STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLOYD R. JAGGEARS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-979

)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in the above-captioned matter, after due notice, in Tallahassee, Florida, on August 11 and 12, and September 8 and 9, 1977, before the undersigned Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Herbert D. Sikes, Esquire

Department of Education Knott Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32304

For Respondent: S. Gunter Toney, Esquire

200 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301

and

Rivers Buford, Esquire Post Office Box 647 Tallahassee, Florida

ISSUE

Validity of demotion of Respondent by Petitioner from Educational Consultant IV to Educational Consultant III, Department of Education.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. By a letter dated March 25, 1977, respondent was advised by Woodrow J. Darden, Director, Division of Public Schools, Department of Education, that he was demoted from Educational Consultant IV to Educational Consultant III with reassignment at his current salary due to his failure to achieve a satisfactory performance evaluation for the six months period ending April 1, 1977. He was further advised of his right to appeal the demotion within twenty (20) days. On April 12, 1977, respondent did appeal the demotion and the case was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Career Service Commission on May 25, 1977. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1)

2. At the tinge of his demotion, respondent was serving as an Educational Consultant IV in the Division of Public Schools where he had been so assigned since March 1975, having been transferred from the Division of Vocational Education in the position of Educational Consultant III as a result of departmental reorganization. He has been employed continuously by the Department of Education since 1966. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1)

   
   

3. Prior to his employment by the petitioner, respondent served as Director of Adult Education in Lake and Duval counties for approximately six years from 1953 to 1959. After a subsequent seven-year period in the real estate business, he joined the Department of Education as a consultant for adult basic education. His various assignments have been directly connected with adult education throughout his entire tenure. From 1968 until March of 1975, he served as the Assistant Section Director of the Adult and Veterans Education Section, Division of Vocational Education, under the supervision of James H. Fling. In this capacity, respondent was responsible for the supervision of some twenty-eight (28) professional and clerical staff employees and his duties primarily consisted of implementing the state adult education program through subordinate state area supervisors and various county and college adult education directors. During absences of Fling, respondent served as Acting Director in a creditable manner. He was considered to be an effective employee by Fling and "in demand" in the field for technical help and assistance. His coworkers, the area supervisors, and local adult educators throughout the state characterized his services as dedicated, cooperative, and enthusiastic. Many are of the view that he is one of the most knowledgeable men in the field of adult education in the state. Until October, 1975, he had never received less than a "satisfactory" performance evaluation in any of his varied positions with the Department of Education. (Testimony of Fling, C. Palmer, Porter, R. Palmer, Holmes, Childress, Talbot, Sanderson, Brumfield, Blue, Meeth, Mills, Jones, Wright, W. Roberts, supplemented by Respondent's Composite Exhibit 7, Petitioner's Exhibit 1.)

   
   

4. After the transfer of adult education functions to the Division of Public Schools in early March, 1975, Fling remained in charge until May 19, when he was transferred within the Department. One of the section's major functions was to prepare an annual state plan for adult education to submit to the U.S. Commissioner of Education for approval. The state plan serves as an agreement between the state and federal governments under the Adult Education Act whereby federal funds are provided to assist the states in adult education services to local education agencies for special projects, teacher training programs and the like, to upgrade the literacy level of the state population and to provide opportunities for individuals to secure a high school education. Unless major changes are made in the federal law, the plan from year to year is merely updated with minor changes. It had been necessary in the past to receive detailed information from local education agencies early in the calendar year in order to revise the plan for the upcoming fiscal year, secure necessary approvals from the state Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education before submission to the federal authorities prior to July 1, when federal funds are authorized for distribution and expenditure within the state.

