qualifications, efficiency,

compatibility, character and capacity to meet the

educational needs of the community. Whenever a board

is required to or does consolidate or reduce its

program, the board may determine on the basis of the

foregoing criteria from its own personnel and any other

instructional personnel, which college employees shall

be employed for service at the college and any employee

no longer needed may be dismissed. The decision of the

board shall not be controlled by any previous

contractual relationship. In the evaluation of these

factors, the decision of the board shall be final.

26. The foregoing rule is reiterated as part of Seminole Community College

Policy 3.1900.

27. Seminole Community College Policy 3.1910 sets forth the guidelines the

college is to follow in the event of a reduction in non-project work force.

That rule directs the president of the college to implement a defined course

when "either significantly decreased enrollments, decreased funding or changes

in Federal, State, or local mission have occurred during the current year or are

anticipated for the succeeding year." In this case, it is concluded that the

guidelines addressed by that rule are not applicable. First, Petitioner has

not experienced a decrease in enrollments. Its enrollments have steadily

increased over the last few years. While the enrollment trends have changed

(i.e. from courses like upholstery to biology), the overall enrollment

projections suggest current and future growth. Thus the college is in a state

of growth, not cut-back.

Secondly, the funding for instructional purposes has not decreased. In

fact, Petitioner increased the amounts for instructional personnel despite the

looming threat of budget cuts. While they planned for potentially severe cuts,

those measures did not result in a reduction of non-project work force.

Finally, the mission of the college has remained constant. That it has

eliminated three programs deemed weak has not altered its mission to meet the

needs of the community it serves. In fact, by adding the highly requested

sections of biology, foreign languages, and mathematics, it is meeting a greater

number of students' need.

28. Respondent was aware that her employment was tied directly to the

viability of the food service program. In 1986, Respondent was made aware of

the fact that should the program be eliminated, her continuing contract would

not be reviewed. Respondent has not shown that her termination was for any

purpose other than that acknowledged by the Petitioner. Additionally, efforts

to reassign Respondent to another area of instruction were reasonable given the

Respondent's record and qualifications. Respondent has not shown she was

qualified to teach a subject or that an opening was available for which she was

refused consideration.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That the Board of Trustees of the Seminole Community College enter a final

order confirming the elimination of the food service program and the termination

of Respondent's continuing contract.

DONE and ENTERED this __30th__ day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

____________________________

JOYOUS D. PARRISH

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative

Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative

Hearings this __30th__ day of

July, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 12, 14 through 22 are accepted. The

date of exhibit 49 (paragraph 21) is April 16, 1991.

2. As to paragraph 4, it is accepted that Respondent was hand-delivered the

letter notice dated March 22, 1991; otherwise rejected as a conclusion of law.

It is concluded, however, that such letter was sufficient to place the

Respondent on notice of the college's position regarding the proposed actions.

3. That portion of paragraph 8 which suggests that Director Dennard's analysis

was the first time the Food Services program was identified as weak is rejected

as contrary to the weight of the evidence. This program had been placed on

probation in 1986.

4. Paragraph 9 is accepted as to the general statement; however, as exhibit 43

was not entirely legible the cost figure cited could be verified.

5. Paragraph 10 is rejected to the extent that it suggests the food service

program had been on probation in any year other than 1986.

6. With the following clarifications, paragraph 11 is accepted: that additional

full-time instructors were needed; that the number of adjunct instructors would

be reduced since full-time instructors would be added; that adding full-time

instructors was a meaningful goal in order to upgrade programs/courses; add

"therapy" after the word "respiratory" in the first sentence of 11b.; add under

11c., that there are now less than 500 students on overload status.

7. The first sentence of paragraph 13 is accepted. The remainder is rejected

as irrelevant.

RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

1. To the extent addressed in the foregoing findings of fact, paragraphs 1 and

2 are accepted.

2. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant.

3. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that Dr. Samuels is Vice

President for Instructions with the general responsibility for all the

instructional programs at the college and that he made recommendations to the

president of the college; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record

cited.

4. Paragraph 7 is accepted.

5. Paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by record cited.

6. Paragraph 9 is accepted with the clarification that Mr. Calvet's title is

Dean of Personnel Services.

7. Paragraph 10 is accepted.

8. Paragraph 11 is rejected as it does not make sense.

9. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

10. Paragraph 13 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

11. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant; no wrongdoing or misconduct has

been suggested by the Petitioner.

12. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the letter dated March 22,

1991, was the first written notice of the proposed action; otherwise rejected as

contrary to the weight of the evidence.

13. With regard to paragraph 16, see comment above regarding proposed finding

of fact 15.