   
   

5. Mr. Fling, as the responsible official for formulating and updating the plan with the assistance of respondent and other members of the section, had commenced preparation of the annual revision in mid-February, 1975. After transfer of the section to the Division of Public Schools in March, work continued on the project and by the time Fling was transferred from adult education duties on May 19, the plan was in draft form. After Fling's transfer, Division Director Darden appointed respondent as acting Supervisor for the Basic

   and General Education subsections (which were later called Basic Skills subsection and High Schools subsection) with responsibility for completing the processing of the state plan, among other duties. However, no section chief or program director was appointed after reorganization. Another employee, Julian Morse, was made the supervisor of the other two subsections of the Adult Education and Community Service section. They reported to a bureau chief, J. A. Crenshaw, for instructions, but Darden assumed an active supervisory role over section activities until an acting section head or program director was appointed in late February 1976. Although respondent had completed revisions to the draft state plan that had been made by the Deputy Division Director, Carey Ferrell, and submitted a revised draft to him on June 5, 1975, the final plan was not received in the regional office of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare until June 30. However, it was acceptable and funds were made available in a timely manner. (Testimony of Fling, Respondent, Darden, Ferrell; Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 7, 19; Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 8,

   10)

   
   

6. Although during the period from June 1975 to March 1976, Darden and Ferrell had not been entirely satisfied with the results of several projects assigned to respondent, he was promoted to Consultant IV on September 1, 1975, and achieved permanent status on March 1, 1976. Crenshaw's annual Employee Performance Evaluation for respondent on that date listed all factors for consideration and the overall rating as "Satisfactory." Respondent applied in the summer of 1975 for the vacancy of section chief, but was not selected. The individual selected for the position was unable to accept it and consequently Jack Waters was assigned in late February 1976 as the acting head. (Testimony of Darden, Ferrell, Waters, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 12)

   
   

7. In late February 1976, when Waters arrived to take interim charge of the section, respondent was leaving to attend a conference of state adult educators in Dallas to receive current data concerning the state plan and the impact of a change in the federal fiscal year from July to October. Respondent had been told to hold up action on the plan until after the conference. He briefed Waters on these problems and both attended the conference. There, briefings were held on the imminent procedural changes. In March, Waters felt that insufficient progress had been made in obtaining input from the various state school districts concerning "309 Funds" which required each district to submit a prospectus indicating the projects on which such funds would be applied. Although Mr. Grainger, a Consultant II who had responsibility for the "309 Funds" under respondent, had explained the subject matter to Waters at Dallas, apparently the latter was unsatisfied with Grainger's efforts and therefore assumed direct control of preparing and processing the state plan.

   The primary reason for the prior delay in formulating the plan was that due to the change of the federal fiscal year, from July 1 to October 1, state educators were of the opinion that funds would be received for expenditure commencing October 1. However, it later developed that since no transitional funds were provided to cover the three-month period from July through September, it was necessary to move the approval date back to July 1. The plan was processed and approved in a timely manner, although minor corrections were required by the federal authorities. (Testimony of Waters, Respondent, Jones, Petitioner's Exhibits 8 - 10, Respondent's Exhibit 9)

   
   

8. Due to Waters' unfamiliarity with section matters, he had asked each subsection chief to prepare a "work plan" that would set forth information and procedures concerning each subsection's particular area of responsibility. Only one of the four subsections turned in a satisfactory plan and, accordingly, in the summer of 1976, Waters restricted travel to the field until such plans were

   produced. He was particularly dissatisfied with the materials submitted by respondent in this respect. (Testimony of Waters, Petitioner's Exhibit 11)

   
   

9. On July 1, 1976, all state employees were required to be evaluated because of changes in anniversary dates required by salary adjustments. Waters gave respondent an overall rating of "satisfactory," including "above- satisfactory" ratings on four factors, including work quality, job knowledge, dependability, and judgment. Although Waters did not counsel respondent as to any perceived deficiencies in his work performance during the summer of 1976, he had informed Darden of certain misgivings concerning respondent. On October 1, 1976, Waters rendered a special Employee Performance Evaluation on respondent in which he gave him an overall rating of "conditional." In rating the various factors on the report, respondent was given unsatisfactory ratings in "dealing with people," "judgment," and "initiative," and conditional ratings in "work quantity," "attitude," and "supervising others." A detailed narrative statement of respondent's deficiencies was incorporated in the evaluation document in which Waters observed that his prior "satisfactory" evaluation had been based on an incomplete assessment of respondent's performance of duty. In the report, although acknowledging respondent's above-average job knowledge, Waters criticized him for failing to complete a "subsection work plan" and for not exercising leadership in planning and preparing the state adult education plan. He characterized respondent's attitude as one of "reluctant cooperation, and somewhat antagonistic to bureau and division supervision." He attributed this to a personal feeling of respondent that the staff administration was not competent to deal with the adult program. Further, the report stated that the respondent's poor attitude had been exhibited by derogatory remarks about professional staff to other section personnel and district staff members. No evidence was presented to support Waters' allegations in this respect except that, on several occasions, respondent was heard to question Waters' knowledge in the field of adult education. It was Waters' feeling, as expressed in the report, that respondent's shortcomings were due either to a lack of skill and competency or a "deliberate attempt to discredit the bureau and division administrator of the program. Although Waters indicated in the report that respondent was polite and cooperative on specific assignments, he did not take sufficient charge or exercise the leadership to assist Waters in becoming acquainted with adult education programs and to insure independent initiative in carrying out program operations. The evidence, including the testimony of various members of the section, establishes that there was a lack of rapport between the two individuals and some resistance by respondent to Waters' more formalized requirements and closer supervision than had been exercised in prior years. Respondent protested the evaluation by a memorandum to Darden on October 1, 1976. (Testimony of Waters, Respondent, Gary, Berry, Jones, Petitioner's Exhibit 1)

   
   

10. Darden held a conference with Waters and respondent at which the "conditional" performance evaluation was discussed. At this time, Darden informed respondent that he was assigning him to temporary duty for a month or two in another bureau of the division. This action was taken because Darden had appointed Dr. Luther R. Rogers as the new section chief and he felt that it was "impossible" for Rogers to assume his duties while respondent was in the section. Accordingly, respondent was temporarily assigned to the Bureau of Management Systems and Services under Lee Roberts on October 1 for approximately two months. During this period, respondent performed essentially clerical duties unconnected with adult education. Specifically, he assisted in an equipment inventory and secured information concerning department leases. In late November, respondent was returned to the section which was now under the supervision of Dr. Rogers. Department of Administration Rules (Chapter 22A-

    9.02(6), F.A.C.) and petitioner's personnel procedures (Appendix 6-G, Policy Reference 6.9) require that an employee who receives an overall evaluation of "conditional" but is retained by the agency, must be reevaluated at least every sixty days after receiving such rating until six months have elapsed without the employee receiving a rating of at least "satisfactory," prior to effecting disciplinary action against the employee. Pursuant to this requirement, Dr.

    Rogers gave respondent an evaluation report on December 1, 1976, and merely repeated the overall rating of "conditional" and ratings of various factors as they had appeared in the October 1 performance evaluation. He justified this by the fact that he was unfamiliar with respondent's work performance because he had been on temporary assignment during most of the rating period. No attempt was made to include an evaluation of respondent's work during that period. Upon receipt of the evaluation in early January, respondent again protested and maintained that he had worked diligently for Mr. Roberts during the evaluation period. (Testimony of Darden, Waters, Rogers, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 2, 5)

    
    

11. At the time respondent reported for duty with Dr. Rogers, the latter gave him a memorandum which advised that he was being assigned to special duty with Rogers on his return to the section, and it was requested that he propose an outline and plan for the development of a section procedures manual. He also indicated that respondent should discuss a proposed document of historical data on the functions performed by the section. In the memorandum, respondent was advised that he was being assigned to another office and that he would not have supervisory responsibilities over other section staff personnel. Rogers did not go into any detail as to what he expected in the procedure manual as to content, arrangement or format. In due course, respondent produced a draft proposed manual which Rogers found to be unsatisfactory and not what he had in mind. He felt that it was poorly arranged, incomplete and included obsolete material. He was likewise dissatisfied with the historical document prepared by respondent, but made copies of the same and presented it at a staff meeting where favorable comments were received. Rogers stated at the meeting that the document was very beneficial and worthwhile and that he was interested in having it bound and distributed around the state. Although Rogers was dissatisfied with several other projects assigned to respondent concerning a veterans benefit question and the field testing of an audit form, it is found that respondent's actions in both regards were correct and proper. (Testimony of Rogers, Respondent, Lamb, Jones, Barrett, Petitioner's Exhibits 15-18, Respondent's Exhibit 6)