14. Paragraph 17 is rejected as a misstatement of the record. To suggest the

Petitioner contemplating "firing" Respondents grossly misstates their

position. The Respondents' programs were eliminated and, consequently, their

continuing contracts terminated. No suggestion of misconduct, incompetence, or

wrongdoing on the part of these instructors should be suggested. To the

contrary, these instructors were well qualified in their respective fields and

respected by the employer.

15. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted.

16. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed ruling 12 above.

17. Paragraph 21 is rejected as repetitive; see above.

18. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible

evidence.

19. Paragraph 23 is rejected as repetitive; see above.

20. Paragraphs 24 through 30 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the

evidence, irrelevant, or not supported by the record cited.

21. Paragraphs 31 through 37 are accepted.

22. Paragraph 38 is accepted when clarified to add "an administrative

procedure" for "the" after the word "out."

23. Paragraph 39 is accepted.

24. Paragraph 40 is rejected as a conclusion not supported by the record cited.

25. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

26. Paragraph 42 is accepted.

27. Paragraph 43 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

28. Paragraph 44 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or

irrelevant.

29. Paragraph 45 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or

irrelevant.

30. Paragraph 46 is accepted but is irrelevant.

31. Paragraph 47 is rejected as argument and irrelevant.

32. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument and irrelevant.

33. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are accepted.

34. Paragraph 53 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible

evidence.

35. Paragraph 54 is accepted.

36. Paragraph 55 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible

evidence.

37. Paragraph 56 is accepted.

38. With the deletion of the word "only" paragraph 57 is accepted.

39. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible

evidence.

40. Paragraph 59 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

41. Paragraph 60 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

42. Paragraph 61 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the

evidence.

43. Paragraph 62 is accepted.

44. The first sentence of paragraph 63 is accepted; otherwise rejected as

irrelevant or not supported by the evidence cited or speculation.

45. Paragraph 64 is accepted.

46. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are rejected as not supported by the record cited.

47. Paragraphs 67 is accepted to the extent that the meeting(s) identified the

programs as "weaker."

48. Paragraph 68 is accepted but is irrelevant.

49. Paragraph 69 is accepted but is irrelevant.

50. Paragraphs 70 through 73 are rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not

supported by record cited.

51. The first sentence of paragraph 74 is accepted; otherwise rejected as

argument, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited.

52. Paragraph 75 is rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not supported by

record cited.

53. The first two sentences of paragraph 76 are accepted; otherwise rejected as

not supported record cited or contrary to the weight of evidence.

54. Paragraph 77 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant, and not supported by

record cited.

55. Paragraph 78 is rejected as conclusion of law or irrelevant.

56. Paragraph 79 is rejected as it does not make sense or irrelevant.

57. Paragraph 80 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

58. Paragraph 81 is rejected as irrelevant.

59. With the addition of the phrase "or could be" after the word "would,"

paragraph 84 is accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record cited.

60. Paragraphs 85 and 86 are rejected as contrary to the record cited.

61. Paragraph 87 is accepted.

62. Paragraph 88 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

63. Paragraph 89 is repetitive in part but is accepted.

64. Paragraph 90 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

65. Paragraph 91 is rejected as irrelevant.

66. Paragraphs 92 and 93 are accepted.

67. Paragraph 94 is rejected as irrelevant.

68. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

69. Paragraph 96 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

70. Paragraph 97 is rejected as irrelevant.

71. Paragraph 98 is rejected as not supported by record cited, contrary to the

weight of evidence.

72. Paragraph 99 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant.

73. Paragraph 100 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant.

74. Paragraph 101 is accepted.

75. Paragraphs 102 through 105 are rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

76. Paragraphs 106 through 110 are accepted but are irrelevant.

77. Paragraph 111 is rejected as contrary to the evidence.

78. Paragraphs 112 through 115 are accepted.

79. Paragraph 116 is rejected as argumentative.

80. Paragraph 117 is accepted but is irrelevant.

81. Paragraph 118 is rejected as not supported by record cited.

82. Paragraphs 119 through 122 are accepted.

83. Paragraph 123 is rejected as repetitive.

84. Paragraphs 124 and 125 are accepted. Insert word "contact" after "thirty"

in paragraph 125.

85. Paragraph 126 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative.

86. Paragraph 127 is accepted but is irrelevant.

87. Paragraph 128 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

88. Paragraph 129 is accepted.

89. Paragraph 130 is rejected as irrelevant.

90. Paragraphs 131 through 134 are accepted.

91. Paragraph 135 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

92. Paragraphs 136 and 137 are accepted with the addition to paragraph 137 that

such position was only part-time and not vacant.