    
    

12. At the time Rogers took over the section, Dr. Lamb, the former subordinate of respondent, was given the respondent's former duties as subsection chief. On December 30, 1976, Rogers sent a memorandum to respondent and Lamb to the effect that henceforth Lamb was respondent's day to day supervisor. In fact, from that date until April 1, 1977, respondent performed normal consultant duties primarily in the field under the direct and immediate supervision of Lamb. However, both of the two remaining sixty day periodic evaluation reports on February 1 and April 1, 1977 were rendered by Rogers. In the February report, Rogers again gave respondent an overall "conditional" rating and, in a narrative attachment, pointed out the lack of quality in the papers submitted by respondent and indicated that he had displayed a "pleasant but passive attitude" in his work. In the area of "supervising others," Rogers discussed the shortcomings of the subsection with respect to lack of a coordinated adult education program during a period prior to his (Rogers') arrival in the section. Several recommendations for improvement were listed in the report to the effect that respondent should show enthusiasm and determination for overcoming existing problems, participate in in-service training to give him additional skills, and to specifically rework the procedures manual and historical document with an eye to better quality, and

    suggest realistic criteria for evaluating the need of local educational agencies for federal funding. At the time Rogers discussed this evaluation with respondent, the latter asked him what type of procedure manual he desired.

    Rogers informed him he could do it easier himself than to go over his needs with respondent. The special assignment given to respondent that appeared in the evaluation report on obtaining criteria for allocation of federal funds was answered by the respondent several days later, but it was not until the next evaluation report in April that Rogers told him he did not feel that it had the desired definitive criteria. (Testimony of Rogers, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1)

    
    

13. After submission of the February evaluation, Darden was advised by the department's personnel officer that the final report of the six-month period in question should be completed and submitted no later than March 20, 1977, with an effective date of April 1, and that if respondent was not evaluated "satisfactory" on that performance evaluation it would be necessary to remove him from the class that he occupied. The April 1 evaluation was similar to that of the February report. It contained an overall "conditional" rating with several factors marked as "unsatisfactory." Its general tenor was that respondent's attitude toward self-improvement had been poor and that he had taken no initiative to overcome the deficiencies noted in the February report. Although respondent conceded at the hearing that his morale had been less than high during the six-month period due to the manner in which he had been relieved from his regular duties for a period and his change in status to non-supervisory duties, he believed that he had done a creditable job for Rogers. As a result of the April 1 evaluation, Rogers recommended to Darden that respondent be demoted to Consultant III and this was accomplished on April 1, 1977.

    (Testimony of Darden, Rogers, Respondent, Harrington, Petitioner's Exhibit 1)

    
    

14. In May 1977, at a meeting of the Florida Association of Adult Education, an unofficial organization of state adult educators, the committee on awards recommended that respondent be given a special outstanding achievement award for his contributions to adult education in Florida. The meeting was cosponsored by the Department of Education. Rogers informed the president of the association, Paul Joseph, that it would be embarrassing to the Department to make the award because the respondent had been disciplined by the Department. Joseph, then a contract employee of the Department under the supervision of Rogers, vetoed the award nomination at the board meeting and this created a controversy among the members of the association. (Testimony of Rogers, Childers, Brumfield)

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

15. Section 110.061, Florida Statutes, provides a state employee the right to appeal a demotion to the Career Service Commission. The procedural requirements of that section and implementing rules of the Department of Administration have been met in this case. The term "demotion" is defined in subsection 110.042(19) as `Inoving an employee from a position in one class to a different position in another class having a lesser degree of responsibility and a lower maximum salary."

    
    

16. Respondent was demoted from Educational Consultant IV to Educational Consultant III pursuant to rules established by the Department of Administration in furtherance of Chapter 110, Florida Statutes. Rule 28A-9.02 requires each agency head to establish written procedures for evaluating the performance of all employees on an impartial basis and provides that such evaluations may be

    used, inter alia, as a basis for taking disciplinary action against the employee. Rule 22A-9.03 provides pertinently as follows:

    
    

    "22A-9.03 Required procedures

    
    

    (2) All performance evaluations shall be made by the employee's immediate supervisor and reviewed by a higher-level supervisor, wherever possible . . . .