93. Paragraph 138 is rejected as irrelevant.

94. Paragraphs 139 through 141 are accepted.

95. Paragraph 142 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant.

96. Paragraphs 143 through 147 are accepted.

97. Paragraph 148 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

98. Paragraphs 149 through 152 are accepted.

99. Paragraph 153 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

100. Paragraph 154 is rejected as not supported by the record cited.

101. Paragraphs 155 through 160 though repetitive in part are accepted.

102. Paragraph 161 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

103. Paragraph 162 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant.

104. Paragraph 163 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

J. Dana Fogle

FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A.

217 East Plymouth Avenue

Post Office Box 817

DeLand, Florida 32721-0817

Joseph Egan, Jr.

EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A.

P.O. Box 2231

Orlando, Florida 32802

Margaret T. Roberts

COBLE, BARKIN, GORDON,

MORRIS & REYNOLDS, P.A.

1020 Volusia Avenue

Post Office Drawer 9670

Daytona Beach, Florida 32120

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended

Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit

written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be

filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case Number 91-4074

MATILDA MORABITO,

Respondent.

___________________________/

FINAL ORDER

This cause came before the District Board of Trustees of SEMINOLE COMMUNITY

COLLEGE the 13th day of October, 1992 for consideration of the Recommended

Order, including Appendix entered by the Hearing Examiner on July 30, 1992,

containing her Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation of Final

Order and the Board having duly considered the pleadings, stipulations and

statements of the parties hereby FINDS THAT:

1. Each of the individual Board Members of the District Board of Trustees

heretofore received a copy of the Recommended Order, has read same, and has been

advised that the entire record of the Administrative Hearing, including all

transcribed testimony and documentary exhibits is available to each of them for

review, pursuant to Fla. Stat. Ch. 120.

2. Pursuant to Schomer v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 417 So.2d 1089

(Fla. 3rd DCA 1982), the District Board of Trustees hereby adopts, and

incorporates herein by reference and by attachment certain parts of the

Recommended Order dated July 30, 1992, as executed by Hearing Examiner Joyous D.

Parrish, Esquire, as follows: Findings of Fact, paragraphs 1 through 23,

inclusive, and Conclusions of Law, paragraphs 1 through 3, inclusive, and 5.

3. The District Board of Trustees of SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

specifically rejects in part the Conclusions of Law contained in paragraph 4.

The Petitioner planned for potentially severe cuts in funding, the cuts being

anticipated for the succeeding year. SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Policy 3.1910

applies when decreased funding is anticipated for the succeeding year and

results in a reduction in non-project work force. It is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

MATILDA MORABITO's continuing contract shall be reinstated effective

October 14, 1992 and shall continue in full force and effect pursuant to the

laws of the State of Florida and the Rules and policies of SEMINOLE COMMUNITY

COLLEGE.

2. MATILDA MORABITO, by formal waiver made for the record by counsel at

the October 13, 1992 hearing has waived all elements of wages and compensation

accruing since the effective date of her dismissal to October 14, 1992, except

Florida Retirement System contributions, annual leave accruals, if and as

mandated by law including sick leave accruals, and reimbursement for replacement

coverage premiums paid on health and life insurance, if any.

3. As to Florida Retirement System contributions, SEMINOLE COMMUNITY

COLLEGE shall pay an amount equal to the contributions that would have

ordinarily been contributed on behalf of MATILDA MORABITO, notwithstanding the

dismissal which was the subject of this cause. Said payment shall be made to

the employee upon receipt of evidence that the employee has bought back credits

in the Florida Retirement System for the time between dismissal and

reinstatement.

4. MATILDA MORABITO shall be deemed to have retained her status as a

continuing contract employee of SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE during the subject

dismissal and administrative proceedings, as though she had never been

dismissed.

5. SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Administration shall conduct a review of the

culinary arts program in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies,

and shall report its findings and recommendations to the Board of Trustees.

This ORDER shall not be construed to entitle MATILDA MORABITO to instruct the

same program or course offering as assigned prior to the dismissal.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1992 in Seminole County,

Florida.

DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

By:________________________

Its Chairman

ATTEST:___________________

Secretary

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dana Fogle, Esquire

P.O. Box 817

DeLand, Florida 32721-0817

Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire

P.O. Box 2231

Orlando, Florida 32802

Joyous D. Parrish, Hearing Examiner

Department of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sec. 120.68, any appeal of this Order shall be

instituted by filing a petition in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Daytona

Beach, Florida, within thirty (30) days of rendition of the above stated Order.

See Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110; Denson v. Sang, 491 So.2d 288

(Fla. 1st DCA 1986).