    * * *

    
    

    1. Special performance evaluations may be given at any time, at the discretion of a supervisor; however, when an employee's performance is less than satisfactory, the supervisor shall prepare a performance evaluation on the employee.

       
       

    2. If an employee received an overall evaluation of Conditional or Unsatisfactory, the immediate supervisor, with the cooperation of his superiors, shall be responsible for working with and assisting the employee in accomplishing the necessary improvement in performance. If, at the time of receiving such an evaluation, the employee is retained by the agency, the employee's performance shall be reevaluated at least each 60 days thereafter until:

       1. the employee's performance has improved and is evaluated as at least Satisfactory, or;

       2. six months have elapsed without the employee receiving a rating of at least Satisfactory. In such cases, management shall take action to remove the employee from the class.

          
          

    3. After the rating has been finalized at all levels, the result of the performance rating shall be discussed with the employee who shall be furnished a copy of the completed rating, and shall sign a copy thereof which shall be placed in the employee's personnel file "

    (emphasis supplied)

    
    

17. Additionally, Rule 22A-10.03 states in part as follows: "22A-10.03 Disciplinary actions.

    (2) In order to have an effective program for handling disciplinary problems, each agency should make available to all employee (sic) clearly defined agency objectives, work performance standards, standards of conduct, and other policies which are to be applicable in a given work situation."

18. The above rules were officially recognized by the Hearing Officer at the hearing with no objection by either party.

    
    

19. Policies established by the Department of Education implement Rule 22A-9.02 in Appendix 6-G, Policy Reference 6.9. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) In Section II of that document, paragraph 5 states that in evaluating an employee,

    a supervisor should not go back prior to the period covered by the rating report in his considerations. Paragraph 10 says that the supervisor should not be influenced in his rating by the opinion of others and paragraph 11 cautions that in rating employees, the supervisor should not expect them to meet standards of performance unless he has instructed them in all the job requirements. Further, that he cannot hold an employee responsible for work accomplishment if the employee has not received understandable assignments and instructions.

    Paragraph 13 advises that the supervisor should give a "conditional" employee every opportunity to "start on the right foot." Finally, paragraph 14 urges supervisors to observe the employee's progress during the period of corrective action and "Talk with him, compliment his performance, offer constructive criticism in areas where it is needed." The facts of the case show that none of the above policies was followed by Rogers in his evaluations of respondent.

    
    

20. With the above regulatory requirements in mind, together with the foregoing Findings of Fact, a brief discussion of respondent's situation is in order. The evidence discloses that in the spring of 1975, the respondent was considered to be a most knowledgeable, competent and valued consultant in adult education by both his supervisors, fellow employees, and local education officials whom he counseled and assisted throughout the state. The reorganization of the Department of Education in the spring of 1975 precipitated a predictable amount of confusion and uncertainty as various agencies and areas of responsibility were shuffled about and restructured. The most significant impact upon adult education was the elimination of various area supervisors who had effected liaison between the Department of Education and local officials. Additionally, the adult education functions were transferred to the Division of Public Schools and the responsible officials of that Division were unfamiliar with the details of current programs. They, therefore, necessarily embarked upon a learning process and rightfully expected their new employees who were experienced in the field to carry on and administer on-going projects, while at the same time "educating" them for the future. The vacuum in section leadership created by Mr. Fling's transfer shortly after reorganization placed the burden of operating the program on an interim basis on respondent and Julian Morse. Notwithstanding some dissatisfaction in the manner in which respondent performed several special assignments, he was nevertheless promoted from Consultant III to Consultant IV in September, and achieved permanent status six months later in that position. Respondent applied for the vacant position of Program Director or Section Head but was unsuccessful in receiving the appointment. The evidence bears out that he was less than totally cooperative with Jack Waters who became the interim Section Head in March 1976. Waters also was inexperienced in the field of adult education and established formal requirements of his subordinates that had not been experienced in the past. The section encountered some difficulties in communication with local educators because all information and advice now had to come directly from the state headquarters because Area Supervisors were no longer available. Testimony concerning respondent's misgivings about Waters' lack of knowledge and his reluctant attitude toward various suggestions raised by Waters at staff meetings leads to the conclusion that a personality conflict grew between the two, which contributed to the "Conditional" performance evaluation in October. Although certain remarks were made by Waters in that report which were not borne out by the evidence, such as

    allegations that respondent's inadequacies may have been a deliberate attempt to discredit the Bureau and Division Administrator of the adult program, it must be recognized that performance evaluations are highly subjective in nature and sufficient grounds existed for Waters' dissatisfaction with respondent's work quality, attitude, and initiative. It is considered that the overall rating of "Conditional" was therefore a valid performance evaluation.

    
    

21. The Department's decision to retain the respondent after having received a "Conditional" evaluation required that he be reevaluated every two months until he received a "Satisfactory" rating or six months had elapsed. However, instead of working with and assisting him to accomplish the necessary improvement in performance, he was summarily removed from his current position and sent on temporary assignment to another Bureau to perform duties unconnected with those called for under his job description. Although this action may have been perceived by the Division Chief as advisable to remove a problem at the time the new Section Head arrived, it was ill-advised when considered in connection with exhortations of pertinent regulations that the immediate supervisor work with and assist the employee in accomplishing necessary improvement in performance. Respondent performed the routine tasks assigned to him in the other Bureau in a competent manner, but when Dr. Rogers was faced with the requirement to evaluate him as of December 1, he did not ask for any input from Bureau Chief Roberts in this connection. Although Rogers could hardly be blamed for the situation since Darden had made the temporary assignment, the ensuing performance evaluation of December 1 which merely adopted the same ratings given on the October 1st report cannot be considered a valid rating of respondent's performance for inclusion in the six-month period prior to the respondent's demotion.

    
    

22. The final two bimonthly evaluations of February 1 and April 1, 1977, cannot be sustained because for all but one month of that period; i.e., the month of December, 1976, respondent's immediate supervisor was his former subordinate, Dr. Lamb, who assigned tasks and supervised him on a day to day basis. Nevertheless, the evaluations were prepared and signed by Dr. Rogers, who was a step removed in the chain of command. The essence of the rating system is that the person who is most knowledgeable about the employee -- his immediate supervisor -- must, if at all possible, be the individual who prepares the evaluation. There was no showing that Lamb could not perform this function, even though it could well have proved embarrassing for a former subordinate to rate his former supervisor. Granted that Dr. Rogers may have been justifiably dissatisfied with certain aspects of respondent's work products on special projects, the procedural problem could have been solved by retaining him under his own direct supervision rather than relegating him to his former duties in such an untenable position. It is noteworthy that Dr. Lamb testified that if he had rated respondent, he could not think of any item that he would have marked less than "Satisfactory." In sum, the situation involved serious departures from proper procedures in the career service system that necessarily render respondent's ultimate demotion unjustified and improper for failure to adhere to those procedural requirements. In view thereof, it is concluded that the demotion was invalid and that respondent should be restored to the position of Educational Consultant IV.

    
    

23. The parties to the proceedings stipulated at the hearing that in the event respondent prevails in these proceedings, the right would be preserved to present matters bearing on reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the prosecution of the appeal directly to the Career Service Commission for determination of an appropriate amount for such items, as authorized by Section 110.061(3).

24. In view of the foregoing, it is considered unnecessary to address respondent's claim that he was entitled to notice and hearing prior to the time the demotion was effected.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Career Service Commission order the Department of Education to reinstate Floyd R. Jaggears to Educational Consultant IV, retroactive to April 1, 1977.

Done and entered this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.

THOMAS C. OLDHAM

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Herbert Sikes, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32304

S. Gunter Toney, Esquire

200 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Rivers Buford, Esquire Post Office Box 647 Tallahassee, Florida

Conley M. Kennison Division of Personnel Room 530 Carlton Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Attn: Mrs. Dorothy Roberts

Docket for Case No: 77-000979

Orders for Case No: 77-000979